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

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

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

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

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

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

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

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

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

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

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 13 December 2001, five armed men attempted to storm the Indian Parliament. Their effort was thwarted, but the incident upended assumptions about the nature of the threat India faced. The attack was not only an assault on elected representatives; it was a demonstration of the reach, ambition and external support enjoyed by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based group already under international sanctions.&nbsp;Two decades later, JeM has not disappeared. It has adapted. In some respects, it has become more elusive and more capable. The organisation’s trajectory since 2001—and the broader environment in which it operates—should persuade us that complacency remains the enemy of preparedness.&nbsp;<h2>The organisation learnt, adapted and expanded</h2>&nbsp;JeM’s early years were marked by spectacular, attention-seeking violence. The Parliament attack was part of that phase. Over time, however, the group has shifted towards a quieter, layered structure. It no longer relies solely on large groups of fighters moving across the Line of Control. Instead, it works through dispersed modules that can be activated for logistics, reconnaissance or execution, depending on the requirement.&nbsp;Investigations in several cases, including those relating to a recent blast near Delhi’s Red Fort, demonstrate this transition. Operatives are often educated, familiar with urban terrain, and capable of navigating encrypted communication platforms. What this signifies is an organisation that invests in long-term survivability rather than short-term spectacle. This is a more difficult adversary to track.&nbsp;Another feature of JeM’s evolution is the emergence of Jamaat-e-Mominaat, its women’s wing. The group conducts online instruction aimed at ideological reinforcement and logistical support. The fact that this initiative is being led by individuals closely related to JeM’s founder shows the seriousness of the project. It also reflects a broader trend across extremist movements globally: the use of digital spaces to widen recruitment beyond traditional circles.&nbsp;<h2>Pakistan’s internal dynamics continue to shape the threat</h2>&nbsp;JeM’s transformation cannot be understood in isolation. It operates within Pakistan’s complex civil–military equation, where certain groups have historically been treated as tools of influence rather than security liabilities. Despite international pressure and periods of intense scrutiny—particularly during Pakistan’s years on the FATF grey list—JeM’s infrastructure has never been fully dismantled. Its Bahawalpur base remains a recurring reference point in global reporting.&nbsp;Pakistan today faces political volatility, economic fragility and sporadic internal violence. In such periods, the temptation for the state to fall back on familiar instruments of leverage—especially those offering deniability—cannot be dismissed. For India, this means that the underlying risk profile has not materially changed.&nbsp;<h2>India’s counter-terror institutions have strengthened—but the threat has also become more complex</h2>&nbsp;In the years since the Parliament attack, India has invested in institutional capability. The Multi-Agency Centre has grown into an important hub for real-time intelligence sharing. The National Investigation Agency, created after the Mumbai attacks, has demonstrated the value of a specialised national-level investigative body. States have, at varying paces, upgraded their own counter-terror capacities.&nbsp;These reforms have undoubtedly improved India’s preparedness. But the threat environment has expanded in ways that challenge traditional tools. Terrorist organisations now operate across physical, financial and digital domains. Their support networks include online indoctrination, cryptocurrency channels, courier chains and diaspora-based sympathisers. Modules do not resemble the tightly knit fidayeen squads of the early 2000s; they are smaller, more flexible, and more influenced by global extremist ecosystems.&nbsp;<h2>Why vigilance matters now more than ever</h2>&nbsp;India’s national security architecture must remain alive to two parallel realities. The first is that JeM continues to function out of Pakistan with ideological cohesion and access to manpower. The second is that the group has adjusted to India’s strengthened defences by diversifying its methods. When an adversary evolves, defences must evolve faster.&nbsp;The Parliament attack was a wake-up call. It revealed the costs of underestimating an organisation’s ambition and the dangers of assuming that international designations would meaningfully restrict its operations. JeM’s endurance since then demonstrates that the threat is not static. It adapts to pressure and exploits gaps—especially in the digital domain.&nbsp;India has the institutional foundations it lacked in 2001. But the nature of the challenge requires constant recalibration. Strengthening cyber forensics, improving financial intelligence, expanding inter-agency cooperation and maintaining pressure on Pakistan through diplomatic channels will all be essential.&nbsp;<h2>A strategic memory worth holding on to</h2>&nbsp;Anniversaries often invite ceremony, but in the case of 13 December, reflection serves a practical purpose. Remembering the attack is not merely about honouring those who fell defending Parliament. It is about recognising that the threat that manifested that morning has not vanished. It has changed form and adopted new tools, but its intent remains the same.&nbsp;For India, and for those who follow the security landscape of South Asia, the lesson is clear: the danger lies not in what JeM was in 2001, but in what it has become since—and in what it is still capable of becoming if left unchallenged.&nbsp;(Maj Gen. RPS Bhadauria (Retd) is the Additional Director General of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi, and was formerly the Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies &amp; Simulation (CS3) at USI of India, having served in the Indian Army for 36 years.)

In the years since the Parliament attack, India has invested in institutional capability. The NIA, created after the Mumbai attacks, has demonstrated the value of a specialised national-level investigative body. States have, at varying paces, upgraded their own counter-terror capacities.

On 13 December 2001, five armed men attempted to storm the Indian Parliament. Their effort was thwarted, but the incident upended assumptions about the nature of the threat India faced. The attack was not only an assault on elected representatives; it was a demonstration of the reach, ambition and external support enjoyed by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based group already under international sanctions. Two decades later, JeM has not disappeared. It has adapted. In some respects, it has become more elusive and more capable. The organisation’s trajectory since 2001—and the broader environment in which it operates—should persuade us that complacency remains the enemy of preparedness. The organisation learnt, adapted and expanded JeM’s early years were marked by spectacular, attention-seeking violence. The Parliament attack was part of that phase. Over time, however, the group has shifted towards a quieter, layered structure. It no longer relies solely on large groups of fighters moving across the Line of Control. Instead, it works through dispersed modules that can be activated for logistics, reconnaissance or execution, depending on the requirement. Investigations in several cases, including those relating to a recent blast near Delhi’s Red Fort, demonstrate this transition. Operatives are often educated, familiar with urban terrain, and capable of navigating encrypted communication platforms. What this signifies is an organisation that invests in long-term survivability rather than short-term spectacle. This is a more difficult adversary to track. Another feature of JeM’s evolution is the emergence of Jamaat-e-Mominaat, its women’s wing. The group conducts online instruction aimed at ideological reinforcement and logistical support. The fact that this initiative is being led by individuals closely related to JeM’s founder shows the seriousness of the project. It also reflects a broader trend across extremist movements globally: the use of digital spaces to widen recruitment beyond traditional circles. Pakistan’s internal dynamics continue to shape the threat JeM’s transformation cannot be understood in isolation. It operates within Pakistan’s complex civil–military equation, where certain groups have historically been treated as tools of influence rather than security liabilities. Despite international pressure and periods of intense scrutiny—particularly during Pakistan’s years on the FATF grey list—JeM’s infrastructure has never been fully dismantled. Its Bahawalpur base remains a recurring reference point in global reporting. Pakistan today faces political volatility, economic fragility and sporadic internal violence. In such periods, the temptation for the state to fall back on familiar instruments of leverage—especially those offering deniability—cannot be dismissed. For India, this means that the underlying risk profile has not materially changed. India’s counter-terror institutions have strengthened—but the threat has also become more complex In the years since the Parliament attack, India has invested in institutional capability. The Multi-Agency Centre has grown into an important hub for real-time intelligence sharing. The National Investigation Agency, created after the Mumbai attacks, has demonstrated the value of a specialised national-level investigative body. States have, at varying paces, upgraded their own counter-terror capacities. These reforms have undoubtedly improved India’s preparedness. But the threat environment has expanded in ways that challenge traditional tools. Terrorist organisations now operate across physical, financial and digital domains. Their support networks include online indoctrination, cryptocurrency channels, courier chains and diaspora-based sympathisers. Modules do not resemble the tightly knit fidayeen squads of the early 2000s; they are smaller, more flexible, and more influenced by global extremist ecosystems. Why vigilance matters now more than ever India’s national security architecture must remain alive to two parallel realities. The first is that JeM continues to function out of Pakistan with ideological cohesion and access to manpower. The second is that the group has adjusted to India’s strengthened defences by diversifying its methods. When an adversary evolves, defences must evolve faster. The Parliament attack was a wake-up call. It revealed the costs of underestimating an organisation’s ambition and the dangers of assuming that international designations would meaningfully restrict its operations. JeM’s endurance since then demonstrates that the threat is not static. It adapts to pressure and exploits gaps—especially in the digital domain. India has the institutional foundations it lacked in 2001. But the nature of the challenge requires constant recalibration. Strengthening cyber forensics, improving financial intelligence, expanding inter-agency cooperation and maintaining pressure on Pakistan through diplomatic channels will all be essential. A strategic memory worth holding on to Anniversaries often invite ceremony, but in the case of 13 December, reflection serves a practical purpose. Remembering the attack is not merely about honouring those who fell defending Parliament. It is about recognising that the threat that manifested that morning has not vanished. It has changed form and adopted new tools, but its intent remains the same. For India, and for those who follow the security landscape of South Asia, the lesson is clear: the danger lies not in what JeM was in 2001, but in what it has become since—and in what it is still capable of becoming if left unchallenged. (Maj Gen. RPS Bhadauria (Retd) is the Additional Director General of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi, and was formerly the Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies & Simulation (CS3) at USI of India, having served in the Indian Army for 36 years.)

In the years since the Parliament attack, India has invested in institutional capability. The NIA, created after the Mumbai attacks, has demonstrated the value of a specialised national-level investigative body. States have, at varying paces, upgraded their own counter-terror capacities.

JeM’s evolution since the Parliament Attack: Why India cannot lower its guard

In every era, the character of warfare changes before the battlefield notices. In South Asia today, that change is unfolding not in the waters of the Arabian Sea, but in the digital ecosystem surrounding it. Pakistan’s recent deployment of AI-generated deepfakes, doctored missile footage, and synthetic naval “victories” marks the arrival of a new and deeply destabilising form of conflict — one in which the mind is targeted before the missile, and perception is shaped long before capability is tested.&nbsp;The most alarming illustration of this shift came not from any ship or submarine, but from a viral video that attempted to impersonate the Chief of the Indian Navy.&nbsp;<h2>When Admirals become targets</h2>&nbsp;The video in question appeared to show India’s Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Dinesh K. Tripathi, criticising the government for restricting naval action and admitting to fabricated operational losses. For those unfamiliar with modern deepfake technology, the clip looked credible at first glance. But a detailed examination by India’s Deepfakes Analysis Unit revealed that while the opening seconds contained real footage, the remainder of the audio was entirely synthetic — an AI-generated clone grafted onto legitimate visuals.&nbsp;This was not mischief. It was a deliberate attempt to simulate a breach in naval cohesion and erode public trust in one of India’s most disciplined institutions.&nbsp;Around the same time, Pakistan-linked digital networks circulated a second manipulated video, this time targeting the Director General Naval Operations (DGNO) — one of the most crucial operational authorities in the Indian Navy. The fake clip suggested internal disagreement over deployment plans during the Pahalgam–Sindoor crisis. It too was later found to be digitally altered.&nbsp;When a nation directs deepfakes at another’s admirals, it is not engaging in trolling. It is engaging in cognitive warfare.&nbsp;<h2>From ships to screens: Pakistan’s ‘AI navy’ emerges</h2>&nbsp;These deepfakes are not isolated incidents. They are part of a systematic trend.&nbsp;Following Pakistan’s latest test of the P-282 ship-launched anti-ship ballistic missile, the official statement was deliberately vague: no ship name, no telemetry, no seeker details, no confirmation of range or speed. The video showed a missile rising into the sky and a distant splash. That was all.&nbsp;Yet immediately after this minimalist announcement, an entire ecosystem of Pakistan-friendly pages — many of which routinely amplify ISPR narratives — began circulating enhanced, exaggerated, and in many cases doctored ASBM videos. These clips claimed Pakistan had demonstrated an “800 km hypersonic strike,” “carrier-kill capability,” and “South Asia’s first ship-fired hypersonic missile.”&nbsp;None of these details came from Pakistan’s military.They came from Pakistan’s informal information warfare proxies, giving the establishment plausible deniability while reaping the benefit of inflated narratives.&nbsp;This is the architecture of Pakistan’s AI Navy: a virtual force built through synthetic media, operating on social networks, designed to compensate for constraints at sea.&nbsp;<h2>Operation Sindoor shows the real balance of power</h2>&nbsp;During the Pahalgam standoff, India launched Operation Sindoor, deploying nearly three dozen ships, including an aircraft carrier group, across the Arabian Sea. Indian destroyers, frigates, submarines and P-8I aircraft demonstrated maritime dominance and operational readiness.&nbsp;Pakistan Navy, by contrast, remained largely confined to Karachi and nearby waters. Public reporting documented propulsion issues and limited availability of several major vessels. Pakistan issued multiple NAVAREA warnings rather than undertaking forward deployments.&nbsp;Yet online, the picture was the opposite.&nbsp;Digitally altered videos circulated showing Indian ships allegedly destroyed, Pakistani missiles hitting moving targets, and simulated engagements designed to portray dramatic Pakistani victories. In the comments sections, Pakistan’s “virtual navy” appeared to overpower India’s real one.&nbsp;This divergence between operational reality and online fiction shows why cognitive warfare is becoming central to Pakistan’s maritime strategy.&nbsp;<h2>Synthetic capability as a substitute for real capability</h2>&nbsp;Pakistan’s real ASBM capability—to the extent publicly known—aligns with a short-range, China-linked coastal missile comparable to the CM-401 system. Its reach is estimated around 290–350 km. This places it in the realm of littoral anti-access capability, not long-range anti-carrier warfare.&nbsp;Yet the absence of official details allowed Pakistan’s digital ecosystem to stretch this modest capability into a grand narrative of technological breakthrough.&nbsp;This dual-track approach—official vagueness coupled with unofficial hype—allows Islamabad to shape perceptions without being accountable for exaggerations. It also places the burden of countering misinformation on the target nation, in this case India.&nbsp;But India did not play that game.&nbsp;The Indian Navy did not respond with theatrics, press conferences, or counterclaims.&nbsp;It responded with posture.It kept sailing.&nbsp;And in any maritime contest, presence is power.&nbsp;<h2>Why this matters for regional stability</h2>&nbsp;Deepfakes targeting naval leadership, combined with realistic-looking doctored strike videos, introduce risks that go far beyond propaganda. Navies rely on decision cycles, command authority, and crisis clarity. When false statements circulate in the name of senior commanders, or when synthetic footage simulates “victories” that never occurred, misinformation can distort escalation dynamics.&nbsp;A fabricated clip of a ship strike could inflame public opinion in Pakistan.A deepfake of an Indian admiral could generate doubt during a crisis.A doctored ASBM launch could embolden decision-makers already operating under pressure.&nbsp;This is why countries across the world—from the EU to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command—are treating AI manipulation as a strategic threat.&nbsp;South Asia cannot afford to ignore it.&nbsp;<h2>India’s Task: Defend the seas—and the truth</h2>&nbsp;India’s naval superiority remains unquestioned. The Indian Navy has stronger platforms, deeper surveillance reach, and greater operational confidence than Pakistan’s fleet. What now requires equal attention is information superiority—the ability to detect, expose, and neutralise synthetic manipulation before it shapes public or strategic perception.&nbsp;In future crises, the opening salvo may not be a missile launch.&nbsp;It may be a deepfake.&nbsp;And in that moment, the ability to defend narrative integrity will matter as much as the ability to defend the coastline.&nbsp;<h2>Last word</h2>&nbsp;Pakistan’s turn toward deepfakes and doctored naval videos marks the emergence of a second navy — one that exists not in the Arabian Sea, but in the digital domain. It is this “AI Navy,” not the real one, that Islamabad uses to project strength, mask vulnerabilities and influence public opinion.&nbsp;India must recognise this shift and adapt accordingly. The battles of tomorrow will be fought not only with ships, submarines and aircraft, but with algorithms engineered to deceive.&nbsp;In this new era, the Indian Navy must prepare to command both the seas and the truth.&nbsp;(Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and Indian Navy veteran.)

India’s naval superiority remains unquestioned. The Indian Navy has stronger platforms, deeper surveillance reach, and greater operational confidence than Pakistan’s fleet. What now requires equal attention is information superiority.

In every era, the character of warfare changes before the battlefield notices. In South Asia today, that change is unfolding not in the waters of the Arabian Sea, but in the digital ecosystem surrounding it. Pakistan’s recent deployment of AI-generated deepfakes, doctored missile footage, and synthetic naval “victories” marks the arrival of a new and deeply destabilising form of conflict — one in which the mind is targeted before the missile, and perception is shaped long before capability is tested. The most alarming illustration of this shift came not from any ship or submarine, but from a viral video that attempted to impersonate the Chief of the Indian Navy. When Admirals become targets The video in question appeared to show India’s Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Dinesh K. Tripathi, criticising the government for restricting naval action and admitting to fabricated operational losses. For those unfamiliar with modern deepfake technology, the clip looked credible at first glance. But a detailed examination by India’s Deepfakes Analysis Unit revealed that while the opening seconds contained real footage, the remainder of the audio was entirely synthetic — an AI-generated clone grafted onto legitimate visuals. This was not mischief. It was a deliberate attempt to simulate a breach in naval cohesion and erode public trust in one of India’s most disciplined institutions. Around the same time, Pakistan-linked digital networks circulated a second manipulated video, this time targeting the Director General Naval Operations (DGNO) — one of the most crucial operational authorities in the Indian Navy. The fake clip suggested internal disagreement over deployment plans during the Pahalgam–Sindoor crisis. It too was later found to be digitally altered. When a nation directs deepfakes at another’s admirals, it is not engaging in trolling. It is engaging in cognitive warfare. From ships to screens: Pakistan’s ‘AI navy’ emerges These deepfakes are not isolated incidents. They are part of a systematic trend. Following Pakistan’s latest test of the P-282 ship-launched anti-ship ballistic missile, the official statement was deliberately vague: no ship name, no telemetry, no seeker details, no confirmation of range or speed. The video showed a missile rising into the sky and a distant splash. That was all. Yet immediately after this minimalist announcement, an entire ecosystem of Pakistan-friendly pages — many of which routinely amplify ISPR narratives — began circulating enhanced, exaggerated, and in many cases doctored ASBM videos. These clips claimed Pakistan had demonstrated an “800 km hypersonic strike,” “carrier-kill capability,” and “South Asia’s first ship-fired hypersonic missile.” None of these details came from Pakistan’s military. They came from Pakistan’s informal information warfare proxies, giving the establishment plausible deniability while reaping the benefit of inflated narratives. This is the architecture of Pakistan’s AI Navy: a virtual force built through synthetic media, operating on social networks, designed to compensate for constraints at sea. Operation Sindoor shows the real balance of power During the Pahalgam standoff, India launched Operation Sindoor, deploying nearly three dozen ships, including an aircraft carrier group, across the Arabian Sea. Indian destroyers, frigates, submarines and P-8I aircraft demonstrated maritime dominance and operational readiness. Pakistan Navy, by contrast, remained largely confined to Karachi and nearby waters. Public reporting documented propulsion issues and limited availability of several major vessels. Pakistan issued multiple NAVAREA warnings rather than undertaking forward deployments. Yet online, the picture was the opposite. Digitally altered videos circulated showing Indian ships allegedly destroyed, Pakistani missiles hitting moving targets, and simulated engagements designed to portray dramatic Pakistani victories. In the comments sections, Pakistan’s “virtual navy” appeared to overpower India’s real one. This divergence between operational reality and online fiction shows why cognitive warfare is becoming central to Pakistan’s maritime strategy. Synthetic capability as a substitute for real capability Pakistan’s real ASBM capability—to the extent publicly known—aligns with a short-range, China-linked coastal missile comparable to the CM-401 system. Its reach is estimated around 290–350 km. This places it in the realm of littoral anti-access capability, not long-range anti-carrier warfare. Yet the absence of official details allowed Pakistan’s digital ecosystem to stretch this modest capability into a grand narrative of technological breakthrough. This dual-track approach—official vagueness coupled with unofficial hype—allows Islamabad to shape perceptions without being accountable for exaggerations. It also places the burden of countering misinformation on the target nation, in this case India. But India did not play that game. The Indian Navy did not respond with theatrics, press conferences, or counterclaims. It responded with posture. It kept sailing. And in any maritime contest, presence is power. Why this matters for regional stability Deepfakes targeting naval leadership, combined with realistic-looking doctored strike videos, introduce risks that go far beyond propaganda. Navies rely on decision cycles, command authority, and crisis clarity. When false statements circulate in the name of senior commanders, or when synthetic footage simulates “victories” that never occurred, misinformation can distort escalation dynamics. A fabricated clip of a ship strike could inflame public opinion in Pakistan. A deepfake of an Indian admiral could generate doubt during a crisis. A doctored ASBM launch could embolden decision-makers already operating under pressure. This is why countries across the world—from the EU to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command—are treating AI manipulation as a strategic threat. South Asia cannot afford to ignore it. India’s Task: Defend the seas—and the truth India’s naval superiority remains unquestioned. The Indian Navy has stronger platforms, deeper surveillance reach, and greater operational confidence than Pakistan’s fleet. What now requires equal attention is information superiority—the ability to detect, expose, and neutralise synthetic manipulation before it shapes public or strategic perception. In future crises, the opening salvo may not be a missile launch. It may be a deepfake. And in that moment, the ability to defend narrative integrity will matter as much as the ability to defend the coastline. Last word Pakistan’s turn toward deepfakes and doctored naval videos marks the emergence of a second navy — one that exists not in the Arabian Sea, but in the digital domain. It is this “AI Navy,” not the real one, that Islamabad uses to project strength, mask vulnerabilities and influence public opinion. India must recognise this shift and adapt accordingly. The battles of tomorrow will be fought not only with ships, submarines and aircraft, but with algorithms engineered to deceive. In this new era, the Indian Navy must prepare to command both the seas and the truth. (Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and Indian Navy veteran.)

India’s naval superiority remains unquestioned. The Indian Navy has stronger platforms, deeper surveillance reach, and greater operational confidence than Pakistan’s fleet. What now requires equal attention is information superiority.

Pakistan’s AI navy: How deepfakes targeting Indian naval leadership signal a dangerous new front in maritime warfare

On November 25, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, holding that the officer had placed his personal religious belief above a lawful command. The Court termed this “clearly an act of indiscipline”.The Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Kamalesan in 2021 after he refused to participate in religious rituals at his Regiment’s mandir and gurdwara. Describing him as a “misfit”, the Court affirmed that discipline and cohesion in the armed forces cannot be compromised for individual interpretation of faith.Commissioned in 2017, Lieutenant Kamalesan was posted to a Sikh Squadron of the Third Cavalry. He faced disciplinary action for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the Regimental mandir and gurdwara during mandatory religious parades.Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops. He claimed his men were not offended and that it did not affect his relationship with them, as reported by Bar and Bench.The Army, however, stated that the officer persisted with his refusal despite counselling by senior officers and even by Christian clergy. Eventually, when all remedial measures failed, he was terminated from service in 2021. There is little doubt that his conduct vitiated the environment in the unit, undermined cohesion, and risked affecting troop morale. His dismissal, therefore, was inevitable.<h2>Unbecoming conduct</h2>Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, argued that his client had committed only a “single infraction”. He stated that entering the sanctum violated his faith and that joining the Army did not mean surrendering one’s religious identity.However, the argument that “only one person” objected ignores the fundamental reality of military command. That “one person” was the Commanding Officer — the fulcrum of discipline,morale, and regimental tradition. He is not merely an individual but the embodiment of institutional authority within a unit.More importantly, the decision to dismiss Kamalesan was not taken by one individual. It was reviewed and endorsed at multiple levels of command, backed by legal opinion from the Judge Advocate General’s branch.Justice Bagchi pointed out that a Christian Pastor had counselled Kamalesan and clarified that entering the sanctum did not violate the essentials of Christian faith. Yet, the officer persisted with his personal interpretation. To this, Sankaranarayanan replied that the conversation with the Pastor was limited to the Sarva Dharma Sthal and not to a temple or gurdwara.Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised the higher responsibility of leadership in uniform. He observed that a leader must always lead by example and questioned whether the officer’s conduct did not amount to insulting the very soldiers he commanded.The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its assessment. It described Kamalesan’s conduct as “gross indiscipline” and stated that even if he was otherwise a competent officer, he was “a misfit for the Indian Army” given the gravity of responsibility entrusted to the armed forces.<h2>Third Cavalry: The regimental context</h2>Third Cavalry is among the most distinguished armoured regiments of the Indian Army. It traces its lineage to the 7th Irregular Cavalry raised in 1841 and the 17th Cavalry raised in 1846. The Regiment earned lasting fame as the “Patton Wreckers” during the Battle of Asal Uttar in the 1965 war, where its Centurion tanks halted Pakistan’s armoured thrust.At that historic juncture, the Regiment was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Salim Caleb, a Christian officer who led his troops with exemplary valour, earning both the Maha Vir Chakra and battle honours for the unit.Third Cavalry’s soldiers have traditionally been drawn from Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs. Over its history, the Regiment has been commanded by Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian officers alike. Colonel (later Brigadier) Kutab Hai, a Muslim officer, once commanded the Sikh Squadron and actively led religious observances at the Gurdwara.Regimental traditions, religious customs, and the culture of soldiering are painstakingly taught to every officer on arrival. Kamalesan was no exception. Despite this, he chose to elevate hispersonal belief system above institutional requirements. His termination would undoubtedly have followed exhaustive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction.<h2>The ethos of the Indian Army</h2>The Indian Army is defined as much by its ethos and traditions as by its combat capability. While the organisation is vast, its true strength lies in the unit—the soul of the Army.There exist class-based regiments such as the Sikh, Rajput, Jat, Dogra and Gorkha Regiments, each sustaining places of worship aligned with the faith of their soldiers. There are also mixed-class regiments such as the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry and Jammu and Kashmir Rifles that maintain mandirs, masjids, and gurdwaras within the same unit.Older armoured regiments such as the Third Cavalry are fixed-class formations, where each sabre squadron reflects a specific class composition. Newer regiments are mixed-class. The Armoured Corps today contains a healthy blend of both, allowing commanders to leverage the strengths of each.Religion within the armed forces acts as a binding force, particularly in combat. In war, faith provides strength in moments of extreme stress. The war cry of the regiment and shared religious identity often become rallying points under fire. Faith strengthens fraternity, and fraternity fuels operational success.It is, therefore, misleading to treat participation in regimental religious observances as coercion. Instead, it is a professional obligation rooted in leadership, trust, and shared identity.Though the Army employs rigorous psychological and leadership assessment through the Services Selection Board, Kamalesan’s rigidity appears to have escaped detection. His case underlines the need for closer scrutiny of such traits during selection and training.All officers in the Indian Army are free to practise their religion in private. However, in public military life, they adopt the religion of the troops they command. This practice is neither symbolic nor optional; it is foundational to leadership in uniform.In my own Regiment, which comprised Jats, Muslims and Rajputs, all officers and JCOs participated in both mandir and masjid functions without exception. This was not a matter of faith but of duty.The fundamental right to practise religion cannot be interpreted to undermine discipline and regimental unity. In the armed forces, religion unites rather than divides. Regimental places of worship are not merely spiritual spaces; they are centres of identity, tradition, morale, and cohesion.To quote Lieutenant General Hasnain, “In uniform, personal belief cannot be allowed to overshadow institutional duty.”The enduring bond between officer and soldier is strengthened when officers actively participate in the cultural and religious life of their men. This shared participation forges trust and reinforces mutual respect.The Supreme Court’s verdict, describing Kamalesan’s actions as the “grossest kind of indiscipline”, upholds this foundational military principle. The Army functions in a deeply secular manner, but its secularism is not based on detachment from religion. Rather, it derives its strength from inclusiveness and shared participation.An officer who distances himself from the religious practices of his troops weakens morale and disrupts regimentation—the soul of the Army. It is for this reason that an officer assumes the identity of his unit, and the religion of the men becomes paramount over personal belief.It is this timeless tradition that was upheld in the case of Lieutenant Kamalesan.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.

Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops.

On November 25, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, holding that the officer had placed his personal religious belief above a lawful command. The Court termed this “clearly an act of indiscipline”. The Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Kamalesan in 2021 after he refused to participate in religious rituals at his Regiment’s mandir and gurdwara. Describing him as a “misfit”, the Court affirmed that discipline and cohesion in the armed forces cannot be compromised for individual interpretation of faith. Commissioned in 2017, Lieutenant Kamalesan was posted to a Sikh Squadron of the Third Cavalry. He faced disciplinary action for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the Regimental mandir and gurdwara during mandatory religious parades. Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops. He claimed his men were not offended and that it did not affect his relationship with them, as reported by Bar and Bench. The Army, however, stated that the officer persisted with his refusal despite counselling by senior officers and even by Christian clergy. Eventually, when all remedial measures failed, he was terminated from service in 2021. There is little doubt that his conduct vitiated the environment in the unit, undermined cohesion, and risked affecting troop morale. His dismissal, therefore, was inevitable. Unbecoming conduct Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, argued that his client had committed only a “single infraction”. He stated that entering the sanctum violated his faith and that joining the Army did not mean surrendering one’s religious identity. However, the argument that “only one person” objected ignores the fundamental reality of military command. That “one person” was the Commanding Officer — the fulcrum of discipline, morale, and regimental tradition. He is not merely an individual but the embodiment of institutional authority within a unit. More importantly, the decision to dismiss Kamalesan was not taken by one individual. It was reviewed and endorsed at multiple levels of command, backed by legal opinion from the Judge Advocate General’s branch. Justice Bagchi pointed out that a Christian Pastor had counselled Kamalesan and clarified that entering the sanctum did not violate the essentials of Christian faith. Yet, the officer persisted with his personal interpretation. To this, Sankaranarayanan replied that the conversation with the Pastor was limited to the Sarva Dharma Sthal and not to a temple or gurdwara. Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised the higher responsibility of leadership in uniform. He observed that a leader must always lead by example and questioned whether the officer’s conduct did not amount to insulting the very soldiers he commanded. The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its assessment. It described Kamalesan’s conduct as “gross indiscipline” and stated that even if he was otherwise a competent officer, he was “a misfit for the Indian Army” given the gravity of responsibility entrusted to the armed forces. Third Cavalry: The regimental context Third Cavalry is among the most distinguished armoured regiments of the Indian Army. It traces its lineage to the 7th Irregular Cavalry raised in 1841 and the 17th Cavalry raised in 1846. The Regiment earned lasting fame as the “Patton Wreckers” during the Battle of Asal Uttar in the 1965 war, where its Centurion tanks halted Pakistan’s armoured thrust. At that historic juncture, the Regiment was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Salim Caleb, a Christian officer who led his troops with exemplary valour, earning both the Maha Vir Chakra and battle honours for the unit. Third Cavalry’s soldiers have traditionally been drawn from Jats, Rajputs, and Sikhs. Over its history, the Regiment has been commanded by Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian officers alike. Colonel (later Brigadier) Kutab Hai, a Muslim officer, once commanded the Sikh Squadron and actively led religious observances at the Gurdwara. Regimental traditions, religious customs, and the culture of soldiering are painstakingly taught to every officer on arrival. Kamalesan was no exception. Despite this, he chose to elevate his personal belief system above institutional requirements. His termination would undoubtedly have followed exhaustive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction. The ethos of the Indian Army The Indian Army is defined as much by its ethos and traditions as by its combat capability. While the organisation is vast, its true strength lies in the unit—the soul of the Army. There exist class-based regiments such as the Sikh, Rajput, Jat, Dogra and Gorkha Regiments, each sustaining places of worship aligned with the faith of their soldiers. There are also mixed-class regiments such as the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry and Jammu and Kashmir Rifles that maintain mandirs, masjids, and gurdwaras within the same unit. Older armoured regiments such as the Third Cavalry are fixed-class formations, where each sabre squadron reflects a specific class composition. Newer regiments are mixed-class. The Armoured Corps today contains a healthy blend of both, allowing commanders to leverage the strengths of each. Religion within the armed forces acts as a binding force, particularly in combat. In war, faith provides strength in moments of extreme stress. The war cry of the regiment and shared religious identity often become rallying points under fire. Faith strengthens fraternity, and fraternity fuels operational success. It is, therefore, misleading to treat participation in regimental religious observances as coercion. Instead, it is a professional obligation rooted in leadership, trust, and shared identity. Though the Army employs rigorous psychological and leadership assessment through the Services Selection Board, Kamalesan’s rigidity appears to have escaped detection. His case underlines the need for closer scrutiny of such traits during selection and training. All officers in the Indian Army are free to practise their religion in private. However, in public military life, they adopt the religion of the troops they command. This practice is neither symbolic nor optional; it is foundational to leadership in uniform. In my own Regiment, which comprised Jats, Muslims and Rajputs, all officers and JCOs participated in both mandir and masjid functions without exception. This was not a matter of faith but of duty. The fundamental right to practise religion cannot be interpreted to undermine discipline and regimental unity. In the armed forces, religion unites rather than divides. Regimental places of worship are not merely spiritual spaces; they are centres of identity, tradition, morale, and cohesion. To quote Lieutenant General Hasnain, “In uniform, personal belief cannot be allowed to overshadow institutional duty.” The enduring bond between officer and soldier is strengthened when officers actively participate in the cultural and religious life of their men. This shared participation forges trust and reinforces mutual respect. The Supreme Court’s verdict, describing Kamalesan’s actions as the “grossest kind of indiscipline”, upholds this foundational military principle. The Army functions in a deeply secular manner, but its secularism is not based on detachment from religion. Rather, it derives its strength from inclusiveness and shared participation. An officer who distances himself from the religious practices of his troops weakens morale and disrupts regimentation—the soul of the Army. It is for this reason that an officer assumes the identity of his unit, and the religion of the men becomes paramount over personal belief. It is this timeless tradition that was upheld in the case of Lieutenant Kamalesan. 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.

Kamalesan reportedly argued that entering these places went against his Christian beliefs and that he was also acting out of respect for the religious sentiments of his Sikh troops.&nbsp;

In the army, religion unites and does not divide

An unusually cordial summit meeting between Indian President and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin has sent an unmistakable message to US President Donald Trump: Your global influence has limits.After two days of talks in New Delhi and a slew of agreements, one can draw the conclusion that the tight relations between Russia and India, built up over decades, remain unaffected despite US and European efforts to isolate Russia and despite widespread condemnation of its war on Ukraine.Uncharacteristically for the verbose American president, Trump refrained from immediate comment on two days of a summit during which Modi and Putin portrayed the long-standing Indian-Russian relationship as an example of stability at a time of geopolitical turbulence.Those ties have been a source of deep annoyance for Trump, who fumed in a social media post in September that it “looks like we have lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest China” and sharply criticised Indian purchases of Russian oil, which he said lubricated Putin’s war machine.That criticism came after a meeting between Modi, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. American annoyance with India has not changed since.US, disenchantment with India went beyond the rhetorical: the US hit India with an additional trade tariff of 25 per cent as punishment for the oil purchases, bringing the tariff total to 50 per cent.Modi has shown no sign of giving in to American pressure, and Putin subtly nudged his host to stick to his policy by saying that “Russia is ready for uninterrupted shipments of fuel to India.”These shipments increased dramatically after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 because Russia offered heavy discounts to bypass Western sanctions. India is now the second biggest buyer of Russian crude after China.The summit, largely ignored by the U.S. media, has highlighted Modi’s skill in walking a tricky tightrope between his country’s historic relationship with Russia and growing economic ties with the United States and its vast market for a large array of goods.Indian-Russian ties date back to the Cold War and Delhi’s leadership role in the non-aligned movement of countries that tried to avoid taking sides between the Soviet Union and the United States. As far as defence ties are concerned, India leaned towards the Soviet Union. Russia, its successor, remains India’s main supplier of military hardware.The summit underlined that the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy remains “strategic autonomy”, which withstands external pressures even from an American president who has left no doubt he considers himself the lead player on the increasingly complicated geopolitical order.This view was mocked in public last summer by Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last summer after Trump imposed a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian exports. In an interview with CNN, the Brazilian leaders said: “What we cannot have is President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the U.S. He was elected not to be the emperor of the world.”In the absence of immediate official comment, one Washington analyst predicted that the display of warmth and friendship at the Delhi summit would cause “heartburn” in the diplomatic and national security communities of the Trump administration.Not least because Modi described relations between the two countries as “steadfast like a pole star.”India and Russia have held annual summits since the year 2000, when they declared a strategic partnership. The meetings alternated between Russia and India, paused after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and resumed in 2024 when Modi visited Moscow. No date for the next summit has been set.

Modi has shown no sign of giving in to American pressure, and Putin subtly nudged his host to stick to his policy by saying that “Russia is ready for uninterrupted shipments of fuel to India.”

An unusually cordial summit meeting between Indian President and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin has sent an unmistakable message to US President Donald Trump: Your global influence has limits. After two days of talks in New Delhi and a slew of agreements, one can draw the conclusion that the tight relations between Russia and India, built up over decades, remain unaffected despite US and European efforts to isolate Russia and despite widespread condemnation of its war on Ukraine. Uncharacteristically for the verbose American president, Trump refrained from immediate comment on two days of a summit during which Modi and Putin portrayed the long-standing Indian-Russian relationship as an example of stability at a time of geopolitical turbulence. Those ties have been a source of deep annoyance for Trump, who fumed in a social media post in September that it “looks like we have lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest China” and sharply criticised Indian purchases of Russian oil, which he said lubricated Putin’s war machine. That criticism came after a meeting between Modi, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. American annoyance with India has not changed since. US, disenchantment with India went beyond the rhetorical: the US hit India with an additional trade tariff of 25 per cent as punishment for the oil purchases, bringing the tariff total to 50 per cent. Modi has shown no sign of giving in to American pressure, and Putin subtly nudged his host to stick to his policy by saying that “Russia is ready for uninterrupted shipments of fuel to India.” These shipments increased dramatically after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 because Russia offered heavy discounts to bypass Western sanctions. India is now the second biggest buyer of Russian crude after China. The summit, largely ignored by the U.S. media, has highlighted Modi’s skill in walking a tricky tightrope between his country’s historic relationship with Russia and growing economic ties with the United States and its vast market for a large array of goods. Indian-Russian ties date back to the Cold War and Delhi’s leadership role in the non-aligned movement of countries that tried to avoid taking sides between the Soviet Union and the United States. As far as defence ties are concerned, India leaned towards the Soviet Union. Russia, its successor, remains India’s main supplier of military hardware. The summit underlined that the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy remains “strategic autonomy”, which withstands external pressures even from an American president who has left no doubt he considers himself the lead player on the increasingly complicated geopolitical order. This view was mocked in public last summer by Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last summer after Trump imposed a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian exports. In an interview with CNN, the Brazilian leaders said: “What we cannot have is President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the U.S. He was elected not to be the emperor of the world.” In the absence of immediate official comment, one Washington analyst predicted that the display of warmth and friendship at the Delhi summit would cause “heartburn” in the diplomatic and national security communities of the Trump administration. Not least because Modi described relations between the two countries as “steadfast like a pole star.” India and Russia have held annual summits since the year 2000, when they declared a strategic partnership. The meetings alternated between Russia and India, paused after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and resumed in 2024 when Modi visited Moscow. No date for the next summit has been set.

Modi has shown no sign of giving in to American pressure, and Putin subtly nudged his host to stick to his policy by saying that “Russia is ready for uninterrupted shipments of fuel to India.”

Putin-Modi summit shows limits of Donald Trump’s global clout

As Russian President Vladimir Putin smiled elegantly and patiently addressed questions in a rare interview with an Indian television channel ahead of his arrival in New Delhi, I could not help but ask myself two questions: 1) Is Prime Minister Narendra Modi having an Indira Gandhi moment on ties with Moscow? 2) Is there a Raj Kapoor who can take bilateral relations to another level?The answer to both questions, on a closer look, seems to be a “No” – but not a resounding one. But the warmth, the optics and the hugs between the two leaders in an annual summit are enough to send a message to President Donald Trump in Washington and indeed to the whole world is that this is a good show of India’s strategic autonomy – a term that is increasingly a cliché, but a very useful one in a world that is more multilateral than we saw during the Cold War years when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty in 1971.The treaty of 1971 was signed with the then communist Soviet Union, when Putin was only 18, under pressure. Pakistan had edged so close to the US and China that the treaty was a comprehensive one covering the economy, technology, peace, friendship, and cooperation, and most important of all, a clear defence agreement. Article IX of the treaty had said that if one of the parties was attacked or threatened, the other would immediately assist the other. That clause, signed in August 1971, became critical for India in the war that liberated East Pakistan to create Bangladesh four months later.India’s economy was then a weak one, and there was not much of a choice for Mrs Gandhi as President Richard Nixon in the White House played hardball, even deploying the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal.Many of the items figuring in the to-do list of Indo-Russian cooperation on Putin’s agenda this year look like a repeat of the ones in 1971, with much more scope emerging in fields like military manufacturing and nuclear power. Apparel and labour mobility are emerging as new focus areas on the economic front, not to speak of the elephant in the room: Russian oil, whose imports by India have invited indirect US sanctions on Russian entities to pressure India, in addition to penal tariffs on India tied to Russian oil.In spite of all that, the defence part of Putin’s summit with Modi this year is somewhat muted as it is more about trade than a military alliance that the 1971 treaty smelled of. &nbsp;There is little doubt, however, that like in 1971, the terms set by the US and the body language of President Trump will naturally make Modi dial M for Moscow if push comes to shove.India’s Operation Sindoor attack on Pakistan-based terror bases saw two starkly contrasting images. While Russia’s S-400 air defence systems helped India strike Islamabad’s airborne missiles and aircraft deep inside Pakistani territory, Trump’s repeated claim that he brokered peace in the backdrop of an outdated India-Pakistan false equivalence framework (a familiar theme in the US State Department) left mouths sour in Delhi.All that would make some believe that it is 1971 redux, but that would be misleading and superficial. &nbsp; Trump, with his quirky personality, is more of a hardline American nationalist than a superpower sniper. &nbsp;US defence deals with India involve too many conditions that make it difficult to do business, and defence trade, like oil deals, are a natural area of convergence between Moscow and New Delhi.Beyond that, however, there have been fundamental shifts that make the US a strategic partner for India in trade, especially with the ghost of China looming over both countries.A hard look at trade data gives us a clearer picture.India-Russian trade touched nearly US $69 billion in FY 2024-25, a nearly six-fold increase from pre-COVID levels, thanks to India buying Russian oil that turned cheaper in the wake of the Ukraine war. &nbsp;But Indian exports at close to $5 billion contrast with the oil-laden imports at close to $64 billion – showing a gaping deficit that could widen if there are no corrective efforts. India’s export basket, including pharmaceuticals, textiles, chemicals, and engineering goods, shows a wide range but is limited in numbers.The US remains India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade close to $132 billion in FY 2024-25, with a huge surplus for India that sold everything from diamonds to software. India’s exports to the US in excess of $86 billion are way above the $45 billion in imports. Understandably, Trump is under pressure at home under his “Make America Great Again” plank to contain the deficit.Putin’s visit to India is thus a signal to the US that a MAGA overdose in the White House, compounded by a sanctions regime that clearly goes against independence for countries in bilateral trade, is something that India cannot stomach beyond a point. But the underlying trade numbers are such that, barring defence manufacture and areas like nuclear power, you cannot expect a magic wand that makes Russia a truly strategic trading partner for India.Once Putin flies back, and hopefully force Ukraine into a peace deal that looks more probable than it has been for the past two years, trade details will take centre-stage again. Modi’s “Make In India” dreams, defence manufacturing ambitions and fiercely autonomous nationalism may make Moscow and New Delhi edge closer – and even bring back the spirit of the Indo-Soviet rupee-rouble trade that marked the Cold War years. About 90% of Indo-Russian trade is already dollar-free.The Modi-Putin summit is an opportunity for both leaders to strengthen their respective economies, with new areas like labour mobility involving talent-rich Indians widening the scope of action. But a lot of hard work is needed, and much would now depend on what the US does in response to the bonhomie visible in Delhi.And there is no Raj Kapoor charming Russians to get any brownie points. Everything is down to the nitty-gritty and shifting circumstances. However, it can be said with reasonable certainty that on the world stage, India has emerged as a credible power, not the Third World client Nixon wanted or the tameable schoolboy that Trump’s cocky tones suggest. &nbsp;UK and the European Union also need to take note of this.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;

The warmth, the optics and the hugs between the two leaders in an annual summit are enough to send a message to President Donald Trump in Washington and indeed to the whole world that this is a good show of India’s strategic autonomy.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin smiled elegantly and patiently addressed questions in a rare interview with an Indian television channel ahead of his arrival in New Delhi, I could not help but ask myself two questions: 1) Is Prime Minister Narendra Modi having an Indira Gandhi moment on ties with Moscow? 2) Is there a Raj Kapoor who can take bilateral relations to another level? The answer to both questions, on a closer look, seems to be a “No” – but not a resounding one. But the warmth, the optics and the hugs between the two leaders in an annual summit are enough to send a message to President Donald Trump in Washington and indeed to the whole world is that this is a good show of India’s strategic autonomy – a term that is increasingly a cliché, but a very useful one in a world that is more multilateral than we saw during the Cold War years when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi signed the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty in 1971. The treaty of 1971 was signed with the then communist Soviet Union, when Putin was only 18, under pressure. Pakistan had edged so close to the US and China that the treaty was a comprehensive one covering the economy, technology, peace, friendship, and cooperation, and most important of all, a clear defence agreement. Article IX of the treaty had said that if one of the parties was attacked or threatened, the other would immediately assist the other. That clause, signed in August 1971, became critical for India in the war that liberated East Pakistan to create Bangladesh four months later. India’s economy was then a weak one, and there was not much of a choice for Mrs Gandhi as President Richard Nixon in the White House played hardball, even deploying the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal. Many of the items figuring in the to-do list of Indo-Russian cooperation on Putin’s agenda this year look like a repeat of the ones in 1971, with much more scope emerging in fields like military manufacturing and nuclear power. Apparel and labour mobility are emerging as new focus areas on the economic front, not to speak of the elephant in the room: Russian oil, whose imports by India have invited indirect US sanctions on Russian entities to pressure India, in addition to penal tariffs on India tied to Russian oil. In spite of all that, the defence part of Putin’s summit with Modi this year is somewhat muted as it is more about trade than a military alliance that the 1971 treaty smelled of. There is little doubt, however, that like in 1971, the terms set by the US and the body language of President Trump will naturally make Modi dial M for Moscow if push comes to shove. India’s Operation Sindoor attack on Pakistan-based terror bases saw two starkly contrasting images. While Russia’s S-400 air defence systems helped India strike Islamabad’s airborne missiles and aircraft deep inside Pakistani territory, Trump’s repeated claim that he brokered peace in the backdrop of an outdated India-Pakistan false equivalence framework (a familiar theme in the US State Department) left mouths sour in Delhi. All that would make some believe that it is 1971 redux, but that would be misleading and superficial. Trump, with his quirky personality, is more of a hardline American nationalist than a superpower sniper. US defence deals with India involve too many conditions that make it difficult to do business, and defence trade, like oil deals, are a natural area of convergence between Moscow and New Delhi. Beyond that, however, there have been fundamental shifts that make the US a strategic partner for India in trade, especially with the ghost of China looming over both countries. A hard look at trade data gives us a clearer picture. India-Russian trade touched nearly US $69 billion in FY 2024-25, a nearly six-fold increase from pre-COVID levels, thanks to India buying Russian oil that turned cheaper in the wake of the Ukraine war. But Indian exports at close to $5 billion contrast with the oil-laden imports at close to $64 billion – showing a gaping deficit that could widen if there are no corrective efforts. India’s export basket, including pharmaceuticals, textiles, chemicals, and engineering goods, shows a wide range but is limited in numbers. The US remains India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade close to $132 billion in FY 2024-25, with a huge surplus for India that sold everything from diamonds to software. India’s exports to the US in excess of $86 billion are way above the $45 billion in imports. Understandably, Trump is under pressure at home under his “Make America Great Again” plank to contain the deficit. Putin’s visit to India is thus a signal to the US that a MAGA overdose in the White House, compounded by a sanctions regime that clearly goes against independence for countries in bilateral trade, is something that India cannot stomach beyond a point. But the underlying trade numbers are such that, barring defence manufacture and areas like nuclear power, you cannot expect a magic wand that makes Russia a truly strategic trading partner for India. Once Putin flies back, and hopefully force Ukraine into a peace deal that looks more probable than it has been for the past two years, trade details will take centre-stage again. Modi’s “Make In India” dreams, defence manufacturing ambitions and fiercely autonomous nationalism may make Moscow and New Delhi edge closer – and even bring back the spirit of the Indo-Soviet rupee-rouble trade that marked the Cold War years. About 90% of Indo-Russian trade is already dollar-free. The Modi-Putin summit is an opportunity for both leaders to strengthen their respective economies, with new areas like labour mobility involving talent-rich Indians widening the scope of action. But a lot of hard work is needed, and much would now depend on what the US does in response to the bonhomie visible in Delhi. And there is no Raj Kapoor charming Russians to get any brownie points. Everything is down to the nitty-gritty and shifting circumstances. However, it can be said with reasonable certainty that on the world stage, India has emerged as a credible power, not the Third World client Nixon wanted or the tameable schoolboy that Trump’s cocky tones suggest. UK and the European Union also need to take note of this. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The warmth, the optics and the hugs between the two leaders in an annual summit are enough to send a message to President Donald Trump in Washington and indeed to the whole world that this is a good show of India’s strategic autonomy.

Putin’s India visit is strong on potential but needs a long haul to match the optics

On 04 December every year, India celebrates Navy Day with great pride and enthusiasm. This special day is not just about parades and displays; it marks an important moment in our country's military history and honours the brave sailors who protect our seas day and night.The story of Navy Day goes back to 1944 when the Royal Indian Navy first celebrated it on 21 October. The goal was simple—to make more people aware of the Navy's role in protecting the country. They organised parades in coastal cities like Bombay and Karachi, and held public meetings in places far from the sea. The response was wonderful. People were excited to learn about their Navy, and the events created a wave of patriotic feelings across the nation.Encouraged by this success, naval authorities decided to make it an annual celebration. The date was shifted to 01 December in 1945 to take advantage of cooler weather, making it more comfortable for outdoor events. For many years after that, Navy Day was observed on 15 December, with the entire week around this date celebrated as Navy Week. However, in May 1972, during an important meeting of senior naval officers, a historic decision was made. They chose to move Navy Day to 04 December, and there was a powerful reason behind this choice.On 04 December 1971, during the India-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy carried out a bold and successful operation that changed naval warfare in our region. Indian missile boats launched a devastating attack on Pakistan's Karachi Harbour, the heart of their naval operations. This surprise assault, known as Operation Trident, destroyed fuel storage tanks, supply ships and important shore facilities. The attack not only caused massive damage but also showed the world that India had a strong and capable Navy. At the same time, aircraft operating from INS Vikrant, India's aircraft carrier, struck enemy airfields in Chittagong and Khulna, areas that are now part of Bangladesh. These coordinated attacks from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal demonstrated excellent planning, courage and teamwork. The operation was a turning point, helping India achieve a decisive victory in the 1971 war. This is why 04 December was chosen—to remember and celebrate India's first major naval offensive.Today, Navy Day is celebrated to honour not just that historic victory, but also the daily dedication and sacrifice of thousands of naval personnel who work tirelessly to keep our waters safe. India has a coastline of over 7,500 kilometres, and protecting it requires constant vigilance. The Indian Navy guards our maritime borders, helps during natural disasters, rescues people in trouble at sea, and ensures that trade ships can travel safely along our coast.The theme for Navy Day 2025 is "Combat Ready, Cohesive and Self-Reliant." This theme emphasises three important qualities—being always prepared for action, working together as one unified force, and relying on our own strength and technology rather than depending on other countries. Under the government's Make in India initiative, the Indian Navy is increasingly using warships, submarines and equipment built right here in our country. This not only makes us stronger but also creates jobs and boosts our economy.This year's main celebrations took place at Shangumugham Beach in Thiruvananthapuram on 03 and 04 December. The Navy deliberately holds these demonstrations outside major naval bases so that more people, especially those from different parts of the country, can witness the Navy's capabilities firsthand. President Droupadi Murmu, the Supreme Commander of our Armed Forces, was the chief guest, along with Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Governor Rajendra Arlekar, and Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Dinesh Kumar Tripathi.The operational demonstration was a spectacular display of India's maritime power. Around twenty major warships and submarines, along with thirty-two aircraft including fighter jets and helicopters, participated in coordinated manoeuvres. Thousands of people gathered on the beach, their eyes fixed on the sea and sky as the action unfolded before them. The star attraction was INS Vikrant, India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, built at Cochin Shipyard—a matter of immense national pride. When a fighter jet roared off the deck of INS Vikrant, the crowd erupted in cheers and applause. The demonstration also featured an anti-piracy operation by MARCOS, our elite naval commandos, formation flying by aircraft, paragliding displays, and a showcase of frontline frigates and missile corvettes. The Sea Cadet Corps performed the traditional Hornpipe dance, and cultural programmes along with a fireworks display added colour and joy to the celebrations.Navy Day reminds us that while we go about our daily lives—studying, working, celebrating—there are brave men and women aboard ships far out at sea, ensuring our safety and protecting our interests. It is a day to feel proud of our maritime heritage and to recognise the sacrifices made by our naval personnel and their families.&nbsp;

On 04 December 1971, during the India-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy carried out a bold and successful operation that changed naval warfare in our region. 

On 04 December every year, India celebrates Navy Day with great pride and enthusiasm. This special day is not just about parades and displays; it marks an important moment in our country's military history and honours the brave sailors who protect our seas day and night. The story of Navy Day goes back to 1944 when the Royal Indian Navy first celebrated it on 21 October. The goal was simple—to make more people aware of the Navy's role in protecting the country. They organised parades in coastal cities like Bombay and Karachi, and held public meetings in places far from the sea. The response was wonderful. People were excited to learn about their Navy, and the events created a wave of patriotic feelings across the nation. Encouraged by this success, naval authorities decided to make it an annual celebration. The date was shifted to 01 December in 1945 to take advantage of cooler weather, making it more comfortable for outdoor events. For many years after that, Navy Day was observed on 15 December, with the entire week around this date celebrated as Navy Week. However, in May 1972, during an important meeting of senior naval officers, a historic decision was made. They chose to move Navy Day to 04 December, and there was a powerful reason behind this choice. On 04 December 1971, during the India-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy carried out a bold and successful operation that changed naval warfare in our region. Indian missile boats launched a devastating attack on Pakistan's Karachi Harbour, the heart of their naval operations. This surprise assault, known as Operation Trident, destroyed fuel storage tanks, supply ships and important shore facilities. The attack not only caused massive damage but also showed the world that India had a strong and capable Navy. At the same time, aircraft operating from INS Vikrant, India's aircraft carrier, struck enemy airfields in Chittagong and Khulna, areas that are now part of Bangladesh. These coordinated attacks from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal demonstrated excellent planning, courage and teamwork. The operation was a turning point, helping India achieve a decisive victory in the 1971 war. This is why 04 December was chosen—to remember and celebrate India's first major naval offensive. Today, Navy Day is celebrated to honour not just that historic victory, but also the daily dedication and sacrifice of thousands of naval personnel who work tirelessly to keep our waters safe. India has a coastline of over 7,500 kilometres, and protecting it requires constant vigilance. The Indian Navy guards our maritime borders, helps during natural disasters, rescues people in trouble at sea, and ensures that trade ships can travel safely along our coast. The theme for Navy Day 2025 is "Combat Ready, Cohesive and Self-Reliant." This theme emphasises three important qualities—being always prepared for action, working together as one unified force, and relying on our own strength and technology rather than depending on other countries. Under the government's Make in India initiative, the Indian Navy is increasingly using warships, submarines and equipment built right here in our country. This not only makes us stronger but also creates jobs and boosts our economy. This year's main celebrations took place at Shangumugham Beach in Thiruvananthapuram on 03 and 04 December. The Navy deliberately holds these demonstrations outside major naval bases so that more people, especially those from different parts of the country, can witness the Navy's capabilities firsthand. President Droupadi Murmu, the Supreme Commander of our Armed Forces, was the chief guest, along with Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Governor Rajendra Arlekar, and Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Dinesh Kumar Tripathi. The operational demonstration was a spectacular display of India's maritime power. Around twenty major warships and submarines, along with thirty-two aircraft including fighter jets and helicopters, participated in coordinated manoeuvres. Thousands of people gathered on the beach, their eyes fixed on the sea and sky as the action unfolded before them. The star attraction was INS Vikrant, India's first indigenous aircraft carrier, built at Cochin Shipyard—a matter of immense national pride. When a fighter jet roared off the deck of INS Vikrant, the crowd erupted in cheers and applause. The demonstration also featured an anti-piracy operation by MARCOS, our elite naval commandos, formation flying by aircraft, paragliding displays, and a showcase of frontline frigates and missile corvettes. The Sea Cadet Corps performed the traditional Hornpipe dance, and cultural programmes along with a fireworks display added colour and joy to the celebrations. Navy Day reminds us that while we go about our daily lives—studying, working, celebrating—there are brave men and women aboard ships far out at sea, ensuring our safety and protecting our interests. It is a day to feel proud of our maritime heritage and to recognise the sacrifices made by our naval personnel and their families.

On 04 December 1971, during the India-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy carried out a bold and successful operation that changed naval warfare in our region.&nbsp;

Operation Trident: Why India celebrates Navy Day on December 4th

Russia President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming visit to India will invite inevitable pundit fatigue: another summit, another handshake, another round of diplomatic boilerplate. But reducing this moment to routine would be a mistake. His arrival in New Delhi, his first major visit after travelling to the US and China, and his first to India since the Ukraine war upended Russia’s global standing, carries far more weight than its ceremonial packaging.&nbsp;This is not just a bilateral meeting. It is a geopolitical signal, a strategic recalibration, and a diplomatic test for India in a world that has become increasingly bipolar. It is a moment that tells us how much has changed in the global order, and how much India’s choices now matter in shaping it.<h2>A visit two years in the making</h2>For nearly two years, Vladimir Putin avoided major global gatherings, not because of logistical constraints, but because of the political and legal storm surrounding him. He skipped the G20 Summit in New Delhi. He avoided BRICS and multiple multilateral events where his presence would have been overshadowed by the Ukraine war, sanctions, and the ICC arrest warrant. Against that backdrop, the decision to travel to India is not casual; it is deliberate.&nbsp;This visit is Putin’s biggest political bet after his trips to China and the US. Those two capitals symbolise the polar ends of global power. India represents something else entirely: the swing power in the middle, whose partnership Russia cannot afford to lose. And for India, hosting Putin at this juncture is equally meaningful. It is a quiet assertion of strategic autonomy, a reminder that New Delhi charts its own geopolitical course, and a signal to the world that India will not be pressured into taking sides in the new Cold War.&nbsp;At a time when Washington, Brussels and even some Asian partners anticipate a slow distancing between India and Russia, New Delhi has sent a different message: that engagement with Moscow is not a relic of the past, it is a calculation for the future.<h2>Defence, energy, and the China factor — The real agenda behind closed doors</h2>The India–Russia relationship is often described as “historic,” but the real glue today is pragmatic, not sentimental.Defence: A partnership both rely on, even reluctantly. Despite diversification, the backbone of India’s military still rests on Russian equipment, from fighters and tanks to submarines and missile systems. The Ukraine war highlighted Russia’s own challenges with supply chains and production capacity, raising new questions about long-term reliability. Yet for India, switching away entirely is neither strategically wise nor financially feasible.&nbsp;This visit will likely reaffirm: S-400 delivery timelines, joint development projects, long-term maintenance and spare-parts commitments and possible next-generation naval and aerospace collaborations.&nbsp;India does not want dependence; Russia cannot afford abandonment. Both sides know the relationship isn’t perfect, but neither can walk away from it.<h2>Energy: The quiet revolution powering the partnership</h2>If defence built the old relationship, energy is shaping the new one. Since 2022, India’s purchase of discounted Russian crude has not only softened global energy inflation but strengthened India’s economic resilience. For Russia, India has become an indispensable customer, a lifeline that keeps Moscow’s war economy afloat amid sanctions. Expect the summit to push: Multi-year oil supply commitments, new LNG and gas frameworks, rupee-rouble trade mechanisms, eastern arctic and far-east energy investments. This is not transactional anymore, it is structural.<h2>China: The silent presence at every India–Russia talk</h2>Russia today leans heavily on China. India’s biggest strategic threat is China. This contradiction sits at the centre of India–Russia ties. But here lies the paradoxical logic: The more Russia tilts toward China, the more India needs to keep Moscow close. If Russia becomes fully dependent on Beijing, India loses a balancing lever in Eurasia. Putin’s visit is therefore as much about India–Russia relations as it is about preventing a Moscow–Beijing duopoly.<h2>Modi–Putin: A personal equation that simplifies a complex relationship</h2>Diplomacy is often framed as systems, strategies and institutions. But at the highest level, personal chemistry matters, sometimes more than written agreements. The Modi–Putin dynamic has been unusually resilient. Both leaders value directness, dislike moralistic diplomacy, and prefer transactional clarity. More importantly, both have political longevity and governance continuity — a rarity in global politics today.&nbsp;This personal comfort zone has allowed the two countries to weather difficult phases: India refusing to condemn Russia at the UN, Moscow’s deepening embrace of China, New Delhi’s growing closeness with Washington, Western pressure on India for buying Russian oil and &nbsp;Russian delays in defence deliveries due to the Ukraine war.&nbsp;A weaker relationship at the leadership level might have collapsed under this strain. Instead, it has adapted. Putin calling Modi a “dear friend” is not just diplomatic flattery. It is a recognition that India is one of the few major powers with whom Russia can engage without ideological baggage or conditionalities. This rapport gives India something priceless: leverage. And leverage gives India what every rising power needs: options.<h2>This is not another summit</h2>Putin’s India visit is not routine diplomacy. It is a turning point disguised as a familiar ritual. It reminds us that great-power politics today is not about flags, alliances or ideological blocs. It is about managed contradictions, overlapping partnerships, and the quiet assertion of national interest. For Russia, India offers relevance. For India, Russia offers leverage. For the world, this visit is another sign that multipolarity is no longer a concept, it is already here.&nbsp;Whether this summit becomes a foundation for a renewed partnership or merely a moment of geopolitical theatre will depend on what Modi and Putin choose to shape behind closed doors. But one thing is clear: This is not just another summit. This is a statement, about India’s autonomy, Russia’s needs, and the new shape of the international order.&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-Russia Summit 2025: Why Russian President Vladimir Putin’s India trip actually matters and why the West will be watching every move

Russia President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming visit to India will invite inevitable pundit fatigue: another summit, another handshake, another round of diplomatic boilerplate. But reducing this moment to routine would be a mistake. His arrival in New Delhi, his first major visit after travelling to the US and China, and his first to India since the Ukraine war upended Russia’s global standing, carries far more weight than its ceremonial packaging. This is not just a bilateral meeting. It is a geopolitical signal, a strategic recalibration, and a diplomatic test for India in a world that has become increasingly bipolar. It is a moment that tells us how much has changed in the global order, and how much India’s choices now matter in shaping it. A visit two years in the making For nearly two years, Vladimir Putin avoided major global gatherings, not because of logistical constraints, but because of the political and legal storm surrounding him. He skipped the G20 Summit in New Delhi. He avoided BRICS and multiple multilateral events where his presence would have been overshadowed by the Ukraine war, sanctions, and the ICC arrest warrant. Against that backdrop, the decision to travel to India is not casual; it is deliberate. This visit is Putin’s biggest political bet after his trips to China and the US. Those two capitals symbolise the polar ends of global power. India represents something else entirely: the swing power in the middle, whose partnership Russia cannot afford to lose. And for India, hosting Putin at this juncture is equally meaningful. It is a quiet assertion of strategic autonomy, a reminder that New Delhi charts its own geopolitical course, and a signal to the world that India will not be pressured into taking sides in the new Cold War. At a time when Washington, Brussels and even some Asian partners anticipate a slow distancing between India and Russia, New Delhi has sent a different message: that engagement with Moscow is not a relic of the past, it is a calculation for the future. Defence, energy, and the China factor — The real agenda behind closed doors The India–Russia relationship is often described as “historic,” but the real glue today is pragmatic, not sentimental. Defence: A partnership both rely on, even reluctantly. Despite diversification, the backbone of India’s military still rests on Russian equipment, from fighters and tanks to submarines and missile systems. The Ukraine war highlighted Russia’s own challenges with supply chains and production capacity, raising new questions about long-term reliability. Yet for India, switching away entirely is neither strategically wise nor financially feasible. This visit will likely reaffirm: S-400 delivery timelines, joint development projects, long-term maintenance and spare-parts commitments and possible next-generation naval and aerospace collaborations. India does not want dependence; Russia cannot afford abandonment. Both sides know the relationship isn’t perfect, but neither can walk away from it. Energy: The quiet revolution powering the partnership If defence built the old relationship, energy is shaping the new one. Since 2022, India’s purchase of discounted Russian crude has not only softened global energy inflation but strengthened India’s economic resilience. For Russia, India has become an indispensable customer, a lifeline that keeps Moscow’s war economy afloat amid sanctions. Expect the summit to push: Multi-year oil supply commitments, new LNG and gas frameworks, rupee-rouble trade mechanisms, eastern arctic and far-east energy investments. This is not transactional anymore, it is structural. China: The silent presence at every India–Russia talk Russia today leans heavily on China. India’s biggest strategic threat is China. This contradiction sits at the centre of India–Russia ties. But here lies the paradoxical logic: The more Russia tilts toward China, the more India needs to keep Moscow close. If Russia becomes fully dependent on Beijing, India loses a balancing lever in Eurasia. Putin’s visit is therefore as much about India–Russia relations as it is about preventing a Moscow–Beijing duopoly. Modi–Putin: A personal equation that simplifies a complex relationship Diplomacy is often framed as systems, strategies and institutions. But at the highest level, personal chemistry matters, sometimes more than written agreements. The Modi–Putin dynamic has been unusually resilient. Both leaders value directness, dislike moralistic diplomacy, and prefer transactional clarity. More importantly, both have political longevity and governance continuity — a rarity in global politics today. This personal comfort zone has allowed the two countries to weather difficult phases: India refusing to condemn Russia at the UN, Moscow’s deepening embrace of China, New Delhi’s growing closeness with Washington, Western pressure on India for buying Russian oil and Russian delays in defence deliveries due to the Ukraine war. A weaker relationship at the leadership level might have collapsed under this strain. Instead, it has adapted. Putin calling Modi a “dear friend” is not just diplomatic flattery. It is a recognition that India is one of the few major powers with whom Russia can engage without ideological baggage or conditionalities. This rapport gives India something priceless: leverage. And leverage gives India what every rising power needs: options. This is not another summit Putin’s India visit is not routine diplomacy. It is a turning point disguised as a familiar ritual. It reminds us that great-power politics today is not about flags, alliances or ideological blocs. It is about managed contradictions, overlapping partnerships, and the quiet assertion of national interest. For Russia, India offers relevance. For India, Russia offers leverage. For the world, this visit is another sign that multipolarity is no longer a concept, it is already here. Whether this summit becomes a foundation for a renewed partnership or merely a moment of geopolitical theatre will depend on what Modi and Putin choose to shape behind closed doors. But one thing is clear: This is not just another summit. This is a statement, about India’s autonomy, Russia’s needs, and the new shape of the international order. 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.

Putin’s India visit signals strategic autonomy, deepening defence and energy ties, and India’s growing role as a key balancer in an increasingly polarised world

India’s Chief of Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi, will undertake an official visit to Sri Lanka on 1–2 December 2025. At a superficial glance, it may appear to be another entry in the calendar of military diplomacy. In reality, the visit marks a significant moment — a strategic punctuation point in a year that has seen India–Sri Lanka defence ties advance with unusual consistency, professionalism and mutual assurance. It is the culmination of a sequence of engagements that reflect not episodic goodwill, but a deeper institutional maturity taking root between the two Armies.The visit follows a deliberate chain of high-level interactions. The Sri Lanka Army Commander’s official visit to India in June 2025 — where he returned to the Indian Military Academy (IMA) after more than three decades to review the Passing Out Parade — set the emotional and symbolic tone for the year. The Indian Navy Chief’s visit to Colombo in September reinforced the widening maritime axis of cooperation. Earlier, General M.M. Naravane’s 2021 visit, during which he engaged with Sri Lanka’s senior leadership and observed Exercise Mitra Shakti, had laid important professional foundations. These visits did not stand alone; taken together, they point to a defence relationship that has moved beyond individual personalities or convenient public moments.The December visit must be viewed against this continuum. It reflects the practical expression of India’s Neighbourhood First policy — a policy grounded not merely in diplomatic language, but in long-term commitments to stability, trust and capability-building within the Indian Ocean Region. India has never treated its ties with Sri Lanka as transactional. Instead, the partnership has been built through a patient, steady investment in Sri Lanka’s security capacity, whether through training, doctrine, maritime surveillance, cyber resilience or peacekeeping preparation.The conversations expected during the Army Chief’s visit will be substantive. Both Armies carry deep, lived experience in counter-terrorism and sub-conventional operations. India’s operational history — from the Northeast to Punjab to Jammu &amp; Kashmir — has shaped a sophisticated understanding of asymmetric conflict. Sri Lanka’s own experience in navigating internal security challenges offers perspectives that few militaries possess. Such shared operational memory creates rare intellectual common ground. It allows both sides to speak the same tactical language, interpret threats through comparable lenses, and identify realistic areas for collaboration.This alignment extends beyond classical operations. The two Armies are increasingly aware of emerging threats: the vulnerabilities introduced by unmanned systems, the challenges of network security, the strategic leverage created by space-based monitoring, and the speed with which cyber incidents can destabilise national decision cycles. These are no longer futuristic concerns — they are part of the contemporary operating environment and demand a shared professional vocabulary. Maritime security, too, has become an essential area of convergence. Both nations operate in a region marked by great-power assertions, contested waters, and the risks of grey-zone activity. In such an environment, coordinated maritime domain awareness and interoperable decision loops are no longer optional.Peacekeeping remains another strong pillar. India has long been recognised as one of the UN’s most dependable troop contributors. Sri Lanka has made steady contributions of its own. The United Nations Troop Contributing Countries Chiefs’ Conclave in New Delhi in October 2025 reflected this shared stake. There is considerable scope for both countries to refine their understanding of UN mandates, protection-of-civilians frameworks, quick-impact operations and mission-specific challenges — and to build compatible training modules that prepare troops for complex theatres in Africa and West Asia.The strategic convergence that frames the Chief’s visit is not confined to the military realm. Both India and Sri Lanka uphold strategic autonomy. Both recognise that security today is shaped not merely by territorial threats, but by globalised economic flows, maritime chokepoints, information networks and technological dependencies. Both have confronted terrorism directly and understand the cost of internal vulnerabilities. This common experience has created a pragmatic alignment that is not dictated by ideology or external pressures, but by the necessities of regional stability.This alignment is increasingly visible in multilateral platforms. Sri Lanka’s support for India’s aspirations within the United Nations system reflects confidence, not obligation. India’s support for Sri Lanka’s engagement with emerging groupings such as BRICS reflects acknowledgement of Sri Lanka’s strategic space, not patronage. These mutual positions demonstrate a partnership that respects sovereignty while advancing shared interests.The timing of the visit is particularly significant. By concluding a year in which senior military leaders from both countries have travelled across each other’s capitals, the Army Chief’s visit completes a full cycle of 2025’s engagement. It signals a transition: India–Sri Lanka defence ties are no longer characterised by occasional enthusiasm followed by long pauses. They now exhibit continuity, rhythm and professional predictability. They are becoming institutionalised — anchored in standing mechanisms, structured interactions, and regularised pathways for cooperation.Institutionalisation is perhaps the strongest marker of strategic maturity. It means that when political cycles shift, defence cooperation does not falter. It ensures that younger officers on both sides, trained together at IMA, DSSC or CIJWS, will inherit a living framework rather than a hollow shell. It means that when crises emerge — whether at sea, in cyber networks or on land — both Armies already understand each other’s processes, planning assumptions and operational instincts.The visit also takes place in a year when both Armies have demonstrated the confidence to acknowledge their shared history with clarity. India’s formal commemoration of the IPKF fallen at the National War Memorial in November 2025, and the Sri Lanka Army Commander’s wreath-laying at the same memorial earlier in the year, revealed a relationship mature enough to honour its past without allowing it to define the future. Such gestures are quiet, dignified and deeply meaningful. They reflect professionalism, not sentimentality; respect, not reticence.Seen from this perspective, the December visit honours a long lineage of cooperation and sacrifice. It acknowledges that India–Sri Lanka military ties have been shaped not only in conference rooms but in difficult operations, complex missions and shared experiences. It recognises 2025 as a year of systematic trust-building — not a sequence of gestures, but a steady expansion of institutional cooperation.Looking ahead, the visit will help shape the next phase of the partnership. The discussions in Colombo will influence the direction of training integration, maritime coordination, peacekeeping preparation and cyber-technical cooperation. They will reinforce the growing role of the Colombo Security Conclave as a regional security compact. And they will help define a shared approach to an Indian Ocean that is increasingly contested by actors far removed from the region’s interests.The Army Chief's visit is more than an official engagement. It is a marker of trust, continuity and strategic convergence. It reflects a defence relationship that has matured beyond personalities and grounded itself in values, institutions and shared purpose. For two nations linked by history, geography and the experiences of soldiers who have served through difficult times, the December 2025 visit stands as a testament to how far the partnership has travelled — and how much further it is poised to go.Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The conversations expected during the Army Chief’s visit will be substantive. Both Armies carry deep, lived experience in counter-terrorism and sub-conventional operations.

India’s Chief of Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi, will undertake an official visit to Sri Lanka on 1–2 December 2025. At a superficial glance, it may appear to be another entry in the calendar of military diplomacy. In reality, the visit marks a significant moment — a strategic punctuation point in a year that has seen India–Sri Lanka defence ties advance with unusual consistency, professionalism and mutual assurance. It is the culmination of a sequence of engagements that reflect not episodic goodwill, but a deeper institutional maturity taking root between the two Armies. The visit follows a deliberate chain of high-level interactions. The Sri Lanka Army Commander’s official visit to India in June 2025 — where he returned to the Indian Military Academy (IMA) after more than three decades to review the Passing Out Parade — set the emotional and symbolic tone for the year. The Indian Navy Chief’s visit to Colombo in September reinforced the widening maritime axis of cooperation. Earlier, General M.M. Naravane’s 2021 visit, during which he engaged with Sri Lanka’s senior leadership and observed Exercise Mitra Shakti, had laid important professional foundations. These visits did not stand alone; taken together, they point to a defence relationship that has moved beyond individual personalities or convenient public moments. The December visit must be viewed against this continuum. It reflects the practical expression of India’s Neighbourhood First policy — a policy grounded not merely in diplomatic language, but in long-term commitments to stability, trust and capability-building within the Indian Ocean Region. India has never treated its ties with Sri Lanka as transactional. Instead, the partnership has been built through a patient, steady investment in Sri Lanka’s security capacity, whether through training, doctrine, maritime surveillance, cyber resilience or peacekeeping preparation. The conversations expected during the Army Chief’s visit will be substantive. Both Armies carry deep, lived experience in counter-terrorism and sub-conventional operations. India’s operational history — from the Northeast to Punjab to Jammu & Kashmir — has shaped a sophisticated understanding of asymmetric conflict. Sri Lanka’s own experience in navigating internal security challenges offers perspectives that few militaries possess. Such shared operational memory creates rare intellectual common ground. It allows both sides to speak the same tactical language, interpret threats through comparable lenses, and identify realistic areas for collaboration. This alignment extends beyond classical operations. The two Armies are increasingly aware of emerging threats: the vulnerabilities introduced by unmanned systems, the challenges of network security, the strategic leverage created by space-based monitoring, and the speed with which cyber incidents can destabilise national decision cycles. These are no longer futuristic concerns — they are part of the contemporary operating environment and demand a shared professional vocabulary. Maritime security, too, has become an essential area of convergence. Both nations operate in a region marked by great-power assertions, contested waters, and the risks of grey-zone activity. In such an environment, coordinated maritime domain awareness and interoperable decision loops are no longer optional. Peacekeeping remains another strong pillar. India has long been recognised as one of the UN’s most dependable troop contributors. Sri Lanka has made steady contributions of its own. The United Nations Troop Contributing Countries Chiefs’ Conclave in New Delhi in October 2025 reflected this shared stake. There is considerable scope for both countries to refine their understanding of UN mandates, protection-of-civilians frameworks, quick-impact operations and mission-specific challenges — and to build compatible training modules that prepare troops for complex theatres in Africa and West Asia. The strategic convergence that frames the Chief’s visit is not confined to the military realm. Both India and Sri Lanka uphold strategic autonomy. Both recognise that security today is shaped not merely by territorial threats, but by globalised economic flows, maritime chokepoints, information networks and technological dependencies. Both have confronted terrorism directly and understand the cost of internal vulnerabilities. This common experience has created a pragmatic alignment that is not dictated by ideology or external pressures, but by the necessities of regional stability. This alignment is increasingly visible in multilateral platforms. Sri Lanka’s support for India’s aspirations within the United Nations system reflects confidence, not obligation. India’s support for Sri Lanka’s engagement with emerging groupings such as BRICS reflects acknowledgement of Sri Lanka’s strategic space, not patronage. These mutual positions demonstrate a partnership that respects sovereignty while advancing shared interests. The timing of the visit is particularly significant. By concluding a year in which senior military leaders from both countries have travelled across each other’s capitals, the Army Chief’s visit completes a full cycle of 2025’s engagement. It signals a transition: India–Sri Lanka defence ties are no longer characterised by occasional enthusiasm followed by long pauses. They now exhibit continuity, rhythm and professional predictability. They are becoming institutionalised — anchored in standing mechanisms, structured interactions, and regularised pathways for cooperation. Institutionalisation is perhaps the strongest marker of strategic maturity. It means that when political cycles shift, defence cooperation does not falter. It ensures that younger officers on both sides, trained together at IMA, DSSC or CIJWS, will inherit a living framework rather than a hollow shell. It means that when crises emerge — whether at sea, in cyber networks or on land — both Armies already understand each other’s processes, planning assumptions and operational instincts. The visit also takes place in a year when both Armies have demonstrated the confidence to acknowledge their shared history with clarity. India’s formal commemoration of the IPKF fallen at the National War Memorial in November 2025, and the Sri Lanka Army Commander’s wreath-laying at the same memorial earlier in the year, revealed a relationship mature enough to honour its past without allowing it to define the future. Such gestures are quiet, dignified and deeply meaningful. They reflect professionalism, not sentimentality; respect, not reticence. Seen from this perspective, the December visit honours a long lineage of cooperation and sacrifice. It acknowledges that India–Sri Lanka military ties have been shaped not only in conference rooms but in difficult operations, complex missions and shared experiences. It recognises 2025 as a year of systematic trust-building — not a sequence of gestures, but a steady expansion of institutional cooperation. Looking ahead, the visit will help shape the next phase of the partnership. The discussions in Colombo will influence the direction of training integration, maritime coordination, peacekeeping preparation and cyber-technical cooperation. They will reinforce the growing role of the Colombo Security Conclave as a regional security compact. And they will help define a shared approach to an Indian Ocean that is increasingly contested by actors far removed from the region’s interests. The Army Chief's visit is more than an official engagement. It is a marker of trust, continuity and strategic convergence. It reflects a defence relationship that has matured beyond personalities and grounded itself in values, institutions and shared purpose. For two nations linked by history, geography and the experiences of soldiers who have served through difficult times, the December 2025 visit stands as a testament to how far the partnership has travelled — and how much further it is poised to go. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The conversations expected during the Army Chief’s visit will be substantive. Both Armies carry deep, lived experience in counter-terrorism and sub-conventional operations.

A year of deepening defence ties: Why the Indian army chief’s Sri Lanka visit matters

On November 27, thousands of angry people gathered outside Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. They were shouting, demanding answers, refusing to leave. An Afghan news outlet had just reported something shocking: Imran Khan, Pakistan's jailed former Prime Minister, might be dead. Nobody had seen or heard from him in four weeks. No family visits, no lawyer meetings, no phone calls. Complete silence. The rumour spread like wildfire, and suddenly Pakistan's military government had a crisis on its hands. They rushed to deny it, but the damage was done. The question everyone asked was simple: if Imran Khan is alive, why are you so afraid to show him?This wasn't the first time death rumours about Khan had circulated, but this time felt different. Court orders allowing weekly family visits were simply ignored. His wife, his party leaders, even his lawyers had no idea whether he was alive or dead. Jail officials had no explanation. Punjab's senior police officers stayed silent. For a government that claims to be in control, the panic was obvious. And the man behind this secrecy is General Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, who controls the entire country but is absolutely terrified of one prisoner.The hatred between Munir and Khan is deeply personal, and it goes back years. Asim Munir isn't like other Pakistani generals. Most come from elite military families and train in British or American academies. Munir's father was a school principal and mosque imam who fled Jalandhar during Partition. Young Munir studied first in an Islamic madrasa, memorised the entire Quran, and became a Hafiz-e-Quran. He didn't attend Pakistan's prestigious Military Academy but graduated from a lesser-known training school. Ramanathan Kumar, who led the Pakistan desk in India's intelligence agency R&amp;AW from 2015 to 2020, told The Indian Express that Munir is Pakistan's first "mullah general". He's a product of General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamic era, when beards grew longer and Quranic verses appeared on army notice boards. Today, Munir quotes Islamic teachings in fluent Arabic during speeches, presenting himself as a religious warrior leading a holy army.But in 2018, when Munir became ISI chief, Pakistan's most powerful spy agency, religion didn't stop him from making enemies. He reportedly wanted to investigate corruption allegations against Bushra Bibi, Imran Khan's wife. Khan, who was then Prime Minister, was furious. He forced the Army Chief at that time, General Bajwa, to remove Munir from the ISI after just eight months, the shortest tenure ever. Munir was humiliated, sent off to command a regular corps in Gujranwala. For someone who had controlled Pakistan's deadliest intelligence network, this was an insult he would never forget.The tables turned dramatically in November 2022 when Munir became Army Chief, just three days before his planned retirement. Within months, Imran Khan was ousted from power through a no-confidence vote that many believe the army orchestrated. By August 2023, Khan was behind bars on corruption charges his supporters call completely fake. Since then, he's been locked up for over 840 days, and Munir has made sure Khan stays there.But here's the twist that makes this story explosive. Despite controlling Pakistan's entire military machine, Munir is terrified of Khan. Why? Because Khan isn't just a politician or former cricket hero. He's a Pathan, a Pashtun, and he represents something guns and tanks cannot defeat. Pakistan has always been dominated by Punjabis who run the army, government, and economy. Pathans have felt pushed aside for decades, angry since the 1970s about being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. That resentment has only grown worse. Today, many Pashtuns are joining Baloch separatists, openly challenging what they see as Punjabi military oppression.Imran Khan has become the living symbol of Pathan resistance. When the November 27 death rumours spread, the reaction proved exactly what Munir fears most. Thousands instantly mobilised. If Khan had actually been killed, experts warned that riots could erupt from Khyber to Kandahar. Indian filmmaker Abhilash Badli told India Today that the regime fears even a thirty-second video of Khan could trigger nationwide protests. If a government is scared to show a prisoner's face, something is seriously wrong.The situation is getting worse for Munir. Pakistan recently bombed Afghanistan, killing civilians in Khost and Paktika. They've forced millions of Afghan refugees back in freezing weather. Pashtuns on both sides of the border are calling it Punjabi aggression. Meanwhile, targeted killings in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have become routine. Militants hijacked the Jaffar Express train, killing sixty-four people. The country is falling apart, and Munir knows releasing Khan could cause an explosion he cannot control.Munir recently gave himself sweeping powers through a constitutional amendment, becoming Chief of Defence Forces with lifetime immunity. He's legally untouchable now. Yet one imprisoned man keeps him awake at night. Khan's party said it perfectly: a powerless and insecure dictator pretending to be a general cannot silence a nation awakened by truth.The brutal irony is that jailing Khan has backfired completely. Instead of breaking his spirit, it's made him a martyr. His popularity keeps growing. For Munir, Khan is like a bone stuck in the throat—impossible to swallow, impossible to remove. This battle reveals Pakistan's deepest wound: Punjabi military control versus Pathan pride, an old dictator versus a new generation's rage. And right now, the general with all the power is losing to the prisoner with nothing but his voice.

Here's the twist that makes this story explosive. Despite controlling Pakistan's entire military machine, Munir is terrified of Khan. Why? 

On November 27, thousands of angry people gathered outside Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. They were shouting, demanding answers, refusing to leave. An Afghan news outlet had just reported something shocking: Imran Khan, Pakistan's jailed former Prime Minister, might be dead. Nobody had seen or heard from him in four weeks. No family visits, no lawyer meetings, no phone calls. Complete silence. The rumour spread like wildfire, and suddenly Pakistan's military government had a crisis on its hands. They rushed to deny it, but the damage was done. The question everyone asked was simple: if Imran Khan is alive, why are you so afraid to show him? This wasn't the first time death rumours about Khan had circulated, but this time felt different. Court orders allowing weekly family visits were simply ignored. His wife, his party leaders, even his lawyers had no idea whether he was alive or dead. Jail officials had no explanation. Punjab's senior police officers stayed silent. For a government that claims to be in control, the panic was obvious. And the man behind this secrecy is General Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, who controls the entire country but is absolutely terrified of one prisoner. The hatred between Munir and Khan is deeply personal, and it goes back years. Asim Munir isn't like other Pakistani generals. Most come from elite military families and train in British or American academies. Munir's father was a school principal and mosque imam who fled Jalandhar during Partition. Young Munir studied first in an Islamic madrasa, memorised the entire Quran, and became a Hafiz-e-Quran. He didn't attend Pakistan's prestigious Military Academy but graduated from a lesser-known training school. Ramanathan Kumar, who led the Pakistan desk in India's intelligence agency R&AW from 2015 to 2020, told The Indian Express that Munir is Pakistan's first "mullah general". He's a product of General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamic era, when beards grew longer and Quranic verses appeared on army notice boards. Today, Munir quotes Islamic teachings in fluent Arabic during speeches, presenting himself as a religious warrior leading a holy army. But in 2018, when Munir became ISI chief, Pakistan's most powerful spy agency, religion didn't stop him from making enemies. He reportedly wanted to investigate corruption allegations against Bushra Bibi, Imran Khan's wife. Khan, who was then Prime Minister, was furious. He forced the Army Chief at that time, General Bajwa, to remove Munir from the ISI after just eight months, the shortest tenure ever. Munir was humiliated, sent off to command a regular corps in Gujranwala. For someone who had controlled Pakistan's deadliest intelligence network, this was an insult he would never forget. The tables turned dramatically in November 2022 when Munir became Army Chief, just three days before his planned retirement. Within months, Imran Khan was ousted from power through a no-confidence vote that many believe the army orchestrated. By August 2023, Khan was behind bars on corruption charges his supporters call completely fake. Since then, he's been locked up for over 840 days, and Munir has made sure Khan stays there. But here's the twist that makes this story explosive. Despite controlling Pakistan's entire military machine, Munir is terrified of Khan. Why? Because Khan isn't just a politician or former cricket hero. He's a Pathan, a Pashtun, and he represents something guns and tanks cannot defeat. Pakistan has always been dominated by Punjabis who run the army, government, and economy. Pathans have felt pushed aside for decades, angry since the 1970s about being treated as second-class citizens in their own country. That resentment has only grown worse. Today, many Pashtuns are joining Baloch separatists, openly challenging what they see as Punjabi military oppression. Imran Khan has become the living symbol of Pathan resistance. When the November 27 death rumours spread, the reaction proved exactly what Munir fears most. Thousands instantly mobilised. If Khan had actually been killed, experts warned that riots could erupt from Khyber to Kandahar. Indian filmmaker Abhilash Badli told India Today that the regime fears even a thirty-second video of Khan could trigger nationwide protests. If a government is scared to show a prisoner's face, something is seriously wrong. The situation is getting worse for Munir. Pakistan recently bombed Afghanistan, killing civilians in Khost and Paktika. They've forced millions of Afghan refugees back in freezing weather. Pashtuns on both sides of the border are calling it Punjabi aggression. Meanwhile, targeted killings in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have become routine. Militants hijacked the Jaffar Express train, killing sixty-four people. The country is falling apart, and Munir knows releasing Khan could cause an explosion he cannot control. Munir recently gave himself sweeping powers through a constitutional amendment, becoming Chief of Defence Forces with lifetime immunity. He's legally untouchable now. Yet one imprisoned man keeps him awake at night. Khan's party said it perfectly: a powerless and insecure dictator pretending to be a general cannot silence a nation awakened by truth. The brutal irony is that jailing Khan has backfired completely. Instead of breaking his spirit, it's made him a martyr. His popularity keeps growing. For Munir, Khan is like a bone stuck in the throat—impossible to swallow, impossible to remove. This battle reveals Pakistan's deepest wound: Punjabi military control versus Pathan pride, an old dictator versus a new generation's rage. And right now, the general with all the power is losing to the prisoner with nothing but his voice.

Here's the twist that makes this story explosive. Despite controlling Pakistan's entire military machine, Munir is terrified of Khan. Why?&nbsp;

The bone in the throat: Munir's unwinnable war against Imran Khan

Over the past three months, the United States has assembled the biggest naval force in six decades in the Caribbean, a move that prompted a pithy analysis from Venezuela’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro: “regime change through military threat.”&nbsp;The threat is awe-inspiring. In the blue waters off Venezuela, you have America’s biggest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, along with six guided missile destroyers and cruisers, two amphibious readiness vessels carrying 2,200 Marines, at least one nuclear submarine, and a ship used for special operations forces.&nbsp;Reminiscent of the 19th-century gunboat diplomacy, the big naval powers of the time used to bend smaller countries to their will, the Caribbean operation is the biggest since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It involves around 15,000 sailors and marines.&nbsp;The first strike in what a cynic might describe as a phoney war against a non-existent drug cartel led by Maduro came on September 2, when a missile fired from a US Reaper drone blew to bits a speedboat in international waters off Venezuela. US officials said the strike was necessary to prevent the boat from carrying drugs to the US.&nbsp;Since everybody on board died and the cargo sank to the bottom of the sea, what or who was on board remains a mystery. With one exception, that is true for 11 strikes on boats allegedly loaded with drugs in the Caribbean and another 11 in the Eastern Pacific. &nbsp;&nbsp;The one exception was an American strike on a semi-submersible on October 16. Two of the crew were killed, and two survived. One was an Ecuadorian national, the other Colombian. They were rescued by helicopter, taken to a Navy ship, swiftly repatriated to their home countries, and released there without charges.&nbsp;Blowing up suspected drug-carrying boats is in sharp contrast to decades of previous practice. That provided for suspect vessels to be intercepted by US Coast Guard vessels and boarded by Coast Guard officers, who would arrest the crew and take them to the US to be charged and tried. &nbsp;&nbsp;The campaign to intimidate the Venezuelan dictatorship gathered pace in February when the US government designated eight international drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs). Five were groups based in Mexico, one in Colombia, one in El Salvador and one in Venezuela (Tren de Aaragua).&nbsp;On November 24, the government added an additional FTO it identified as the Cartel de los Soles and designated Maduro as its leader. Asked in a television interview whether he thought Maduro’s days were numbered, Trump replied: “I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.”&nbsp;Drug experts promptly pointed out that there is no Cartel de los Soles in the sense of a structured organisation. Venezuelans use the phrase to describe corrupt army officers and government officials who enrich themselves by taking bribes from drug traffickers. The label refers to the sun insignia on military uniforms.&nbsp;The administration’s new tactic of killing suspected drug traffickers without legal proceedings is deeply unpopular with the American public. A recent Reuters poll found that only 29 per cent supported the concept. The strikes on suspected drug boats have also been greeted with unease by the country’s military. &nbsp;&nbsp;As the campaign gathered momentum in October, the top official overseeing the strikes abruptly announced that he would retire at the end of the year. Admiral Alvin Holsey, the four-star head of the US Southern Command, gave no reason for stepping down less than a year after he took command. But you don’t need to be a clairvoyant to figure out why he did.&nbsp;A month later, a brief video put together by six Democratic members of Congress, including Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, stressed that military personnel not only had the right but an obligation to refuse following illegal orders.&nbsp;Again, they gave no specific incidents that prompted them to produce the highly unusual message – which is also part of the syllabus of military academies. Trump accused the six – all with background in the military and the CIA – of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death.”&nbsp;That over-the-top reaction coincided with a flood of opinions from legal experts of both political parties that the boat strikes amounted to “extrajudicial killings,” the legal term for murder. &nbsp;&nbsp;Vice President JD Vance waded into the debate with a posting on X saying that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” &nbsp;Brian Krassenstein, an anti-Trump influencer and podcaster, responded that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.” &nbsp;Vance’s response: “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”&nbsp;His remarks reflect the disdain of Trump and many of his close associates for laws, domestic and international, that run counter to their agenda and their view that might is right.&nbsp;As for Trump’s musing that Maduro’s days are numbered, they bring to mind a string of public calls by then-President Barack Obama or Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to step aside, and the view expressed by the State Department’s top official on Syria that al-Assad was a dead man walking.&nbsp;Assad stayed in power for another 13 years, from the “dead man walking” prediction until an anti-government rebellion forced him to flee into exile in Russia last December.&nbsp;What would happen if Maduro were ousted is subject to considerable debate within America’s national security establishment. Judging from a war game conducted during Trump’s first term, one outcome would be chaos and violence as rival political factions, military units and drug gang members jostled for control.&nbsp;“The thing that really worries us is that they (the US government) don’t appear to have any serious plan for what happens afterwards,” Paul Gunson, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said in a new report. It added that a new government installed in Caracas with US backing might face “a potentially protracted low-intensity conflict.”&nbsp;Maria Corina Machado, Venezuela’s charismatic opposition leader and winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, has said she has plans for a smooth transition and can assert full control of the country after Maduro.&nbsp;Transitions from dictatorships to peaceful rule are easier said than done. Just ask Iraqis, Libyans, and Iranians.&nbsp;

Asked in a television interview whether he thought Maduro’s days were numbered, Trump replied: “I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.”

Over the past three months, the United States has assembled the biggest naval force in six decades in the Caribbean, a move that prompted a pithy analysis from Venezuela’s dictatorial president, Nicolás Maduro: “regime change through military threat.” The threat is awe-inspiring. In the blue waters off Venezuela, you have America’s biggest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, along with six guided missile destroyers and cruisers, two amphibious readiness vessels carrying 2,200 Marines, at least one nuclear submarine, and a ship used for special operations forces. Reminiscent of the 19th-century gunboat diplomacy, the big naval powers of the time used to bend smaller countries to their will, the Caribbean operation is the biggest since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It involves around 15,000 sailors and marines. The first strike in what a cynic might describe as a phoney war against a non-existent drug cartel led by Maduro came on September 2, when a missile fired from a US Reaper drone blew to bits a speedboat in international waters off Venezuela. US officials said the strike was necessary to prevent the boat from carrying drugs to the US. Since everybody on board died and the cargo sank to the bottom of the sea, what or who was on board remains a mystery. With one exception, that is true for 11 strikes on boats allegedly loaded with drugs in the Caribbean and another 11 in the Eastern Pacific. The one exception was an American strike on a semi-submersible on October 16. Two of the crew were killed, and two survived. One was an Ecuadorian national, the other Colombian. They were rescued by helicopter, taken to a Navy ship, swiftly repatriated to their home countries, and released there without charges. Blowing up suspected drug-carrying boats is in sharp contrast to decades of previous practice. That provided for suspect vessels to be intercepted by US Coast Guard vessels and boarded by Coast Guard officers, who would arrest the crew and take them to the US to be charged and tried. The campaign to intimidate the Venezuelan dictatorship gathered pace in February when the US government designated eight international drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs). Five were groups based in Mexico, one in Colombia, one in El Salvador and one in Venezuela (Tren de Aaragua). On November 24, the government added an additional FTO it identified as the Cartel de los Soles and designated Maduro as its leader. Asked in a television interview whether he thought Maduro’s days were numbered, Trump replied: “I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.” Drug experts promptly pointed out that there is no Cartel de los Soles in the sense of a structured organisation. Venezuelans use the phrase to describe corrupt army officers and government officials who enrich themselves by taking bribes from drug traffickers. The label refers to the sun insignia on military uniforms. The administration’s new tactic of killing suspected drug traffickers without legal proceedings is deeply unpopular with the American public. A recent Reuters poll found that only 29 per cent supported the concept. The strikes on suspected drug boats have also been greeted with unease by the country’s military. As the campaign gathered momentum in October, the top official overseeing the strikes abruptly announced that he would retire at the end of the year. Admiral Alvin Holsey, the four-star head of the US Southern Command, gave no reason for stepping down less than a year after he took command. But you don’t need to be a clairvoyant to figure out why he did. A month later, a brief video put together by six Democratic members of Congress, including Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, stressed that military personnel not only had the right but an obligation to refuse following illegal orders. Again, they gave no specific incidents that prompted them to produce the highly unusual message – which is also part of the syllabus of military academies. Trump accused the six – all with background in the military and the CIA – of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death.” That over-the-top reaction coincided with a flood of opinions from legal experts of both political parties that the boat strikes amounted to “extrajudicial killings,” the legal term for murder. Vice President JD Vance waded into the debate with a posting on X saying that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” Brian Krassenstein, an anti-Trump influencer and podcaster, responded that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.” Vance’s response: “I don’t give a shit what you call it.” His remarks reflect the disdain of Trump and many of his close associates for laws, domestic and international, that run counter to their agenda and their view that might is right. As for Trump’s musing that Maduro’s days are numbered, they bring to mind a string of public calls by then-President Barack Obama or Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to step aside, and the view expressed by the State Department’s top official on Syria that al-Assad was a dead man walking. Assad stayed in power for another 13 years, from the “dead man walking” prediction until an anti-government rebellion forced him to flee into exile in Russia last December. What would happen if Maduro were ousted is subject to considerable debate within America’s national security establishment. Judging from a war game conducted during Trump’s first term, one outcome would be chaos and violence as rival political factions, military units and drug gang members jostled for control. “The thing that really worries us is that they (the US government) don’t appear to have any serious plan for what happens afterwards,” Paul Gunson, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said in a new report. It added that a new government installed in Caracas with US backing might face “a potentially protracted low-intensity conflict.” Maria Corina Machado, Venezuela’s charismatic opposition leader and winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, has said she has plans for a smooth transition and can assert full control of the country after Maduro. Transitions from dictatorships to peaceful rule are easier said than done. Just ask Iraqis, Libyans, and Iranians.

Asked in a television interview whether he thought Maduro’s days were numbered, Trump replied: “I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.”

Reversing course, Trump pushes for regime change in Venezuela

When you look at the recent narcotics seizures in the Indian Ocean, a pattern begins to form. Almost every major interception involving heroin or methamphetamine has one detail in common. The vessel either departed from Pakistan’s Makran coast or followed a route known to be used by Pakistani trafficking networks. As interdictions increased, India and Sri Lanka began realising that no single navy could manage this threat alone. The Arabian Sea is too wide, the routes are too adaptive, and traffickers have grown too sophisticated.&nbsp;This is how the India Sri Lanka maritime partnership evolved from routine neighbourly cooperation into a structured, intelligence driven counter narcotics arrangement. It is not loud or dramatic. It does not rely on declarations, instead, it grows through consistent operational behaviour. Joint patrols. Shared intelligence. Coordinated interceptions. Regular communication between maritime operations rooms. The partnership works because both countries face the same problem and both have decided that the only practical solution is to act together.&nbsp;Southern Sri Lankan waters have become a key chokepoint in this story. Over the past two years, multiple Pakistan linked dhows have been intercepted south of Dondra Head and along the routes that lead toward Maldives and Seychelles. These vessels often carry hundreds of kilograms of heroin and methamphetamine. They are not simply passing through. They are following prearranged coordinates for delivery or transhipment. India’s presence in this space comes from two directions. One is its naval deployments under its regional security responsibilities. The other is its long history of working with Sri Lanka on maritime safety, search and rescue, and counter smuggling. The Indian Navy, the Indian Coast Guard, and Sri Lanka’s maritime forces share information almost instantly when a suspicious vessel is spotted. The process is smooth because it has been built over years of joint exercises, coordinated patrols, and training exchanges. The cooperation has practical results. Consider the large seizures made by Sri Lanka in the southern seas. Many of those operations were supported by intelligence shared by India. The intercepted vessels often show signs of long-distance travel from the Makran coast. Their fuel capacity, storage modifications, and route behaviour match the same patterns seen in CMF Bahrain intercepts. India and Sri Lanka track these indicators and respond together.&nbsp;There is another reason the partnership has grown stronger. Both countries understand that narcotics networks are not isolated criminal groups. They link into regional instability, organised crime, and in some cases extremist financing. Allowing these routes to function unchallenged would weaken the entire security environment of the Indian Ocean. By working jointly, India and Sri Lanka signal to traffickers that the southern corridor is no longer a low risk, high reward zone. India also provides capacity building to Sri Lanka. This includes training for maritime interdiction, technical support for vessel tracking, exchanges on boarding procedures, and assistance during large scale operations. Sri Lanka, in turn, contributes local knowledge, coastal awareness, and experience navigating the complex currents and fishing zones of the region. The arrangement becomes mutually reinforcing.&nbsp;The partnership is not just tactical. It carries strategic significance. When smaller Indian Ocean states watch India and Sri Lanka operate together, it reassures them that regional security is being handled by countries with local stakes rather than distant powers with temporary interests. It also helps position India as a credible maritime stabiliser whose cooperation is based on shared safety rather than political leverage. For Pakistan, this growing partnership creates a problem. As long as India and Sri Lanka coordinate closely, Pakistan linked narcotics networks cannot rely on southern routes remaining unmonitored. Every interception chips away at the quiet logistics that traffickers depend upon. Every seizure deprives them of revenue. Every arrest provides intelligence that strengthens the next operation.&nbsp;The cooperation also extends to broader regional frameworks. India works with Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, and the East African states on maritime domain awareness. Sri Lanka engages with many of these partners as well. Together, they create a web of oversight that makes the Indian Ocean safer for legitimate trade while shrinking the space available to criminal networks.&nbsp;What gives this partnership credibility is not its symbolism but its results. When a suspicious dhow is intercepted south of Colombo, the pattern often traces back to intelligence shared earlier by India. When India makes a seizure in the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka uses that information to adjust patrol geometry. This interconnected vigilance is the strongest counter narcotics mechanism the region has today. India and Sri Lanka have built a partnership that demonstrates how regional security should function: practical, consistent, and grounded in shared responsibility. For traffickers operating from Pakistan, the message is clear. The sea is no longer an easy highway. Someone is always watching.

This is how the India Sri Lanka maritime partnership evolved from routine neighbourly cooperation into a structured, intelligence driven counter narcotics arrangement. It is not loud or dramatic.

When you look at the recent narcotics seizures in the Indian Ocean, a pattern begins to form. Almost every major interception involving heroin or methamphetamine has one detail in common. The vessel either departed from Pakistan’s Makran coast or followed a route known to be used by Pakistani trafficking networks. As interdictions increased, India and Sri Lanka began realising that no single navy could manage this threat alone. The Arabian Sea is too wide, the routes are too adaptive, and traffickers have grown too sophisticated. This is how the India Sri Lanka maritime partnership evolved from routine neighbourly cooperation into a structured, intelligence driven counter narcotics arrangement. It is not loud or dramatic. It does not rely on declarations, instead, it grows through consistent operational behaviour. Joint patrols. Shared intelligence. Coordinated interceptions. Regular communication between maritime operations rooms. The partnership works because both countries face the same problem and both have decided that the only practical solution is to act together. Southern Sri Lankan waters have become a key chokepoint in this story. Over the past two years, multiple Pakistan linked dhows have been intercepted south of Dondra Head and along the routes that lead toward Maldives and Seychelles. These vessels often carry hundreds of kilograms of heroin and methamphetamine. They are not simply passing through. They are following prearranged coordinates for delivery or transhipment. India’s presence in this space comes from two directions. One is its naval deployments under its regional security responsibilities. The other is its long history of working with Sri Lanka on maritime safety, search and rescue, and counter smuggling. The Indian Navy, the Indian Coast Guard, and Sri Lanka’s maritime forces share information almost instantly when a suspicious vessel is spotted. The process is smooth because it has been built over years of joint exercises, coordinated patrols, and training exchanges. The cooperation has practical results. Consider the large seizures made by Sri Lanka in the southern seas. Many of those operations were supported by intelligence shared by India. The intercepted vessels often show signs of long-distance travel from the Makran coast. Their fuel capacity, storage modifications, and route behaviour match the same patterns seen in CMF Bahrain intercepts. India and Sri Lanka track these indicators and respond together. There is another reason the partnership has grown stronger. Both countries understand that narcotics networks are not isolated criminal groups. They link into regional instability, organised crime, and in some cases extremist financing. Allowing these routes to function unchallenged would weaken the entire security environment of the Indian Ocean. By working jointly, India and Sri Lanka signal to traffickers that the southern corridor is no longer a low risk, high reward zone. India also provides capacity building to Sri Lanka. This includes training for maritime interdiction, technical support for vessel tracking, exchanges on boarding procedures, and assistance during large scale operations. Sri Lanka, in turn, contributes local knowledge, coastal awareness, and experience navigating the complex currents and fishing zones of the region. The arrangement becomes mutually reinforcing. The partnership is not just tactical. It carries strategic significance. When smaller Indian Ocean states watch India and Sri Lanka operate together, it reassures them that regional security is being handled by countries with local stakes rather than distant powers with temporary interests. It also helps position India as a credible maritime stabiliser whose cooperation is based on shared safety rather than political leverage. For Pakistan, this growing partnership creates a problem. As long as India and Sri Lanka coordinate closely, Pakistan linked narcotics networks cannot rely on southern routes remaining unmonitored. Every interception chips away at the quiet logistics that traffickers depend upon. Every seizure deprives them of revenue. Every arrest provides intelligence that strengthens the next operation. The cooperation also extends to broader regional frameworks. India works with Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, and the East African states on maritime domain awareness. Sri Lanka engages with many of these partners as well. Together, they create a web of oversight that makes the Indian Ocean safer for legitimate trade while shrinking the space available to criminal networks. What gives this partnership credibility is not its symbolism but its results. When a suspicious dhow is intercepted south of Colombo, the pattern often traces back to intelligence shared earlier by India. When India makes a seizure in the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka uses that information to adjust patrol geometry. This interconnected vigilance is the strongest counter narcotics mechanism the region has today. India and Sri Lanka have built a partnership that demonstrates how regional security should function: practical, consistent, and grounded in shared responsibility. For traffickers operating from Pakistan, the message is clear. The sea is no longer an easy highway. Someone is always watching.

This is how the India Sri Lanka maritime partnership evolved from routine neighbourly cooperation into a structured, intelligence driven counter narcotics arrangement. It is not loud or dramatic.

Counter narcotics at sea: Why India and Sri Lanka are building a two navy security partnership

Gautam Gambhir’s reign as the head coach could see its darkest hour as the Indian Test team nears another embarrassing defeat on home soil. At the time of writing on Monday (Nov 24), India were already staring down the barrel for yet another defeat on home soil as India trail South Africa by 314 runs in the second innings. In what now looks like another series defeat, is Gautam Gambhir’s coaching a recipe for disaster or a failed transition process?<h2>What do the numbers say?</h2>Since taking over the charge of the Indian Test team, Gambhir’s performance as the coach in the red-ball format has been a worry. It all started in October 2024 when he first took charge of the Indian side in the Test format. India lost its first Test series on home turf as they were condemned to a 0-3 defeat. Just months later, India lost 3-1 in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy Down Under, meaning India were unable to qualify for the World Test Championship (WTC) final in England.&nbsp;Fast forward six months, and India gave a good account of themselves as they ended the series 2-2. This also meant India were unable to beat Australia, New Zealand and England under Gambhir. Now things could get even worse for the Indian head coach as they are likely to lose 2-0 in what is another embarrassing home whitewash.<h2>Gambhir’s record as head coach</h2>In 18 matches in charge of the Indian side in the red-ball format, the World Cup winner has guided India to wins in seven matches, along with two draws. However, it is the number of defeats that makes it worse. He has lost nine matches, which will become 10 if India lose the ongoing Guwahati Test. While India’s win over West Indies was impressive, that win won’t do too many favours to the former Delhi batter.<h2>Failed transition?</h2>Since taking over the reign of the Indian side, senior players like Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Ravichandran Ashwin have retired and were not in the future plans. The decision to keep them away from the side was backed by a few but criticised by many, as they were never given farewell matches. On the other hand, players like Sai Sudharsan, Karun Nair and others were promoted but never performed and were dropped.&nbsp;Overall, the transition of the Indian team to the Test team has been a failure on multiple grounds. Bowlers like Mohammed Shami and Arshdeep Singh were never given a full opportunity to return and play for the Indian side.&nbsp;So it will be interesting to see what the future holds for Gambhir as his talks for his sacking are getting intensified, while hardly anyone is calling for him to stay in charge.

In 18 matches in charge of the Indian side in the red-ball format, Gautam Gambhir has guided India to wins in seven matches, along with two draws. However, it is the number of defeats that makes it worse. 

Gautam Gambhir’s reign as the head coach could see its darkest hour as the Indian Test team nears another embarrassing defeat on home soil. At the time of writing on Monday (Nov 24), India were already staring down the barrel for yet another defeat on home soil as India trail South Africa by 314 runs in the second innings. In what now looks like another series defeat, is Gautam Gambhir’s coaching a recipe for disaster or a failed transition process? What do the numbers say? Since taking over the charge of the Indian Test team, Gambhir’s performance as the coach in the red-ball format has been a worry. It all started in October 2024 when he first took charge of the Indian side in the Test format. India lost its first Test series on home turf as they were condemned to a 0-3 defeat. Just months later, India lost 3-1 in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy Down Under, meaning India were unable to qualify for the World Test Championship (WTC) final in England. Fast forward six months, and India gave a good account of themselves as they ended the series 2-2. This also meant India were unable to beat Australia, New Zealand and England under Gambhir. Now things could get even worse for the Indian head coach as they are likely to lose 2-0 in what is another embarrassing home whitewash. Gambhir’s record as head coach In 18 matches in charge of the Indian side in the red-ball format, the World Cup winner has guided India to wins in seven matches, along with two draws. However, it is the number of defeats that makes it worse. He has lost nine matches, which will become 10 if India lose the ongoing Guwahati Test. While India’s win over West Indies was impressive, that win won’t do too many favours to the former Delhi batter. Failed transition? Since taking over the reign of the Indian side, senior players like Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Ravichandran Ashwin have retired and were not in the future plans. The decision to keep them away from the side was backed by a few but criticised by many, as they were never given farewell matches. On the other hand, players like Sai Sudharsan, Karun Nair and others were promoted but never performed and were dropped. Overall, the transition of the Indian team to the Test team has been a failure on multiple grounds. Bowlers like Mohammed Shami and Arshdeep Singh were never given a full opportunity to return and play for the Indian side. So it will be interesting to see what the future holds for Gambhir as his talks for his sacking are getting intensified, while hardly anyone is calling for him to stay in charge.

In 18 matches in charge of the Indian side in the red-ball format, Gautam Gambhir has guided India to wins in seven matches, along with two draws. However, it is the number of defeats that makes it worse.&nbsp;

Coach Gautam Gambhir's Test track record: A recipe for disaster or a failed 'transition'?

Picture this: Friday, November 21, 2025, the gleaming skies of Dubai during the final day of the Air Show. A Tejas fighter jet, India's homegrown pride, performs breathtaking aerobatics before thousands of eager spectators. Suddenly, at a horrifyingly low altitude, something goes catastrophically wrong. The aircraft nosedives. Wing Commander Namansh Syal has mere seconds to react. But this time, there's no miraculous escape. No parachute blossoms in the sky. The jet slams into the desert at full speed, erupting in a fireball that silences the crowd. Within hours, India mourns. Our pilot is gone, and with him, our unshakeable faith in the zero-zero promise that's supposed to save lives from ground level itself.For those just getting to know our defence marvels, the Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat fitted in every Tejas cockpit is supposed to be foolproof. The term zero-zero isn't just marketing jargon, it's a lifeline. It means pilots can eject safely from zero altitude, literally at ground level, and zero speed, even when the jet's parked on the tarmac. A small explosive motor beneath the seat gives an almighty shove, rocketing you fifty to sixty feet skyward in milliseconds. Then a drogue parachute deploys to steady your tumbling body, before the main chute blossoms open for a gentle landing. Since 1946, Martin-Baker seats have rescued over 7,700 souls worldwide, including dozens of Indian Air Force pilots from burning Jaguars and crashing Mirages. It's why we trusted them completely with our Tejas fleet, never imagining they could fail when it mattered most.But Dubai shattered that illusion brutally. The crash investigators pieced together a nightmare scenario. Wing Commander Syal was performing a low-altitude manoeuvre when the Tejas suffered what experts call a departure from controlled flight, pilot-speak for the aircraft suddenly becoming uncontrollable. He was barely a hundred feet up, travelling at high speed, when disaster struck. And here's the part that haunts everyone who watched, Wing Commander Syal never ejected. Not because he didn't try, not because the seat malfunctioned, but because cruel physics simply didn't allow it. Eyewitness videos show no parachute, no ejection sequence, nothing. The aircraft was in a violent negative-G turn, meaning forces were pushing everything in the opposite direction of gravity. By the time the emergency became clear, he was already too low, too fast, in the wrong attitude. Even if he had pulled the handle, the three to four seconds needed for the parachute to fully deploy and slow his descent to survivable speeds simply didn't exist. He hit the desert at lethal velocity, and the impact killed him instantly.This isn't about blaming Martin-Baker or questioning decades of engineering brilliance. Their Bengaluru facility, set up specifically to support our Tejas programme, has been exceptional. Our own Defence Research and Development Organisation added clever touches like a canopy severance system that slices through the cockpit glass microseconds before ejection. The technology is genuinely world-class. What Dubai exposed, heartbreakingly, is that zero-zero capability has invisible asterisks attached. It assumes the aircraft is more or less upright. It assumes you're not in a violent spin or inverted. It assumes you have those critical few seconds between ejection and ground impact. When a jet cartwheels out of control at treetop height during aggressive manoeuvres, even the best ejection seat becomes a desperate gamble rather than a guaranteed escape.As someone who's followed our aviation journey since childhood, watching Tejas evolve from blueprint to reality, I'm angry and heartbroken. With 83 Mk-1A fighters rolling out and plans for 114 more, we're committing hundreds of young lives to this platform. Every pilot strapping in deserves better than fine-print limitations on their survival gear. Perhaps it's time we demand truly redundant safety systems, maybe explosive charges that can right a spinning aircraft before ejection, or artificial intelligence systems that detect trouble milliseconds earlier. The zero-zero seat remains humanity's best answer to aerial catastrophes, absolutely. But Wing Commander Syal's sacrifice in Dubai's desert teaches us that best available isn't good enough when Murphy's Law strikes with full fury. Our skyward dreams must be grounded in brutal honesty, because every smoking crater represents not just lost metal, but shattered families and extinguished potential. Wing Commander Syal leaves behind his wife, also an IAF officer, their six-year-old daughter, and grieving parents. That's the terrible truth Dubai forced us to confront, sometimes, even guardian angels arrive too late.&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;

For those just getting to know our defence marvels, the Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat fitted in every Tejas cockpit is supposed to be foolproof. The term zero-zero isnt just marketing jargon, its a lifeline.

Picture this: Friday, November 21, 2025, the gleaming skies of Dubai during the final day of the Air Show. A Tejas fighter jet, India's homegrown pride, performs breathtaking aerobatics before thousands of eager spectators. Suddenly, at a horrifyingly low altitude, something goes catastrophically wrong. The aircraft nosedives. Wing Commander Namansh Syal has mere seconds to react. But this time, there's no miraculous escape. No parachute blossoms in the sky. The jet slams into the desert at full speed, erupting in a fireball that silences the crowd. Within hours, India mourns. Our pilot is gone, and with him, our unshakeable faith in the zero-zero promise that's supposed to save lives from ground level itself. For those just getting to know our defence marvels, the Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat fitted in every Tejas cockpit is supposed to be foolproof. The term zero-zero isn't just marketing jargon, it's a lifeline. It means pilots can eject safely from zero altitude, literally at ground level, and zero speed, even when the jet's parked on the tarmac. A small explosive motor beneath the seat gives an almighty shove, rocketing you fifty to sixty feet skyward in milliseconds. Then a drogue parachute deploys to steady your tumbling body, before the main chute blossoms open for a gentle landing. Since 1946, Martin-Baker seats have rescued over 7,700 souls worldwide, including dozens of Indian Air Force pilots from burning Jaguars and crashing Mirages. It's why we trusted them completely with our Tejas fleet, never imagining they could fail when it mattered most. But Dubai shattered that illusion brutally. The crash investigators pieced together a nightmare scenario. Wing Commander Syal was performing a low-altitude manoeuvre when the Tejas suffered what experts call a departure from controlled flight, pilot-speak for the aircraft suddenly becoming uncontrollable. He was barely a hundred feet up, travelling at high speed, when disaster struck. And here's the part that haunts everyone who watched, Wing Commander Syal never ejected. Not because he didn't try, not because the seat malfunctioned, but because cruel physics simply didn't allow it. Eyewitness videos show no parachute, no ejection sequence, nothing. The aircraft was in a violent negative-G turn, meaning forces were pushing everything in the opposite direction of gravity. By the time the emergency became clear, he was already too low, too fast, in the wrong attitude. Even if he had pulled the handle, the three to four seconds needed for the parachute to fully deploy and slow his descent to survivable speeds simply didn't exist. He hit the desert at lethal velocity, and the impact killed him instantly. This isn't about blaming Martin-Baker or questioning decades of engineering brilliance. Their Bengaluru facility, set up specifically to support our Tejas programme, has been exceptional. Our own Defence Research and Development Organisation added clever touches like a canopy severance system that slices through the cockpit glass microseconds before ejection. The technology is genuinely world-class. What Dubai exposed, heartbreakingly, is that zero-zero capability has invisible asterisks attached. It assumes the aircraft is more or less upright. It assumes you're not in a violent spin or inverted. It assumes you have those critical few seconds between ejection and ground impact. When a jet cartwheels out of control at treetop height during aggressive manoeuvres, even the best ejection seat becomes a desperate gamble rather than a guaranteed escape. As someone who's followed our aviation journey since childhood, watching Tejas evolve from blueprint to reality, I'm angry and heartbroken. With 83 Mk-1A fighters rolling out and plans for 114 more, we're committing hundreds of young lives to this platform. Every pilot strapping in deserves better than fine-print limitations on their survival gear. Perhaps it's time we demand truly redundant safety systems, maybe explosive charges that can right a spinning aircraft before ejection, or artificial intelligence systems that detect trouble milliseconds earlier. The zero-zero seat remains humanity's best answer to aerial catastrophes, absolutely. But Wing Commander Syal's sacrifice in Dubai's desert teaches us that best available isn't good enough when Murphy's Law strikes with full fury. Our skyward dreams must be grounded in brutal honesty, because every smoking crater represents not just lost metal, but shattered families and extinguished potential. Wing Commander Syal leaves behind his wife, also an IAF officer, their six-year-old daughter, and grieving parents. That's the terrible truth Dubai forced us to confront, sometimes, even guardian angels arrive too late. 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.

For those just getting to know our defence marvels, the Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat fitted in every Tejas cockpit is supposed to be foolproof. The term zero-zero isn't just marketing jargon, it's a lifeline.

Zero-zero ejection: Unspoken limits, fatal Tejas crash

The independence of Bangladesh in 1971 was shaped decisively by the coordinated operations of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini. While the Mukti Bahini’s guerrilla actions inside East Pakistan steadily eroded Pakistani military control and morale, Indian assistance—arms, training, intelligence and strategic direction—proved essential in turning these irregular fighters into an organised resistance. India’s Eastern Command established training camps, offered sustained logistical support and enabled joint operations that became critical once India entered the war formally in December 1971. The surrender of Pakistani forces on December 16 demonstrated the effectiveness of this partnership. Crucially, Indian involvement did not end with victory; it extended into institution-building. On November 21, 1971, the Bangladesh Army took shape with significant Indian guidance, transforming Mukti Bahini fighters into the nucleus of a national military force.Background: The Mukti Bahini and the Independence MovementThe Mukti Bahini emerged in early 1971 as the principal guerrilla force resisting Pakistan’s violent crackdown in East Pakistan. Composed largely of defectors from the East Pakistan Regiment and joined by committed civilians, the force relied on sabotage—railways, bridges, factories and other vital infrastructure—to weaken Pakistani command and control. They also gathered intelligence and executed coordinated strikes that gradually undermined enemy authority.At the political level, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic speech on 7 March 1971 called for mass mobilisation through non-cooperation. His sweeping mandate from the December 1970 elections provided the political legitimacy behind the independence movement. The Mukti Bahini’s actions, grounded in local initiative and resolve, gained momentum because they converged with this broader strategic direction. That alignment of popular energy with political leadership enabled the resistance to evolve from scattered actions into a movement capable of winning sovereignty.Indian Support and TrainingIndia’s support for the Mukti Bahini was decisive and wide-ranging. Around April–May 1971, the Indian Army’s Eastern Command launched a structured programme under “Operation Jackpot”, establishing six major training camps in West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya. By late 1971, an estimated 100,000 Mukti Bahini fighters had undergone 4–6 weeks of training in guerrilla warfare, demolition, small arms handling and intelligence gathering.Beyond training, India supplied weapons, sustained logistical help and sanctuary to the fighters and refugees—particularly in Assam, where protection and supply lines were actively supported by Indian authorities. This comprehensive assistance transformed a fragmented resistance into a coherent guerrilla force capable of striking Pakistani military targets with far greater precision and impact.Outbreak of the Indo-Pakistani War and Joint OperationsA decisive shift occurred on December 3, 1971, when Pakistan launched pre-emptive air strikes on Indian airfields, triggering India’s formal entry into the conflict. The Indian Army—working in close coordination with the Mukti Bahini—immediately began a full-scale campaign against Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, supported by synchronised land, air and naval operations.These combined efforts rapidly overpowered Pakistani formations. Joint operations disrupted Pakistan’s hold over Dhaka and other critical regions, breaking both logistical networks and the morale of the occupying forces. By December 16, 1971, Lieutenant General A.A.K. Niazi surrendered unconditionally to Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora. The capture of 93,000 Pakistani troops—one of the largest surrenders since World War II—sealed the victory of the independence movement.Formation of the Bangladesh Army with Indian HelpPlans for a sovereign Bangladeshi military force were already underway before formal independence. On November 21, 1971, the initial structure of the Bangladesh Army was established with extensive Indian assistance. Indian commanders helped organise units, set up command centres, supply arms and standardise training procedures for the emerging force.Mukti Bahini units were reorganised into battalions of the new Bangladesh Army, with Indian officers supervising training and transitions. This institutional support was vital in stabilising the security environment in post-war Bangladesh and in enabling guerrilla fighters to become part of a disciplined national military establishment.Neglected Tribute: The Indian Army’s Forgotten Sacrifice in BangladeshYet despite the scale of Indian involvement, the Indian Army’s sacrifice—approximately 2,998 killed in action and 12,189 total casualties—has remained insufficiently recognised in Bangladesh’s public narrative. The state rarely commemorates Indian soldiers, and public memorials acknowledging their role are limited. This silence reflects a selective national memory that emphasises indigenous struggle while overlooking the external military support that materially enabled liberation.ConclusionBangladesh’s liberation in 1971 cannot be understood solely through the lens of local resistance. It relied heavily on Indian military, logistical and strategic support. While the Mukti Bahini—numbering around 100,000 fighters trained in Indian camps—conducted important guerrilla operations, they could not alone have defeated Pakistan’s 93,000-strong military presence in East Pakistan. India’s Eastern Command facilitated arms supply, intelligence and training across six major camps in West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya, transforming dispersed groups into an integrated fighting force.Once India entered the war on December 3, joint operations produced Pakistan’s surrender in just 13 days—one of the shortest and most decisive campaigns in modern military history. Without India’s intervention, the Mukti Bahini would have faced severe limits in sustaining operations or compelling Pakistan’s defeat. India’s role, therefore, was indispensable in securing Bangladesh’s independence.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;

These combined efforts rapidly overpowered Pakistani formations. Joint operations disrupted Pakistan’s hold over Dhaka and other critical regions, breaking both logistical networks and the morale of the occupying forces. 

The independence of Bangladesh in 1971 was shaped decisively by the coordinated operations of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini. While the Mukti Bahini’s guerrilla actions inside East Pakistan steadily eroded Pakistani military control and morale, Indian assistance—arms, training, intelligence and strategic direction—proved essential in turning these irregular fighters into an organised resistance. India’s Eastern Command established training camps, offered sustained logistical support and enabled joint operations that became critical once India entered the war formally in December 1971. The surrender of Pakistani forces on December 16 demonstrated the effectiveness of this partnership. Crucially, Indian involvement did not end with victory; it extended into institution-building. On November 21, 1971, the Bangladesh Army took shape with significant Indian guidance, transforming Mukti Bahini fighters into the nucleus of a national military force. Background: The Mukti Bahini and the Independence Movement The Mukti Bahini emerged in early 1971 as the principal guerrilla force resisting Pakistan’s violent crackdown in East Pakistan. Composed largely of defectors from the East Pakistan Regiment and joined by committed civilians, the force relied on sabotage—railways, bridges, factories and other vital infrastructure—to weaken Pakistani command and control. They also gathered intelligence and executed coordinated strikes that gradually undermined enemy authority. At the political level, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic speech on 7 March 1971 called for mass mobilisation through non-cooperation. His sweeping mandate from the December 1970 elections provided the political legitimacy behind the independence movement. The Mukti Bahini’s actions, grounded in local initiative and resolve, gained momentum because they converged with this broader strategic direction. That alignment of popular energy with political leadership enabled the resistance to evolve from scattered actions into a movement capable of winning sovereignty. Indian Support and Training India’s support for the Mukti Bahini was decisive and wide-ranging. Around April–May 1971, the Indian Army’s Eastern Command launched a structured programme under “Operation Jackpot”, establishing six major training camps in West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya. By late 1971, an estimated 100,000 Mukti Bahini fighters had undergone 4–6 weeks of training in guerrilla warfare, demolition, small arms handling and intelligence gathering. Beyond training, India supplied weapons, sustained logistical help and sanctuary to the fighters and refugees—particularly in Assam, where protection and supply lines were actively supported by Indian authorities. This comprehensive assistance transformed a fragmented resistance into a coherent guerrilla force capable of striking Pakistani military targets with far greater precision and impact. Outbreak of the Indo-Pakistani War and Joint Operations A decisive shift occurred on December 3, 1971, when Pakistan launched pre-emptive air strikes on Indian airfields, triggering India’s formal entry into the conflict. The Indian Army—working in close coordination with the Mukti Bahini—immediately began a full-scale campaign against Pakistani forces in East Pakistan, supported by synchronised land, air and naval operations. These combined efforts rapidly overpowered Pakistani formations. Joint operations disrupted Pakistan’s hold over Dhaka and other critical regions, breaking both logistical networks and the morale of the occupying forces. By December 16, 1971, Lieutenant General A.A.K. Niazi surrendered unconditionally to Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora. The capture of 93,000 Pakistani troops—one of the largest surrenders since World War II—sealed the victory of the independence movement. Formation of the Bangladesh Army with Indian Help Plans for a sovereign Bangladeshi military force were already underway before formal independence. On November 21, 1971, the initial structure of the Bangladesh Army was established with extensive Indian assistance. Indian commanders helped organise units, set up command centres, supply arms and standardise training procedures for the emerging force. Mukti Bahini units were reorganised into battalions of the new Bangladesh Army, with Indian officers supervising training and transitions. This institutional support was vital in stabilising the security environment in post-war Bangladesh and in enabling guerrilla fighters to become part of a disciplined national military establishment. Neglected Tribute: The Indian Army’s Forgotten Sacrifice in Bangladesh Yet despite the scale of Indian involvement, the Indian Army’s sacrifice—approximately 2,998 killed in action and 12,189 total casualties—has remained insufficiently recognised in Bangladesh’s public narrative. The state rarely commemorates Indian soldiers, and public memorials acknowledging their role are limited. This silence reflects a selective national memory that emphasises indigenous struggle while overlooking the external military support that materially enabled liberation. Conclusion Bangladesh’s liberation in 1971 cannot be understood solely through the lens of local resistance. It relied heavily on Indian military, logistical and strategic support. While the Mukti Bahini—numbering around 100,000 fighters trained in Indian camps—conducted important guerrilla operations, they could not alone have defeated Pakistan’s 93,000-strong military presence in East Pakistan. India’s Eastern Command facilitated arms supply, intelligence and training across six major camps in West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya, transforming dispersed groups into an integrated fighting force. Once India entered the war on December 3, joint operations produced Pakistan’s surrender in just 13 days—one of the shortest and most decisive campaigns in modern military history. Without India’s intervention, the Mukti Bahini would have faced severe limits in sustaining operations or compelling Pakistan’s defeat. India’s role, therefore, was indispensable in securing Bangladesh’s independence. 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.

These combined efforts rapidly overpowered Pakistani formations. Joint operations disrupted Pakistan’s hold over Dhaka and other critical regions, breaking both logistical networks and the morale of the occupying forces.&nbsp;

Indian Army as architect: Structuring Bangladesh’s first military force

China’s response to public expression is most visible on the streets, where police arrive quickly and gatherings are dispersed before they grow. But the more decisive battle takes place elsewhere — on servers, content dashboards, messaging platforms and keyword filters. In China’s largest cities, including Shanghai, a protest does not simply end; it is erased. This digital erasure is not improvised. It is the result of a well-developed system that treats information itself as a site of political control. Understanding this system requires looking at the steps that unfold in the minutes after a civic incident begins. The process is technical, coordinated and remarkably fast. Step 1: Automated detection through keyword patterns Chinese platforms rely on a mixture of automated filters and human moderators. Certain terms — names of streets, slogans, even coded references to past incidents — trigger heightened monitoring. When residents in Shanghai posted messages during the 2022 unrest, relevant keywords began disappearing almost immediately. Images were flagged automatically, even when captions avoided political language. These filters are not fixed lists. They update dynamically when a topic begins to trend. A phrase that was harmless an hour earlier may become sensitive without notice, reducing the visibility of posts that would otherwise circulate rapidly. Step 2: Image recognition and metadata scans Modern censorship in China is no longer limited to text. Visual content is scanned for indicators of gatherings, such as clusters of people, police presence or placards. Even without explicit banners, footage showing groups assembling in public spaces can trigger review. Metadata — timestamps, location tags and device identifiers — also contributes to the platform’s assessment. If multiple users in the same area post similar material simultaneously, the system flags the cluster for immediate moderation. Step 3: Rapid human intervention Once automated systems elevate an issue, teams of human moderators review flagged content. In sensitive cities like Shanghai, these teams operate with speed and discretion. Entire hashtag threads can be purged within minutes. Users may find their posts visible only to themselves, a tactic known as “shadow restriction” that prevents content from spreading without alerting the user. Accounts that repeatedly upload sensitive material may be suspended temporarily. In more serious cases, platform security teams forward information to local authorities for offline follow-up. Step 4: Offline enforcement reinforces online silence China’s approach blends digital censorship with physical intervention. After incidents in Shanghai, individuals reported receiving phone calls or visits from police referencing posts that had already been removed online. Some were asked to delete photos stored on their devices; others were warned about “spreading rumours”. The possibility of offline repercussions discourages users from sharing information even in private groups. Over time, people learn to self-censor, reducing the volume of material before authorities intervene. Step 5: Memory removal through search sanitisation Once an incident is contained, the next step is narrative control. Searches for relevant locations, dates or keywords return unrelated content — tourist photos, civic announcements, or cultural events. Posts from the time of the incident are buried under newly boosted material. This sanitisation builds an information vacuum. Without persistent evidence, it becomes difficult for domestic users to revisit or discuss an event, and harder for external observers to piece together what happened. Step 6: Platform messaging aligns with official narratives Chinese platforms do not publicly acknowledge removals. Instead, they amplify approved messaging: law-and-order updates, community bulletins and statements from local authorities.The absence of reference to civic unrest creates the impression that nothing significant occurred. In Shanghai, this approach maintains the city’s image as a stable financial centre, where everyday life appears untouched by public frustration.<h2>A system designed to prevent momentum</h2>The success of China’s censorship system lies in its ability to intervene before public expression gathers pace. By removing digital traces early and often, the state prevents a narrative from forming, which in turn helps suppress physical mobilisation. This process also obscures the breadth of public sentiment. When posts disappear instantly, it becomes impossible to gauge how many people shared similar concerns, and whether frustration was more widespread than the brief assembly suggested.<h2>Why this matters outside China</h2>China’s approach is increasingly studied by governments seeking to manage civic expression in the digital age. Its combination of automated scanning, human moderation and offline consequences presents a model that can be replicated elsewhere, particularly by regimes seeking to pre-empt dissent before it becomes visible. For researchers, journalists and rights groups, understanding the mechanics of Shanghai-style erasure is essential. The issue is not only whether people can gather in public, but whether the record of that gathering survives long enough to inform public debate.&nbsp;

By removing digital traces early and often, the state prevents a narrative from forming, which in turn helps suppress physical mobilisation.

China’s response to public expression is most visible on the streets, where police arrive quickly and gatherings are dispersed before they grow. But the more decisive battle takes place elsewhere — on servers, content dashboards, messaging platforms and keyword filters. In China’s largest cities, including Shanghai, a protest does not simply end; it is erased. This digital erasure is not improvised. It is the result of a well-developed system that treats information itself as a site of political control. Understanding this system requires looking at the steps that unfold in the minutes after a civic incident begins. The process is technical, coordinated and remarkably fast. Step 1: Automated detection through keyword patterns Chinese platforms rely on a mixture of automated filters and human moderators. Certain terms — names of streets, slogans, even coded references to past incidents — trigger heightened monitoring. When residents in Shanghai posted messages during the 2022 unrest, relevant keywords began disappearing almost immediately. Images were flagged automatically, even when captions avoided political language. These filters are not fixed lists. They update dynamically when a topic begins to trend. A phrase that was harmless an hour earlier may become sensitive without notice, reducing the visibility of posts that would otherwise circulate rapidly. Step 2: Image recognition and metadata scans Modern censorship in China is no longer limited to text. Visual content is scanned for indicators of gatherings, such as clusters of people, police presence or placards. Even without explicit banners, footage showing groups assembling in public spaces can trigger review. Metadata — timestamps, location tags and device identifiers — also contributes to the platform’s assessment. If multiple users in the same area post similar material simultaneously, the system flags the cluster for immediate moderation. Step 3: Rapid human intervention Once automated systems elevate an issue, teams of human moderators review flagged content. In sensitive cities like Shanghai, these teams operate with speed and discretion. Entire hashtag threads can be purged within minutes. Users may find their posts visible only to themselves, a tactic known as “shadow restriction” that prevents content from spreading without alerting the user. Accounts that repeatedly upload sensitive material may be suspended temporarily. In more serious cases, platform security teams forward information to local authorities for offline follow-up. Step 4: Offline enforcement reinforces online silence China’s approach blends digital censorship with physical intervention. After incidents in Shanghai, individuals reported receiving phone calls or visits from police referencing posts that had already been removed online. Some were asked to delete photos stored on their devices; others were warned about “spreading rumours”. The possibility of offline repercussions discourages users from sharing information even in private groups. Over time, people learn to self-censor, reducing the volume of material before authorities intervene. Step 5: Memory removal through search sanitisation Once an incident is contained, the next step is narrative control. Searches for relevant locations, dates or keywords return unrelated content — tourist photos, civic announcements, or cultural events. Posts from the time of the incident are buried under newly boosted material. This sanitisation builds an information vacuum. Without persistent evidence, it becomes difficult for domestic users to revisit or discuss an event, and harder for external observers to piece together what happened. Step 6: Platform messaging aligns with official narratives Chinese platforms do not publicly acknowledge removals. Instead, they amplify approved messaging: law-and-order updates, community bulletins and statements from local authorities. The absence of reference to civic unrest creates the impression that nothing significant occurred. In Shanghai, this approach maintains the city’s image as a stable financial centre, where everyday life appears untouched by public frustration. A system designed to prevent momentum The success of China’s censorship system lies in its ability to intervene before public expression gathers pace. By removing digital traces early and often, the state prevents a narrative from forming, which in turn helps suppress physical mobilisation. This process also obscures the breadth of public sentiment. When posts disappear instantly, it becomes impossible to gauge how many people shared similar concerns, and whether frustration was more widespread than the brief assembly suggested. Why this matters outside China China’s approach is increasingly studied by governments seeking to manage civic expression in the digital age. Its combination of automated scanning, human moderation and offline consequences presents a model that can be replicated elsewhere, particularly by regimes seeking to pre-empt dissent before it becomes visible. For researchers, journalists and rights groups, understanding the mechanics of Shanghai-style erasure is essential. The issue is not only whether people can gather in public, but whether the record of that gathering survives long enough to inform public debate.

By removing digital traces early and often, the state prevents a narrative from forming, which in turn helps suppress physical mobilisation.

How China makes a protest disappear: Inside the machinery of real-time censorship

When the Indian Air Force’s Tejas fighter jet exploded into a ball of fire at Dubai’s Al Maktoum International Airport on Friday afternoon, families watching the airshow witnessed something no one should ever see—a pilot’s final moments playing out against a clear sky. Aviation experts who analysed the crash footage believe the aircraft was executing a negative G turn when disaster struck. But here’s the uncomfortable truth we need to talk about: this tragedy wasn’t just about what went wrong with the aircraft. It was about the inherent danger of pushing the laws of physics to their absolute limit at an altitude where there’s zero margin for error.&nbsp;The video of the crash tells a chilling story. There was no ejection. Not because the pilot didn’t try, not because the zero-zero Martin-Baker ejection seat failed, but because at low altitude during aggressive manoeuvres, physics becomes your enemy. The term “zero-zero” means the seat can save a pilot’s life even at zero altitude and zero speed—literally while the aircraft is still on the runway. It’s an incredible piece of engineering that uses powerful rockets to blast the pilot clear of the aircraft and deploy a parachute within seconds. But here’s the catch: even this remarkable technology needs a minimum amount of time and height for the parachute to fully open and slow the pilot’s descent. When you are performing aerobatics just a few hundred feet above the ground and the aircraft suddenly loses control, that time simply doesn’t exist.&nbsp;Let’s talk about what negative G really means in practical terms. When a fighter jet completes a loop and the pilot is upside down at the top, blood rushes to the head, vision can blur, and spatial awareness becomes challenged. Now imagine coming out of that loop, trying to level the aircraft, and suddenly something goes wrong. The Tejas, being a modern fighter, uses fly-by-wire technology—meaning there are no direct mechanical links between the pilot’s controls and the aircraft’s moving surfaces. Instead, computers interpret the pilot’s inputs and adjust the control surfaces accordingly, making the aircraft more stable and easier to handle. This system has multiple redundancies and is incredibly reliable. But what if, during a negative G manoeuvre at low altitude, the engine doesn’t respond as expected? Maybe there’s a compressor stall—where the engine temporarily chokes and loses power. Maybe the airflow gets disrupted for just a fraction of a second. At 10,000 feet, a pilot has time to troubleshoot, the fly-by-wire system has time to compensate, or the pilot can eject safely. At 500 feet during an aggressive manoeuvre? You have seconds, perhaps less.&nbsp;This is why airshow crashes, though rare, are almost always fatal. The Rajasthan Tejas crash in March 2024 had a different outcome—the pilot survived because he had altitude. When that aircraft got into trouble, there was enough height for the ejection sequence to work properly. The zero-zero seat fired, the rockets blasted the pilot clear, the parachute deployed, and he walked away. But in Dubai, performing for spectators at low altitude, there simply wasn’t enough sky between the aircraft and the ground. By the time the emergency became apparent and the pilot may have attempted to eject, the aircraft was already too close for the parachute to deploy effectively.&nbsp;Now, some argue that Dubai’s 35°C heat affected the engine performance. But this reasoning falls apart when you consider that India operates these jets in Rajasthan, where summer temperatures regularly exceed 45°C. The Tejas has performed flawlessly in those conditions for years. The aircraft from Sulur squadron that crashed had been flying since 2016 without incident. So why Dubai? Why now? The answer isn’t the desert heat—it’s the deadly combination of low altitude and complex aerobatics.&nbsp;Here’s what most people don’t understand about airshow flying: it’s not normal flying. Combat missions, patrol duties, even training exercises—all these happen at safer altitudes with built-in safety margins. The fly-by-wire system is designed to prevent pilots from accidentally overstressing the aircraft during normal operations. But airshows demand that pilots push their machines to the visual limits at heights low enough for spectators to see the drama. The crowd wants to see tight turns, vertical climbs, and loops that make their hearts race. And pilots, being the brave professionals they are, deliver exactly that. But every single time they do, they’re gambling with physics in a way that leaves almost no room for mechanical failure or unexpected aircraft behaviour.&nbsp;The LCA Tejas has an impressive safety record—just two crashes in 24 years. Compare that to the MiG-21, which earned the grim nickname “flying coffin” for its numerous accidents. The Tejas was supposed to change that narrative, and largely it has. Its fly-by-wire controls make it inherently safer than older generation fighters. Its zero-zero ejection seat is among the best in the world. But safety records and advanced technology mean little when you’re performing aggressive manoeuvres at altitudes where even a one-second delay in recognizing a problem can be fatal. This isn’t a Tejas problem—it’s an airshow problem. F-16s have crashed at airshows. Sukhois have crashed. Even the legendary Blue Angels and Thunderbirds have lost pilots during displays. The aircraft type matters less than the unforgiving nature of low-altitude aerobatics.&nbsp;So here’s the question we should be asking: Is it worth it? Is the spectacle of a fighter jet looping and rolling just a few hundred feet above the ground worth the risk to highly trained pilots who are national assets? These aren’t stunt performers—they’re combat-ready officers who’ve spent years mastering their craft. Every pilot lost in an airshow is a pilot who won't be available to defend the nation when it truly matters. The entertainment value for a few thousand spectators lasts minutes. The loss is permanent.&nbsp;The investigation will tell us what mechanically failed or what sequence of events led to the crash. But we already know the larger truth: low-altitude aerobatics will always be dangerous, no matter how advanced the fly-by-wire system, no matter how skilled the pilot, no matter how reliable the zero-zero ejection seat. When you operate at the extreme edges of what’s physically possible with minimal altitude cushion, you’re accepting a level of risk that can turn catastrophic in an instant.&nbsp;Perhaps it’s time we rethink how we showcase our military capabilities. Perhaps virtual reality displays, simulator demonstrations, or higher-altitude performances could deliver the same impact without putting irreplaceable human lives on the line. The pilot who died in Dubai gave everything to represent India on an international stage. But the real question is: should we have asked him to take that risk in the first place?&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.)

So here’s the question we should be asking: Is it worth it? Every pilot lost in an airshow is a pilot who won't be available to defend the nation when it truly matters. The entertainment value for a few thousand spectators lasts minutes. The loss is permanent.

When the Indian Air Force’s Tejas fighter jet exploded into a ball of fire at Dubai’s Al Maktoum International Airport on Friday afternoon, families watching the airshow witnessed something no one should ever see—a pilot’s final moments playing out against a clear sky. Aviation experts who analysed the crash footage believe the aircraft was executing a negative G turn when disaster struck. But here’s the uncomfortable truth we need to talk about: this tragedy wasn’t just about what went wrong with the aircraft. It was about the inherent danger of pushing the laws of physics to their absolute limit at an altitude where there’s zero margin for error. The video of the crash tells a chilling story. There was no ejection. Not because the pilot didn’t try, not because the zero-zero Martin-Baker ejection seat failed, but because at low altitude during aggressive manoeuvres, physics becomes your enemy. The term “zero-zero” means the seat can save a pilot’s life even at zero altitude and zero speed—literally while the aircraft is still on the runway. It’s an incredible piece of engineering that uses powerful rockets to blast the pilot clear of the aircraft and deploy a parachute within seconds. But here’s the catch: even this remarkable technology needs a minimum amount of time and height for the parachute to fully open and slow the pilot’s descent. When you are performing aerobatics just a few hundred feet above the ground and the aircraft suddenly loses control, that time simply doesn’t exist. Let’s talk about what negative G really means in practical terms. When a fighter jet completes a loop and the pilot is upside down at the top, blood rushes to the head, vision can blur, and spatial awareness becomes challenged. Now imagine coming out of that loop, trying to level the aircraft, and suddenly something goes wrong. The Tejas, being a modern fighter, uses fly-by-wire technology—meaning there are no direct mechanical links between the pilot’s controls and the aircraft’s moving surfaces. Instead, computers interpret the pilot’s inputs and adjust the control surfaces accordingly, making the aircraft more stable and easier to handle. This system has multiple redundancies and is incredibly reliable. But what if, during a negative G manoeuvre at low altitude, the engine doesn’t respond as expected? Maybe there’s a compressor stall—where the engine temporarily chokes and loses power. Maybe the airflow gets disrupted for just a fraction of a second. At 10,000 feet, a pilot has time to troubleshoot, the fly-by-wire system has time to compensate, or the pilot can eject safely. At 500 feet during an aggressive manoeuvre? You have seconds, perhaps less. This is why airshow crashes, though rare, are almost always fatal. The Rajasthan Tejas crash in March 2024 had a different outcome—the pilot survived because he had altitude. When that aircraft got into trouble, there was enough height for the ejection sequence to work properly. The zero-zero seat fired, the rockets blasted the pilot clear, the parachute deployed, and he walked away. But in Dubai, performing for spectators at low altitude, there simply wasn’t enough sky between the aircraft and the ground. By the time the emergency became apparent and the pilot may have attempted to eject, the aircraft was already too close for the parachute to deploy effectively. Now, some argue that Dubai’s 35°C heat affected the engine performance. But this reasoning falls apart when you consider that India operates these jets in Rajasthan, where summer temperatures regularly exceed 45°C. The Tejas has performed flawlessly in those conditions for years. The aircraft from Sulur squadron that crashed had been flying since 2016 without incident. So why Dubai? Why now? The answer isn’t the desert heat—it’s the deadly combination of low altitude and complex aerobatics. Here’s what most people don’t understand about airshow flying: it’s not normal flying. Combat missions, patrol duties, even training exercises—all these happen at safer altitudes with built-in safety margins. The fly-by-wire system is designed to prevent pilots from accidentally overstressing the aircraft during normal operations. But airshows demand that pilots push their machines to the visual limits at heights low enough for spectators to see the drama. The crowd wants to see tight turns, vertical climbs, and loops that make their hearts race. And pilots, being the brave professionals they are, deliver exactly that. But every single time they do, they’re gambling with physics in a way that leaves almost no room for mechanical failure or unexpected aircraft behaviour. The LCA Tejas has an impressive safety record—just two crashes in 24 years. Compare that to the MiG-21, which earned the grim nickname “flying coffin” for its numerous accidents. The Tejas was supposed to change that narrative, and largely it has. Its fly-by-wire controls make it inherently safer than older generation fighters. Its zero-zero ejection seat is among the best in the world. But safety records and advanced technology mean little when you’re performing aggressive manoeuvres at altitudes where even a one-second delay in recognizing a problem can be fatal. This isn’t a Tejas problem—it’s an airshow problem. F-16s have crashed at airshows. Sukhois have crashed. Even the legendary Blue Angels and Thunderbirds have lost pilots during displays. The aircraft type matters less than the unforgiving nature of low-altitude aerobatics. So here’s the question we should be asking: Is it worth it? Is the spectacle of a fighter jet looping and rolling just a few hundred feet above the ground worth the risk to highly trained pilots who are national assets? These aren’t stunt performers—they’re combat-ready officers who’ve spent years mastering their craft. Every pilot lost in an airshow is a pilot who won't be available to defend the nation when it truly matters. The entertainment value for a few thousand spectators lasts minutes. The loss is permanent. The investigation will tell us what mechanically failed or what sequence of events led to the crash. But we already know the larger truth: low-altitude aerobatics will always be dangerous, no matter how advanced the fly-by-wire system, no matter how skilled the pilot, no matter how reliable the zero-zero ejection seat. When you operate at the extreme edges of what’s physically possible with minimal altitude cushion, you’re accepting a level of risk that can turn catastrophic in an instant. Perhaps it’s time we rethink how we showcase our military capabilities. Perhaps virtual reality displays, simulator demonstrations, or higher-altitude performances could deliver the same impact without putting irreplaceable human lives on the line. The pilot who died in Dubai gave everything to represent India on an international stage. But the real question is: should we have asked him to take that risk in the first place? (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.)

So here’s the question we should be asking: Is it worth it? Every pilot lost in an airshow is a pilot who won't be available to defend the nation when it truly matters. The entertainment value for a few thousand spectators lasts minutes. The loss is permanent.

The zero margin: Why physics defeated the Tejas ejection seat in Dubai

Bihar has stepped into another five-year term under the double-engine NDA government, steered by the enduring leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, whose two decades at the helm mark a rare feat in Indian politics. The assembly elections wrapped up with a resounding landslide for the NDA, clinching over 202 seats in the 243-member house with the oath ceremony taking place tomorrow. As always, the poll season in the state brimmed with high drama—fierce face-offs between the BJP-led NDA, the RJD-anchored Mahagathbandhan, and Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj adding layers of unpredictability and political brouhaha. Campaign trails echoed with bold pledges on jobs and welfare, sharp exchanges over governance records, and a barrage of sops aimed at every voter segment. At the heart of this election campaign lay the burning issue of jobs and livelihoods. The NDA went all out with a bold pledge of over one crore employment opportunities across Bihar, while the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan promised a government job to at least one member of every family. Not to be left behind, Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj threw its hat in the ring with a target of creating five million job avenues for the state’s youth.&nbsp;Employment thus became the loudest drumbeat on the campaign trail, with every alliance trying to outdo the others on who could deliver more Rozgar to Bihar’s restless millions. Yet, amid the din of rallies and rhetoric, Bihar's electorate stood firm, embracing the spirit of dance of democracy and delivering a clear verdict that vividly ventilates their aspirations for steady progress and sustainable development with signifying the spirit of Bihari pride in the journey of Viksit Bharat. The verdict hammered home a key message: Bihar's voters are increasingly looking past rigid caste equations, prioritising a stable administration focused on growth minus the shadows of unrest that once defined the state's polls. This move was stark among first-time voters and the Gen Z crowd, who showed little patience for the usual barbs and bluster from rival camps. With an overall turnout touching 63.5 per cent—highest in a decade, as reported by the Election Commission—the long lines at booths signalled pro-incumbency waves, not waves of rejection, underscoring faith in the ruling combine's track record on law and order.&nbsp;Behind each cross on the ballot for the NDA lies a bundle of expectations and trust in the double-engine Sarkar, where state and Centre pull in tandem for Bihar's uplift. As fingers dipped in indelible ink, memories of rally vows from heavyweights like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cabinet colleagues flooded minds—assurances of expressways, medical colleges, and flood-resilient infrastructure that have already taken shape over the past term. The public has extended a hearty nod to Pm Modi's firm commitments on Bihar's revival, from the flood of central funds to the push for all round development. Post-results jubilation at BJP headquarters in the national capital peaked when PM Modi, twirling a Gamchha in a nod to Bihari flair, quipped, "Bihar Ke Logon Ne Garda Uda Diye"—a line that landed like a rallying cry, stirring a collective surge of optimism. It captured the pulse: folks here yearn to see their state climb from laggard to leader, and this mandate feels like a pact sealed with hope, promising the NDA's fresh innings will vault Bihar to fresh milestones every citizen craves.&nbsp;To turn this goodwill into lasting gains, the incoming NDA dispensation must zero in on five pressing fronts, drawing from hard numbers that spotlight Bihar's strides and gaps.&nbsp;<ul><li>FIRST: Sustainable development demands ramping up green initiatives; the state's Economic Survey 2024-25 notes Bihar's renewable energy capacity hit 1,200 MW last fiscal, but experts urge tripling it by 2030 to curb flood vulnerabilities and power rural grids.</li><li>SECOND: Employment generation tops the list—unemployment lingers at 7.2 per cent per NSSO's latest Periodic Labour Force Survey, yet schemes like the Bihar Business Connect portal have greenlit 1.2 lakh jobs since 2023; the government should scale industrial parks to absorb another 5-lakh youth annually.</li><li>THIRD: Boosting per capita income, which trails the national average at Rs 54,000 against Rs 1.7 lakh, calls for agro-processing hubs—the survey flags a 15 per cent yearly rise in food exports, a base to build on for doubling farm incomes.</li><li>FOURTH: Nurturing MSMEs and industry, Bihar's 3.8 lakh micro units contribute 25 per cent to GSDP, according to the Ministry of MSME, but easing credit access could spark 20 per cent more registrations, fuelling local manufacturing in textiles and leather.</li><li>&nbsp;FIFTH: Overhauling education and health alongside tourism: Enrolment in government schools jumped 18 per cent post the 2023 reforms, while health outlays doubled to Rs 15,000 crore; pairing this with eco-tourism circuits around Bodh Gaya and Valmiki Tiger Reserve could draw 2 crore visitors yearly, as projected by the Union Tourism Ministry, blending heritage with revenue.</li></ul>&nbsp;In wrapping up, the new NDA government's return to power stands as a robust endorsement of the double-engine machinery, where voters have placed their chips on a partnership proven to deliver without the old pitfalls of flip-flops or friction. Nitish Kumar's steady hand, fused with PM Modi's national heft, has earned this lease not just on nostalgia but on tangible shifts—from pockmarked roads to powered villages—that hint at more to come. Every vote cast this November wasn't a mere mark; it was a vote for holistic growth, aiming to yank Bihar clean out of the BIMARU tag that clung like a millstone for decades. With eyes on equitable jobs, robust services, and an economy firing on all cylinders, this term holds the promise of a Bihar that doesn't just catch up but charges ahead, rewarding the faith of its 7.5 crore souls with a future bright and boundless.&nbsp;

Bihar has stepped into another five-year term under the double-engine NDA government, steered by the enduring leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, whose two decades at the helm mark a rare feat in Indian politics.

Bihar has stepped into another five-year term under the double-engine NDA government, steered by the enduring leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, whose two decades at the helm mark a rare feat in Indian politics. The assembly elections wrapped up with a resounding landslide for the NDA, clinching over 202 seats in the 243-member house with the oath ceremony taking place tomorrow. As always, the poll season in the state brimmed with high drama—fierce face-offs between the BJP-led NDA, the RJD-anchored Mahagathbandhan, and Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj adding layers of unpredictability and political brouhaha. Campaign trails echoed with bold pledges on jobs and welfare, sharp exchanges over governance records, and a barrage of sops aimed at every voter segment. At the heart of this election campaign lay the burning issue of jobs and livelihoods. The NDA went all out with a bold pledge of over one crore employment opportunities across Bihar, while the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan promised a government job to at least one member of every family. Not to be left behind, Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj threw its hat in the ring with a target of creating five million job avenues for the state’s youth. Employment thus became the loudest drumbeat on the campaign trail, with every alliance trying to outdo the others on who could deliver more Rozgar to Bihar’s restless millions. Yet, amid the din of rallies and rhetoric, Bihar's electorate stood firm, embracing the spirit of dance of democracy and delivering a clear verdict that vividly ventilates their aspirations for steady progress and sustainable development with signifying the spirit of Bihari pride in the journey of Viksit Bharat. The verdict hammered home a key message: Bihar's voters are increasingly looking past rigid caste equations, prioritising a stable administration focused on growth minus the shadows of unrest that once defined the state's polls. This move was stark among first-time voters and the Gen Z crowd, who showed little patience for the usual barbs and bluster from rival camps. With an overall turnout touching 63.5 per cent—highest in a decade, as reported by the Election Commission—the long lines at booths signalled pro-incumbency waves, not waves of rejection, underscoring faith in the ruling combine's track record on law and order. Behind each cross on the ballot for the NDA lies a bundle of expectations and trust in the double-engine Sarkar, where state and Centre pull in tandem for Bihar's uplift. As fingers dipped in indelible ink, memories of rally vows from heavyweights like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his cabinet colleagues flooded minds—assurances of expressways, medical colleges, and flood-resilient infrastructure that have already taken shape over the past term. The public has extended a hearty nod to Pm Modi's firm commitments on Bihar's revival, from the flood of central funds to the push for all round development. Post-results jubilation at BJP headquarters in the national capital peaked when PM Modi, twirling a Gamchha in a nod to Bihari flair, quipped, "Bihar Ke Logon Ne Garda Uda Diye"—a line that landed like a rallying cry, stirring a collective surge of optimism. It captured the pulse: folks here yearn to see their state climb from laggard to leader, and this mandate feels like a pact sealed with hope, promising the NDA's fresh innings will vault Bihar to fresh milestones every citizen craves. To turn this goodwill into lasting gains, the incoming NDA dispensation must zero in on five pressing fronts, drawing from hard numbers that spotlight Bihar's strides and gaps. FIRST: Sustainable development demands ramping up green initiatives; the state's Economic Survey 2024-25 notes Bihar's renewable energy capacity hit 1,200 MW last fiscal, but experts urge tripling it by 2030 to curb flood vulnerabilities and power rural grids. SECOND: Employment generation tops the list—unemployment lingers at 7.2 per cent per NSSO's latest Periodic Labour Force Survey, yet schemes like the Bihar Business Connect portal have greenlit 1.2 lakh jobs since 2023; the government should scale industrial parks to absorb another 5-lakh youth annually. THIRD: Boosting per capita income, which trails the national average at Rs 54,000 against Rs 1.7 lakh, calls for agro-processing hubs—the survey flags a 15 per cent yearly rise in food exports, a base to build on for doubling farm incomes. FOURTH: Nurturing MSMEs and industry, Bihar's 3.8 lakh micro units contribute 25 per cent to GSDP, according to the Ministry of MSME, but easing credit access could spark 20 per cent more registrations, fuelling local manufacturing in textiles and leather. FIFTH: Overhauling education and health alongside tourism: Enrolment in government schools jumped 18 per cent post the 2023 reforms, while health outlays doubled to Rs 15,000 crore; pairing this with eco-tourism circuits around Bodh Gaya and Valmiki Tiger Reserve could draw 2 crore visitors yearly, as projected by the Union Tourism Ministry, blending heritage with revenue. In wrapping up, the new NDA government's return to power stands as a robust endorsement of the double-engine machinery, where voters have placed their chips on a partnership proven to deliver without the old pitfalls of flip-flops or friction. Nitish Kumar's steady hand, fused with PM Modi's national heft, has earned this lease not just on nostalgia but on tangible shifts—from pockmarked roads to powered villages—that hint at more to come. Every vote cast this November wasn't a mere mark; it was a vote for holistic growth, aiming to yank Bihar clean out of the BIMARU tag that clung like a millstone for decades. With eyes on equitable jobs, robust services, and an economy firing on all cylinders, this term holds the promise of a Bihar that doesn't just catch up but charges ahead, rewarding the faith of its 7.5 crore souls with a future bright and boundless.

Employment thus became the loudest drumbeat on the campaign trail, with every alliance trying to outdo the others on who could deliver more Rozgar to Bihar’s restless millions.

Reflections after Results! Double-engine govt must double the speed to double the income of people in Bihar

Money from the drug trade does not stop at the beach. It needs to be cleaned and moved into the formal economy. In Balochistan, where the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Gwadar are billed as engines of growth, the same construction boom that attracts clean capital can also absorb dirty cash. International and Pakistani sources describe how drug proceeds move through hawala, shell firms and front people, then land in high-risk sectors such as real estate and construction. Weak ownership transparency and patchy enforcement increase that risk.&nbsp;UNODC and FATF have long warned that profits from Afghan heroin and, more recently, methamphetamine, are laundered both inside the region and abroad. Typical routes include money or value transfer services, cash smuggling and investments in legal businesses—especially property—because these absorb large sums with little scrutiny. In Pakistan and its neighbourhood, hawala remains a key channel. These are not abstract risks: they are the standard playbook for organised crime.&nbsp;Pakistan’s past assessments by FATF and the Asia/Pacific Group show why infrastructure and real estate deserve special attention. The 2019 mutual evaluation and subsequent follow-up reports flag structural weaknesses: limited transparency into who really owns companies, uneven supervision of “DNFBPs” (lawyers, accountants, real estate agents), and reliance on paper checks. While Pakistan has implemented reforms and left the FATF “grey list” in 2022, both the FATF/APG documents, as well as expert commentary, stress that real estate and construction remain high-risk channels for laundering.&nbsp;Policy also shapes incentives. Gwadar’s free zone profits enjoy long tax holidays and other exemptions intended to attract investors. These incentives are lawful, but they make the zone a magnet for fast-moving capital with fewer fiscal frictions—conditions that can attract both legitimate money and funds seeking a quick wash. Public investor guides spell out the depth of those exemptions, which, in some cases, run to 2039.&nbsp;The state’s own records show how front people and shell structures work on the ground. Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has used the Benami law since 2019 to target properties held through “name-lenders” and stand-ins. In 2020, FBR reported detecting hundreds of benami cases worth tens of billions of rupees; in 2025, it announced freshseizures where plots were held through a front person with forged credentials. Benami deals do not prove drug money, but they show how capital enters land and construction while hiding the real owner—exactly what a launderer needs.&nbsp;Auditors have also traced trade-based schemes that distort the books for Pakistan-linked firms, including contractors and importers. An Auditor-General report on customs found importers using shell companies in Dubai to under-invoice goods and move value off the books—classic techniques that can also hide criminal proceeds behind “normal” procurement. When construction materials are under-invoiced, projects gain unexplained price advantages, while illicit money slips through as supplier payments.&nbsp;In Balochistan, oversight gaps around big public works make those risks sharper. Transparency International Pakistan wrote in February 2025 to the Gwadar Port Authority about a tender it said breached procurement rules—one of several letters that month to federal and provincial bodies on weak compliance. Local media have also reported large accounting and contracting irregularities in Gwadar water and infrastructure projects reviewed by the provincial Public Accounts Committee. Such findings do not identify narcotics money, but they show a control environment where illicit capital could blend in.&nbsp;Financial regulators say they are tightening the net. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan has pushed for beneficial-ownership disclosure since 2018 and, in April 2025, signalled plans for a central register of real owners to meet global standards. These steps matter: infrastructure contractors, sub-contractors and zone-registered companies should not be able to hide their ultimate controllers behind layers of nominees. But until such registers are live, verified and linked to public procurement, enforcement remains slow and reactive.&nbsp;What then ties narco-profits to cranes and concrete? First, the supply of illicit money is real and large. UNODC estimates show drug-related illicit financial flows on a scale comparable to formal exports in some markets; studies of Afghan opiate finance explain how proceeds cycle through hawala and into assets. When seizures surge on the nearby “southern route”, the pool of cash seeking a home expands.&nbsp;Second, the channels exist. Pakistan’s own Financial Monitoring Unit has documented cases where hawala networks supported smuggling and high-value imports. Benami seizures show how front people hold plots; audit findings show how shell firms and under-invoicing bleed value through trade. Each of these is a standard laundering step: placement through cash businesses and MVTS, layering through trade and shells, and integration through property and contracts.&nbsp;Third, the opportunity space around CPEC is wide. A 2021 analysis by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime warned that large transport corridors, including CPEC, can also serve organised crime by easing the movement of goods, people and finance unless governance keeps pace. Add generous tax breaks in Gwadar’s free zone and a procurement culture that watchdogs keep challenging, and you have a market where clean and dirty money can look the same on paper.&nbsp;None of these claims that any named CPEC firm is funded by drugs. It shows a system where the distance between narco-capital and infrastructure financing can be short. The remedy is not to halt projects, but to close the paths that dirty money takes. That means publishing the ultimate owners of every company that wins a public works contract in Balochistan. Requiring independent source-of-funds checks on major Gwadar free-zone investments; linking procurement and tax data to spot under-invoicing; and making benami orders and court outcomes searchable by project and district. It also means extending risk-based supervision to lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents who set up the shells and move the cash.

International and Pakistani sources describe how drug proceeds move through hawala, shell firms and front people, then land in high-risk sectors such as real estate and construction. Weak ownership transparency and patchy enforcement increase that risk.

Money from the drug trade does not stop at the beach. It needs to be cleaned and moved into the formal economy. In Balochistan, where the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Gwadar are billed as engines of growth, the same construction boom that attracts clean capital can also absorb dirty cash. International and Pakistani sources describe how drug proceeds move through hawala, shell firms and front people, then land in high-risk sectors such as real estate and construction. Weak ownership transparency and patchy enforcement increase that risk. UNODC and FATF have long warned that profits from Afghan heroin and, more recently, methamphetamine, are laundered both inside the region and abroad. Typical routes include money or value transfer services, cash smuggling and investments in legal businesses—especially property—because these absorb large sums with little scrutiny. In Pakistan and its neighbourhood, hawala remains a key channel. These are not abstract risks: they are the standard playbook for organised crime. Pakistan’s past assessments by FATF and the Asia/Pacific Group show why infrastructure and real estate deserve special attention. The 2019 mutual evaluation and subsequent follow-up reports flag structural weaknesses: limited transparency into who really owns companies, uneven supervision of “DNFBPs” (lawyers, accountants, real estate agents), and reliance on paper checks. While Pakistan has implemented reforms and left the FATF “grey list” in 2022, both the FATF/APG documents, as well as expert commentary, stress that real estate and construction remain high-risk channels for laundering. Policy also shapes incentives. Gwadar’s free zone profits enjoy long tax holidays and other exemptions intended to attract investors. These incentives are lawful, but they make the zone a magnet for fast-moving capital with fewer fiscal frictions—conditions that can attract both legitimate money and funds seeking a quick wash. Public investor guides spell out the depth of those exemptions, which, in some cases, run to 2039. The state’s own records show how front people and shell structures work on the ground. Pakistan’s Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has used the Benami law since 2019 to target properties held through “name-lenders” and stand-ins. In 2020, FBR reported detecting hundreds of benami cases worth tens of billions of rupees; in 2025, it announced fresh seizures where plots were held through a front person with forged credentials. Benami deals do not prove drug money, but they show how capital enters land and construction while hiding the real owner—exactly what a launderer needs. Auditors have also traced trade-based schemes that distort the books for Pakistan-linked firms, including contractors and importers. An Auditor-General report on customs found importers using shell companies in Dubai to under-invoice goods and move value off the books—classic techniques that can also hide criminal proceeds behind “normal” procurement. When construction materials are under-invoiced, projects gain unexplained price advantages, while illicit money slips through as supplier payments. In Balochistan, oversight gaps around big public works make those risks sharper. Transparency International Pakistan wrote in February 2025 to the Gwadar Port Authority about a tender it said breached procurement rules—one of several letters that month to federal and provincial bodies on weak compliance. Local media have also reported large accounting and contracting irregularities in Gwadar water and infrastructure projects reviewed by the provincial Public Accounts Committee. Such findings do not identify narcotics money, but they show a control environment where illicit capital could blend in. Financial regulators say they are tightening the net. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan has pushed for beneficial-ownership disclosure since 2018 and, in April 2025, signalled plans for a central register of real owners to meet global standards. These steps matter: infrastructure contractors, sub-contractors and zone-registered companies should not be able to hide their ultimate controllers behind layers of nominees. But until such registers are live, verified and linked to public procurement, enforcement remains slow and reactive. What then ties narco-profits to cranes and concrete? First, the supply of illicit money is real and large. UNODC estimates show drug-related illicit financial flows on a scale comparable to formal exports in some markets; studies of Afghan opiate finance explain how proceeds cycle through hawala and into assets. When seizures surge on the nearby “southern route”, the pool of cash seeking a home expands. Second, the channels exist. Pakistan’s own Financial Monitoring Unit has documented cases where hawala networks supported smuggling and high-value imports. Benami seizures show how front people hold plots; audit findings show how shell firms and under-invoicing bleed value through trade. Each of these is a standard laundering step: placement through cash businesses and MVTS, layering through trade and shells, and integration through property and contracts. Third, the opportunity space around CPEC is wide. A 2021 analysis by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime warned that large transport corridors, including CPEC, can also serve organised crime by easing the movement of goods, people and finance unless governance keeps pace. Add generous tax breaks in Gwadar’s free zone and a procurement culture that watchdogs keep challenging, and you have a market where clean and dirty money can look the same on paper. None of these claims that any named CPEC firm is funded by drugs. It shows a system where the distance between narco-capital and infrastructure financing can be short. The remedy is not to halt projects, but to close the paths that dirty money takes. That means publishing the ultimate owners of every company that wins a public works contract in Balochistan. Requiring independent source-of-funds checks on major Gwadar free-zone investments; linking procurement and tax data to spot under-invoicing; and making benami orders and court outcomes searchable by project and district. It also means extending risk-based supervision to lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents who set up the shells and move the cash.

International and Pakistani sources describe how drug proceeds move through hawala, shell firms and front people, then land in high-risk sectors such as real estate and construction. Weak ownership transparency and patchy enforcement increase that risk.

Tracking the financial trail: Narco-profits and infrastructure projects in Balochistanac

On June 17, 1971, then US President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse America’s public enemy number one and pledged a world-wide offensive to deal with the sources of supply. Educational programmes at home would complement the offensive.&nbsp;Nixon never uttered the words War on Drugs. But that’s what the media called it, turning it into a commonly used phrase both in the United States and elsewhere. At the height of the Vietnam War, Nixon’s decision reflected public concern over the widespread addiction to heroin among troops returning home.&nbsp;Nixon’s vision was that America’s drug epidemic could be ended by cracking down on the production and processing of drugs and curbing the insatiable demand for them in the United States. Eight of the presidents who succeeded Nixon largely adopted his philosophy.&nbsp;Drug cultivation, processing and transporting to the United States were treated as criminal business. Drug sales, use and possession were illegal in America. The substances considered most destructive for society changed over the years. Nixon’s enemy number one was heroin.&nbsp;In the two terms of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the government’s anti-drug campaign was focused on cocaine and crack cocaine. A new effort to suppress demand came with a slogan coined by the president’s wife, Nancy. “Just Say No” featured in television messages and a long series of speeches. Drug users paid little attention.&nbsp;What various campaigns over the years had in common was that the officials pushing them were civilians, as were domestic violators of drug laws. Under Regan, spending on law enforcement and interdiction tripled. The number of Americans incarcerated for non-violent drug offences exploded under Reagan, from 50,000 to more than 400,000.&nbsp;For 54 years, anti-drug initiatives came under the umbrella of civilian laws. No longer.&nbsp;In the eighth month of Donald Trump’s second term, his administration came up with a novel doctrine that likened centres of the global drug industry to terrorist organisations like al Qaeda or ISIS. The government argument that major drug cartels are Foreign Terrorist Organisations blurs the line between law enforcement and warfare.&nbsp;The Trump administration shrugged off criticism from legal scholars and even some members of his Republican Party. Beginning on September 2, the U.S. military began blowing up speedboats suspected of carrying drugs. By the end of the first week of November, air strikes destroyed 18 vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing at least 70 people.&nbsp;Rand Paul, a Republican Senator from Kentucky, called it a campaign of “extrajudicial killings”, a legal term that translates into “murder.” United Nations officials and human rights organisations agreed. Volker Türk, the U.N’s High Commissioner said the American airstrikes “violate international human rights law.”&nbsp;Democratic Party leaders held that Trump did not have the authority to use military force the way he did without congressional approval and therefore his actions violated the constitution. They stressed that the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela.&nbsp;Trump’s response: “I don’t think we are going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we are just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. They are going to be, like, dead.”&nbsp;This differs sharply from decades of routine practice of dealing with vessels suspected of carrying drugs. They would be intercepted by Coast Guard ships, boarded by Coast Guard personnel, arrested and taken to the U.S. to be charged and tried.&nbsp;The Coast Guard is not involved in the campaign Trump launched in September. Instead, the U.S. has amassed a huge naval force in the Caribbean. It includes guided missile destroyers and cruisers, as well as at least one submarine. America’s biggest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, is making its way towards the region, expected to arrive this week.&nbsp;The massive display of firepower is Trump’s version of the gunboat diplomacy the big powers of the 19th century used to impose their will on smaller nations. Themodern version is meant to intimidate the anti-American dictator of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, whose backers include Russia, China and Iran.&nbsp;Most of the speedboats blown to bits by American drones or missiles came from Venezuela and U.S. authorities have accused Maduro of being the leader of a major drug organization. The administration has offered a $50 million reward for his arrest.&nbsp;Experts on drug trafficking rate Venezuela as a relatively minor player in the global business, serving mainly as a transit hub. It is worth noting that Venezuela was not even mentioned in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment report, a voluminous document that goes into the fine detail of the world-spanning trade.&nbsp;In the equally detailed 2025 report, Venezuelan drugs rate just two paragraphs devoted to the activities of two drug gangs inside the United States. Both reports, compiled by agents in the field, seasoned experts in Washington and electronic intelligence, stress the importance of a major shift from plant-based drugs like cocaine and heroin, to synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamine.&nbsp;Given this fundamental change, America’s massive military build-up in the Caribbean looks more designed to achieve regime change in Venezuela than slowing the flow of drugs. Maduro himself has accused Washington of aiming at “regime change through military threat.”&nbsp;Trump has confirmed in public that he has ordered “covert CIA operations” in Venezuela and said that after halting traffic across the sea “we are certainly looking at land now.”&nbsp;This comes from a leader who has campaigned for years against the “endless wars” his predecessors waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most military analysts warn that military action against Venezuela would be difficult and protracted.&nbsp;In a television interview as the bomb strikes on speedboats gathered pace, Trump was asked if he thought Maduro’s days as Venezuela’s president were numbered. His reply: “I would say, ‘Yeah. I think so, Yeah.”&nbsp;I would file that under Wishful Thinking.

In the two terms of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the government’s anti-drug campaign was focused on cocaine. A new effort to suppress demand came with a slogan coined by the president’s wife, Nancy. “Just Say No” featured in television messages and a long series of speeches.

On June 17, 1971, then US President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse America’s public enemy number one and pledged a world-wide offensive to deal with the sources of supply. Educational programmes at home would complement the offensive. Nixon never uttered the words War on Drugs. But that’s what the media called it, turning it into a commonly used phrase both in the United States and elsewhere. At the height of the Vietnam War, Nixon’s decision reflected public concern over the widespread addiction to heroin among troops returning home. Nixon’s vision was that America’s drug epidemic could be ended by cracking down on the production and processing of drugs and curbing the insatiable demand for them in the United States. Eight of the presidents who succeeded Nixon largely adopted his philosophy. Drug cultivation, processing and transporting to the United States were treated as criminal business. Drug sales, use and possession were illegal in America. The substances considered most destructive for society changed over the years. Nixon’s enemy number one was heroin. In the two terms of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the government’s anti-drug campaign was focused on cocaine and crack cocaine. A new effort to suppress demand came with a slogan coined by the president’s wife, Nancy. “Just Say No” featured in television messages and a long series of speeches. Drug users paid little attention. What various campaigns over the years had in common was that the officials pushing them were civilians, as were domestic violators of drug laws. Under Regan, spending on law enforcement and interdiction tripled. The number of Americans incarcerated for non-violent drug offences exploded under Reagan, from 50,000 to more than 400,000. For 54 years, anti-drug initiatives came under the umbrella of civilian laws. No longer. In the eighth month of Donald Trump’s second term, his administration came up with a novel doctrine that likened centres of the global drug industry to terrorist organisations like al Qaeda or ISIS. The government argument that major drug cartels are Foreign Terrorist Organisations blurs the line between law enforcement and warfare. The Trump administration shrugged off criticism from legal scholars and even some members of his Republican Party. Beginning on September 2, the U.S. military began blowing up speedboats suspected of carrying drugs. By the end of the first week of November, air strikes destroyed 18 vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing at least 70 people. Rand Paul, a Republican Senator from Kentucky, called it a campaign of “extrajudicial killings”, a legal term that translates into “murder.” United Nations officials and human rights organisations agreed. Volker Türk, the U.N’s High Commissioner said the American airstrikes “violate international human rights law.” Democratic Party leaders held that Trump did not have the authority to use military force the way he did without congressional approval and therefore his actions violated the constitution. They stressed that the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. Trump’s response: “I don’t think we are going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we are just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. They are going to be, like, dead.” This differs sharply from decades of routine practice of dealing with vessels suspected of carrying drugs. They would be intercepted by Coast Guard ships, boarded by Coast Guard personnel, arrested and taken to the U.S. to be charged and tried. The Coast Guard is not involved in the campaign Trump launched in September. Instead, the U.S. has amassed a huge naval force in the Caribbean. It includes guided missile destroyers and cruisers, as well as at least one submarine. America’s biggest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, is making its way towards the region, expected to arrive this week. The massive display of firepower is Trump’s version of the gunboat diplomacy the big powers of the 19th century used to impose their will on smaller nations. The modern version is meant to intimidate the anti-American dictator of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, whose backers include Russia, China and Iran. Most of the speedboats blown to bits by American drones or missiles came from Venezuela and U.S. authorities have accused Maduro of being the leader of a major drug organization. The administration has offered a $50 million reward for his arrest. Experts on drug trafficking rate Venezuela as a relatively minor player in the global business, serving mainly as a transit hub. It is worth noting that Venezuela was not even mentioned in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment report, a voluminous document that goes into the fine detail of the world-spanning trade. In the equally detailed 2025 report, Venezuelan drugs rate just two paragraphs devoted to the activities of two drug gangs inside the United States. Both reports, compiled by agents in the field, seasoned experts in Washington and electronic intelligence, stress the importance of a major shift from plant-based drugs like cocaine and heroin, to synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamine. Given this fundamental change, America’s massive military build-up in the Caribbean looks more designed to achieve regime change in Venezuela than slowing the flow of drugs. Maduro himself has accused Washington of aiming at “regime change through military threat.” Trump has confirmed in public that he has ordered “covert CIA operations” in Venezuela and said that after halting traffic across the sea “we are certainly looking at land now.” This comes from a leader who has campaigned for years against the “endless wars” his predecessors waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most military analysts warn that military action against Venezuela would be difficult and protracted. In a television interview as the bomb strikes on speedboats gathered pace, Trump was asked if he thought Maduro’s days as Venezuela’s president were numbered. His reply: “I would say, ‘Yeah. I think so, Yeah.” I would file that under Wishful Thinking.

In the two terms of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the government’s anti-drug campaign was focused on cocaine. A new effort to suppress demand came with a slogan coined by the president’s wife, Nancy. “Just Say No” featured in television messages and a long series of speeches.

Once a critic of 'endless wars', Trump wades into the world’s longest war

How do you know that you are ageing? Apart from constant back pains and weaker eyesight, the reminder comes when your screen idol reaches a milestone year. Shah Rukh Khan is now 60, and for a generation —the millennials —who grew up watching his films and idolising him, it is a subtle nudge that the beautiful childhood years are now considered retro by the newer generation. For about a week now, as WION’s Entertainment team churned out throwback stories on Shah Rukh Khan, celebrating his 60th birthday, it has been a trip down memory lane. Of his movies, charm, charisma and what makes him a bona fide superstar.&nbsp;At 60, people tend to retire. In India, you are officially part of the senior citizen club at that age. Just a few weeks ago, SRK unwillingly came into focus thanks to his angry fans. The audio teaser of Sandeep Vanga Reddy’s Spirit was unveiled, and there Prabhas was called India’s biggest superstar- a phrase that irked many loyal SRK fans. Could the last few box office hits of the South actor replace the Bollywood Badshah from his coveted position? YouTube debates ensued, camps were divided, and many pointed out that while Khan had a great outing at the movies in 2023, several years preceding were dismal. The man was on a break for four years, reassessing his choice of films, keeping a low profile, and dealing with a huge personal crisis right under the public eye. Meanwhile, his contemporaries and juniors delivered box office hits. Some blind columns also alleged that the Spirit teaser made SRK’s PR team work overtime to churn out stories about the actor’s evergreen superstar status. But does Shah Rukh Khan, one of the most prominent Indian names in the world, need PR to counter a three-film-old director’s claim?&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/spirit-update-sandeep-reddy-vanga-drops-birthday-surprise-for-prabhas-watch-1761245407718">Spirit update: Sandeep Reddy Vanga drops birthday surprise for Prabhas | Watch</a>

<h2>PR king or People’s king?</h2>Khan has often been called a smart or clever businessman and for his ability to keep his image relevant. Not just through cinema, the brand Shah Rukh Khan has been sold to us through commercials, TV shows, public appearances, and even controversies. But Khan is above all calculated PR campaigns and machineries. A day before his birthday, I happened to watch Om Shanti Om in a south Delhi theatre. Farah Khan’s film, which featured Khan and Deepika Padukone, is part of the SRK Film Festival that is showcasing 7 of his films again in theatres. The afternoon show that I went to was housefull, and my friend and I got seats only in the front row. The audience did not only comprise millennials like us, but also Gen Z, a young audience who sang and danced along with the King as he appeared shirtless to Dard-e-disco or serenaded Padukone in Dhom Tana. Couples finished dialogues before he said it on screen, and almost every scene was welcomed with cheers and hoots. This could not be PR driven. It is impossible to orchestrate such a reaction for a film that is now 17 years old.&nbsp;The overwhelming response to the festival has also prompted the multiplex chain to add more shows of his films, Om Shanti Om included.<h2>Relevance of Shah Rukh Khan at 60</h2>As a film critic and a long-standing fan of the actor, I have to admit, several of Khan’s films in the last decade felt jaded. Sure, his charisma and charm made me watch all of them, but I didn’t swoon over him and many of these films did not leave a lasting impression on me. I thought I had grown up and, since now exposed to all kinds of cinema, had developed more objectivity. But looking back at 2023, and the stupendous year that Khan had, I realise it was a passing phase. Khan never really left the stage. He was at the wings, reassessing and observing and taking calculated steps.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/shah-rukh-khan-60-7-inspiring-quotes-by-king-khan-about-life-success-and-hard-work-1761991531558">Shah Rukh Khan@ 60: 7 inspiring quotes by King Khan about life, success and hard work</a>&nbsp;The audience reaction that I got to witness firsthand while watching Om Shanti Om is a testament to the fact that the man is for all ages. The enormous crowd that gathers every year outside Mannat on his birthday indicates that the man is the undisputed king. His National Award win feels like a personal victory for all. The way the audience with vengeance, watched Pathan in theatres multiple times, to counter his trolls, shows how loyal his fans are to him and will remain so. Shah Rukh Khan may have debuted in the 1990s and was loved by a generation who are now approaching (or turned) forty’s but that man remains a favourite for all age groups.&nbsp;There is something about SRK that everyone can relate to. His self-deprecatting humour, his stand on politics, his ability to rise every time he is pulled back by his critics- the man knows how to inspire and be a role model to everyone.

Just a few hours back, the teaser of King- SRK’s next was unveiled. Makers promised to show a ‘new’ Shah Rukh Khan sporting grey hair and looking suave. On screen, he may be doing somersaults and taking on men double his size like he has done in many of his previous films, but he seems to be owing his age, sporting the grey stylishly, teasing fans for a thrilling ride ahead. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/king-title-reveal-makers-give-sneak-peek-of-a-new-shah-rukh-khan-watch-1762064013476">King title reveal: Makers give sneak peek of a 'new' Shah Rukh Khan | Watch</a>&nbsp;His fans will age with time. But Shah Rukh Khan will remain the people’s King for generations to come.

Shah Rukh Khan's fans may be ageing. But not him. At 60, the man doesn't need orchestrated PR campaigns to stay relevant. And his growing fan base - transcending age groups and continents- is a clear testament to the fact he will remain India's biggest superstar for years to come.  

How do you know that you are ageing? Apart from constant back pains and weaker eyesight, the reminder comes when your screen idol reaches a milestone year. Shah Rukh Khan is now 60, and for a generation —the millennials —who grew up watching his films and idolising him, it is a subtle nudge that the beautiful childhood years are now considered retro by the newer generation. For about a week now, as WION’s Entertainment team churned out throwback stories on Shah Rukh Khan, celebrating his 60th birthday, it has been a trip down memory lane. Of his movies, charm, charisma and what makes him a bona fide superstar. At 60, people tend to retire. In India, you are officially part of the senior citizen club at that age. Just a few weeks ago, SRK unwillingly came into focus thanks to his angry fans. The audio teaser of Sandeep Vanga Reddy’s Spirit was unveiled, and there Prabhas was called India’s biggest superstar- a phrase that irked many loyal SRK fans. Could the last few box office hits of the South actor replace the Bollywood Badshah from his coveted position? YouTube debates ensued, camps were divided, and many pointed out that while Khan had a great outing at the movies in 2023, several years preceding were dismal. The man was on a break for four years, reassessing his choice of films, keeping a low profile, and dealing with a huge personal crisis right under the public eye. Meanwhile, his contemporaries and juniors delivered box office hits. Some blind columns also alleged that the Spirit teaser made SRK’s PR team work overtime to churn out stories about the actor’s evergreen superstar status. But does Shah Rukh Khan, one of the most prominent Indian names in the world, need PR to counter a three-film-old director’s claim? Also read: Spirit update: Sandeep Reddy Vanga drops birthday surprise for Prabhas | Watch

Shah Rukh Khan's fans may be ageing. But not him. At 60, the man doesn't need orchestrated PR campaigns to stay relevant. And his growing fan base - transcending age groups and continents- is a clear testament to the fact he will remain India's biggest superstar for years to come. &nbsp;

Shah Rukh Khan at 60 still reigns: A people's King for every generation

Much has been wrangled over the performance of the Indian Women’s cricket team’s middle order batting, which has been a debacle of sorts in the past month of the ongoing ICC Women’s ODI World Cup. Following staunch starts from the top three, the middle order couldn’t seem to carry on the good work and fell like a pack of cards on multiple occasions.&nbsp;A major point of contention was the form of Jemimah Rodrigues, who has been on a roller coaster ride. Juggling and oscillating around different positions, Jemimah was sort of lost in the muddle with no clarity in her role.&nbsp;Following this was some lacklustre performance that saw her getting dropped from the playing eleven.&nbsp;However, after getting pushed up to number three, Rodrigues has turned the tide with a rollicking display of fortitude.&nbsp;Her knock of 75 in the do-or-die game against New Zealand, which went under the radar owing to the big hundreds that came off the bats of Smriti Mandhana and Pratika Rawal, ensured that India reached safer shores.&nbsp;Her swashbuckling innings also gave the bowlers a buffer that saw India seal a semi-final spot.&nbsp;But if the innings against New Zealand was quick and flashy, her match-winning knock against the seven-time and incumbent world champions, Australia showed her grit and her ability to stand up and grind away each and every run on the day it mattered the most.&nbsp;Surely the 25-year-old did have a couple of lives courtesy of some drop catches by the Aussies. But as the old adage goes, fortune favours the brave, and it indeed did to a batter that has defied the odds when the chips were down and things were looking dicey after the fall of the first two wickets in quick intervals.&nbsp;A big highlight of Rodrigues’s innings was her calm presence and her nonchalant stroke-making making which deserves all the plaudits.&nbsp;Albeit the miscued shots from the 25-year-old did give a lot of heart-in-the-mouth moments, Jemimah backed her ability to the fullest and played the innings of a lifetime in one of the historic run chases that have come at the knock-out stage of a World Cup.&nbsp;Whether it was her ability to pierce and slice the gap between point and cover with her cuts and late cuts against pacers, or her adroitness to come down the wicket against spinners, Jemimah excelled in both.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/5-players-with-most-runs-in-women-s-odi-world-cup-history-debbie-hockley-mithali-raj-janette-brittin-charlotte-edwards-suzie-bates-1757606297874">From Mithali Raj to Janette Brittin, 5 players with most runs in Women's ODI World Cup history</a>&nbsp;Rodrigues not only showed character but also maturity during the herculean run chase. Despite reaching a 50 and then later converting the same into a hundred, Jemimah did not raise her bat, putting all personal milestones on the back burner with her eyes sternly locked on the bigger picture of getting India into the World Cup Final.&nbsp;Adding to this, the Aussies put their bodies on the line by diving and skidding across the moisture-heavy grass that was glistening with dew droplets, making the chase even more arduous for the 25-year-old.&nbsp;Despite all of this, Jemimah did not stare at the bottom of the barrel and pressed on to the finish.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cricket-women-s-odi-world-cup-2025-all-you-need-to-know-about-indian-women-s-team-schedule-squad-fixtures-and-more-1758556378933">Women's ODI World Cup 2025: All you need to know about Indian women's team schedule, squad, fixtures and more</a>&nbsp;Even when the kangaroos pulled down the curtain on the Harmanpreet show that almost triggered the nightmares that the Aussies faced in 2017, Rodrigues's methodical approach of mixing caution with aggression became the gleaming ray of hope on a day that saw dark clouds that triggered a mild cloud burst, suspending play in the first innings.&nbsp;She has created history by doing something that even the great Tendulkars, Kohlis, Rohits and the Dhonis of the world are yet to do.&nbsp;That is to chase a 300-plus total in an ODI World Cup semi-final/final against a dominating Australia.&nbsp;Now that the semi-final is done and dusted, the only thing that separates the Women in Blue and the World Cup is a potent South African team that is looking to make history by clinching their maiden World Cup.&nbsp;The Proteas are looking lethal, but the Indian Women are looking more dangerous than ever.&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;

On Sunday, a new World Cup winner will be crowned at the D.Y. Patil Stadium as India will have the opportunity to lift the title. It will be India’s second final in three editions, having previously lost to England in a close encounter in 2017. 

Much has been wrangled over the performance of the Indian Women’s cricket team’s middle order batting, which has been a debacle of sorts in the past month of the ongoing ICC Women’s ODI World Cup. Following staunch starts from the top three, the middle order couldn’t seem to carry on the good work and fell like a pack of cards on multiple occasions. A major point of contention was the form of Jemimah Rodrigues, who has been on a roller coaster ride. Juggling and oscillating around different positions, Jemimah was sort of lost in the muddle with no clarity in her role. Following this was some lacklustre performance that saw her getting dropped from the playing eleven. However, after getting pushed up to number three, Rodrigues has turned the tide with a rollicking display of fortitude. Her knock of 75 in the do-or-die game against New Zealand, which went under the radar owing to the big hundreds that came off the bats of Smriti Mandhana and Pratika Rawal, ensured that India reached safer shores. Her swashbuckling innings also gave the bowlers a buffer that saw India seal a semi-final spot. But if the innings against New Zealand was quick and flashy, her match-winning knock against the seven-time and incumbent world champions, Australia showed her grit and her ability to stand up and grind away each and every run on the day it mattered the most. Surely the 25-year-old did have a couple of lives courtesy of some drop catches by the Aussies. But as the old adage goes, fortune favours the brave, and it indeed did to a batter that has defied the odds when the chips were down and things were looking dicey after the fall of the first two wickets in quick intervals. A big highlight of Rodrigues’s innings was her calm presence and her nonchalant stroke-making making which deserves all the plaudits. Albeit the miscued shots from the 25-year-old did give a lot of heart-in-the-mouth moments, Jemimah backed her ability to the fullest and played the innings of a lifetime in one of the historic run chases that have come at the knock-out stage of a World Cup. Whether it was her ability to pierce and slice the gap between point and cover with her cuts and late cuts against pacers, or her adroitness to come down the wicket against spinners, Jemimah excelled in both. ALSO READ | From Mithali Raj to Janette Brittin, 5 players with most runs in Women's ODI World Cup history Rodrigues not only showed character but also maturity during the herculean run chase. Despite reaching a 50 and then later converting the same into a hundred, Jemimah did not raise her bat, putting all personal milestones on the back burner with her eyes sternly locked on the bigger picture of getting India into the World Cup Final. Adding to this, the Aussies put their bodies on the line by diving and skidding across the moisture-heavy grass that was glistening with dew droplets, making the chase even more arduous for the 25-year-old. Despite all of this, Jemimah did not stare at the bottom of the barrel and pressed on to the finish. ALSO READ | Women's ODI World Cup 2025: All you need to know about Indian women's team schedule, squad, fixtures and more Even when the kangaroos pulled down the curtain on the Harmanpreet show that almost triggered the nightmares that the Aussies faced in 2017, Rodrigues's methodical approach of mixing caution with aggression became the gleaming ray of hope on a day that saw dark clouds that triggered a mild cloud burst, suspending play in the first innings. She has created history by doing something that even the great Tendulkars, Kohlis, Rohits and the Dhonis of the world are yet to do. That is to chase a 300-plus total in an ODI World Cup semi-final/final against a dominating Australia. Now that the semi-final is done and dusted, the only thing that separates the Women in Blue and the World Cup is a potent South African team that is looking to make history by clinching their maiden World Cup. The Proteas are looking lethal, but the Indian Women are looking more dangerous than ever. 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 Sunday, a new World Cup winner will be crowned at the D.Y. Patil Stadium as India will have the opportunity to lift the title. It will be India’s second final in three editions, having previously lost to England in a close encounter in 2017.&nbsp;

Jemimah Rodrigues's record shattering innings sets new benchmark for Indian cricket ahead of World Cup final

I went out of Delhi during Diwali and returned on October 29, hoping to have escaped the pollution. But as the flight hovered over the skies of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), the air turned grey. It was a stark contrast to the skies of Chennai, where I had a layover, and Kerala, from where my journey began. Back on the ground, I was told that there had been no sunlight for the past few days. This time, the Deepawali celebrations were loud and smoky — with crackers, government-sanctioned and court-approved.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The stated aim was to reclaim the Indian tradition of a “true Diwali”, where fireworks were deemed an important part of the festivities, undoing earlier petitions and court rulings that had restricted their use because of their toxic emissions.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-special-not-just-india-these-foreign-countries-also-celebrate-the-festival-1760878472646">Diwali special: Not just India, these foreign countries also celebrate the festival</a> Already, the stubble burning in farms across Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh — an annual affair — had darkened the skies and stung the eyes. The celebration of Diwali with renewed vigour for fireworks added to the toxic mix. Western disturbances — the wind systems that usually clear Delhi’s air in the transition between summer and winter — stayed away for most of the last week of October this year. As a result of this deadly cocktail of factors, Delhi became the most polluted city in the world, the same gas chamber it is notorious for.The Air Quality Index (AQI) — a measure of air pollution — dipped to dangerous levels, hovering in the “severe” category for most of the week. Doctors reported nearly a 50 per cent rise in eye infections in Delhi. Hospitals filled up with patients suffering from bronchitis, asthma, and lung infections, all at a time already known as the peak flu season.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-2025-7-timeless-traditional-customs-that-keep-the-festival-of-lights-glowing-1760852309991">Diwali 2025: 7 timeless traditional customs that keep the festival of lights glowing</a><h2>How did we reach here?</h2>Delhi in October 2025 will likely be remembered as a textbook case of pollution caused by human actions. While India has repeatedly asserted that it should not be penalised for historic emissions caused by industrialised nations, a politically motivated decision to reintroduce toxic elements into the air runs counter to its own climate commitments.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-2025-10-stunning-decor-ideas-to-brighten-up-your-home-this-festive-season-1760867557369">Diwali 2025: 10 stunning decor ideas to brighten up your home this festive season</a> Despite decades of debate, nothing substantive has been achieved to end stubble burning — the practice of clearing farmlands after the harvest to prepare for the next sowing. Though centuries old, the scale and mechanisation of modern farming have worsened its impact. Despite court interventions and punitive measures, no viable, large-scale alternative to stubble burning has been introduced. What could have been a technical or administrative challenge has instead become a political blame game between states, depending on who is in power and who is in opposition.<h2>Firecrackers: A Chinese tradition adopted for an Indian festival</h2>In spite of talk about so-called “green crackers”, much of the market this year was flooded with imported or locally manufactured fireworks containing similar levels of toxins as before. Few realise that firecrackers were never an original part of Diwali, which for centuries was celebrated by lighting diyas — earthen lamps — to mark the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years of vanvaas, or exile. Firecrackers, originating in China, reached the Indian subcontinent around the 16th or 17th century through trade routes and were gradually incorporated into celebrations. But in the past few years, whether to use them or not became a political flashpoint. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often portrayed restrictions on fireworks as an attack on Hindu traditions, arguing that Diwali is incomplete without them.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-much-will-it-cost-for-cloud-seeding-in-delhi-iit-kanpur-director-says-one-should-not-need-to-spend-this-money-but-bjp-pollution-1761740211656">How much will it cost for cloud seeding in Delhi? IIT Kanpur Director says ‘one should not need to spend this money’ but...</a><h2>Artificial rain: Looking for a needle in a haystack</h2>In an attempt to mitigate the impact of post-Diwali pollution, the Delhi government experimented with cloud seeding and artificial rain. But it was too little, too late. There was no sunlight or breeze for nearly a week, and the air still smelt of burnt paper. Once again, we found ourselves at the mercy of nature to clear the mess we had created.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed</a><h2>GRAPpling with our own mess</h2>There was a time when Delhi managed to address its pollution problem — with the introduction of CNG-run buses and private vehicles, curbs on industrial emissions, and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), which imposed restrictions on construction, vehicular movement, and other activities based on pollution levels. But now, we are grappling with the same menace all over again, with the benefits of those earlier efforts slowly evaporating.&nbsp;Measures like the “odd-even” scheme — which limits private vehicles on the road based on their registration numbers — can only go so far.&nbsp;What we need is a separation of logic from superstitious fervour and political posturing.At the end of the day, it will once again take nature to rescue us. To that extent, our only options seem to be either to pray for rain — or, to satisfy the zealots, to pray to Lord Indra himself. &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.

Delhi’s post-Diwali smog worsened due to stubble burning, fireworks, and weak winds, exposing political hypocrisy and failed climate action.  People in India's capital struggle to breath in toxic air. How did we reach here, once again?

I went out of Delhi during Diwali and returned on October 29, hoping to have escaped the pollution. But as the flight hovered over the skies of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), the air turned grey. It was a stark contrast to the skies of Chennai, where I had a layover, and Kerala, from where my journey began. Back on the ground, I was told that there had been no sunlight for the past few days. This time, the Deepawali celebrations were loud and smoky — with crackers, government-sanctioned and court-approved. The stated aim was to reclaim the Indian tradition of a “true Diwali”, where fireworks were deemed an important part of the festivities, undoing earlier petitions and court rulings that had restricted their use because of their toxic emissions. Also read: Diwali special: Not just India, these foreign countries also celebrate the festival Already, the stubble burning in farms across Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh — an annual affair — had darkened the skies and stung the eyes. The celebration of Diwali with renewed vigour for fireworks added to the toxic mix. Western disturbances — the wind systems that usually clear Delhi’s air in the transition between summer and winter — stayed away for most of the last week of October this year. As a result of this deadly cocktail of factors, Delhi became the most polluted city in the world, the same gas chamber it is notorious for. The Air Quality Index (AQI) — a measure of air pollution — dipped to dangerous levels, hovering in the “severe” category for most of the week. Doctors reported nearly a 50 per cent rise in eye infections in Delhi. Hospitals filled up with patients suffering from bronchitis, asthma, and lung infections, all at a time already known as the peak flu season. Also read: Diwali 2025: 7 timeless traditional customs that keep the festival of lights glowing How did we reach here? Delhi in October 2025 will likely be remembered as a textbook case of pollution caused by human actions. While India has repeatedly asserted that it should not be penalised for historic emissions caused by industrialised nations, a politically motivated decision to reintroduce toxic elements into the air runs counter to its own climate commitments. Also read: Diwali 2025: 10 stunning decor ideas to brighten up your home this festive season Despite decades of debate, nothing substantive has been achieved to end stubble burning — the practice of clearing farmlands after the harvest to prepare for the next sowing. Though centuries old, the scale and mechanisation of modern farming have worsened its impact. Despite court interventions and punitive measures, no viable, large-scale alternative to stubble burning has been introduced. What could have been a technical or administrative challenge has instead become a political blame game between states, depending on who is in power and who is in opposition. Firecrackers: A Chinese tradition adopted for an Indian festival In spite of talk about so-called “green crackers”, much of the market this year was flooded with imported or locally manufactured fireworks containing similar levels of toxins as before. Few realise that firecrackers were never an original part of Diwali, which for centuries was celebrated by lighting diyas — earthen lamps — to mark the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years of vanvaas, or exile. Firecrackers, originating in China, reached the Indian subcontinent around the 16th or 17th century through trade routes and were gradually incorporated into celebrations. But in the past few years, whether to use them or not became a political flashpoint. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often portrayed restrictions on fireworks as an attack on Hindu traditions, arguing that Diwali is incomplete without them. Also read: How much will it cost for cloud seeding in Delhi? IIT Kanpur Director says ‘one should not need to spend this money’ but... Artificial rain: Looking for a needle in a haystack In an attempt to mitigate the impact of post-Diwali pollution, the Delhi government experimented with cloud seeding and artificial rain. But it was too little, too late. There was no sunlight or breeze for nearly a week, and the air still smelt of burnt paper. Once again, we found ourselves at the mercy of nature to clear the mess we had created. https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed GRAPpling with our own mess There was a time when Delhi managed to address its pollution problem — with the introduction of CNG-run buses and private vehicles, curbs on industrial emissions, and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), which imposed restrictions on construction, vehicular movement, and other activities based on pollution levels. But now, we are grappling with the same menace all over again, with the benefits of those earlier efforts slowly evaporating. Measures like the “odd-even” scheme — which limits private vehicles on the road based on their registration numbers — can only go so far. What we need is a separation of logic from superstitious fervour and political posturing. At the end of the day, it will once again take nature to rescue us. To that extent, our only options seem to be either to pray for rain — or, to satisfy the zealots, to pray to Lord Indra himself. 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.

Delhi’s post-Diwali smog worsened due to stubble burning, fireworks, and weak winds, exposing political hypocrisy and failed climate action. &nbsp;People in India's capital struggle to breath in toxic air. How did we reach here, once again?

Desolation by Smog: Politics polluted Indian capital Delhi, and we're GRAPpling with our own mess, once again

BUSAN, South Korea: President Donald Trump and China’s leader Xi Jinping met for the first time in six years and agreed to a temporary pause in their ongoing trade dispute between the two major world powers. Busan is the country’s second-largest port city.&nbsp;The agreement has eased tensions between the U.S. and China, who have been locked in a long trade and technology dispute that has damaged both economies.&nbsp;China also agreed to relax restrictions on exporting rare earth minerals, which Western countries need to make many products. In addition, Beijing promised to buy large quantities of American soybeans, President Trump said.&nbsp;Under the deal, the U.S. will lower some of its high tariffs on Chinese goods, while China has agreed to take strong action against the trade of chemicals used to make fentanyl, a highly dangerous drug.&nbsp;While the temporary peace has eased tensions for now, it doesn’t solve the deeper differences between the two powerful nations. Their economies are separating in many areas, and both are competing fiercely for global dominance, especially in fields like artificial intelligence (AI), reports The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).&nbsp;While speaking to reporters on his way back to the U.S. from South Korea, President Trump spoke very positively about the meeting.&nbsp;He said the meeting was better than excellent—on a 0 to 10 scale, with 10 being the best, he rated it “a 12,” meaning it far exceeded expectations.&nbsp;Trump announced that tariffs on Chinese goods linked to fentanyl will drop from 20% to 10%, effective immediately. He said the cut is a reward for China’s stronger action against chemicals used to make fentanyl. After this move, the overall U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will fall from 57% to 47%, which is lower than what many had expected.&nbsp;China agreed to relax export controls on processed rare-earth minerals for one year, providing some relief to global industries. These minerals are essential for manufacturing everything from smartphones to submarines, and China, the world’s top producer, had recently restricted exports, which badly hurt U.S. businesses.&nbsp;In addition, China promised to buy large quantities of U.S. soybeans, according to President Trump. The country has already purchased several shipments this week, bringing much-needed relief to American farmers who were hit hard during the harvest season after trade tensions pushed Chinese buyers to other markets.&nbsp;The drop in Chinese soybean purchases badly affected President Trump’s rural supporters. U.S. farmers lost billions of dollars in sales to China, the world’s largest soybean buyer, and urged the government for help. China placed new orders for soybeans just before Thursday’s, 30th October meeting, offering some hope to struggling farmers.&nbsp;China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed the deal details mentioned by President Trump, including soybean purchases, cooperation on fentanyl control, and relaxing export limits on rare-earth minerals.&nbsp;The Chinese Commerce Ministry explained that the U.S. has agreed to delay for one year its plan to impose export restrictions on certain subsidiaries of already blacklisted Chinese companies.These subsidiaries are Chinese-owned firms operating in other countries, including the U.S., and the delay means they can continue limited trade and business activities with American companies for now. This move offers temporary relief to Chinese technology firms while broader trade talks continue.&nbsp;Both countries agreed to stop charging port fees on each other’s ships for one year. This decision comes right after South Korea announced a $150 billion investment in America’s shipbuilding industry.&nbsp;Xi has been Trump’s toughest opponent, as he refused to give in to U.S. pressure and fought back against American tariffs while the White House tried to control global trade partners.&nbsp;The trade standoff has shaken global markets and worried U.S. allies, who are urged by Washington to act against China even though they too face Trump’s tariffs.&nbsp;Despite Xi’s resistance—or maybe because of it—Trump has often praised him, including during their meeting at a long white table at Gimhae Air Base (located in South Korea) on Thursday, October 30.&nbsp;Trump said, “President Xi is a great leader of a great country, and I believe we’ll have a strong, long-lasting relationship.”&nbsp;Xi told Trump, through an interpreter, that China’s growth aligns with Trump’s goal to make America great again, adding that both nations can grow and prosper together by supporting each other.&nbsp;Since starting his second term, Trump has promised to finish a full trade deal with China to reduce America’s huge trade gap, something he couldn’t achieve in his first term even after a costly trade war.&nbsp;Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he believes the U.S. and China will sign a trade deal soon, as there are only a few issues left to resolve.&nbsp;Some trade experts were doubtful. William Bratton from BNP Paribas Securities told WSJ that Thursday’s deals were minor steps, not a major breakthrough or a big change in U.S.–China relations.&nbsp;Analysts said Xi seemed to gain the upper hand after the meeting, especially on the issue of rare earth minerals.&nbsp;China started strict export controls on rare earth minerals in April. By October, it tightened these rules even more, adding more rare-earth elements to the restricted list, which upset the Trump administration.&nbsp;Even if the new rare-earth export rules are delayed, experts believe China will continue using the strict controls it introduced earlier in the spring (March–May).&nbsp;This would let Beijing keep the power to hurt the U.S. economy by blocking export licenses for American companies that depend on rare earth minerals.&nbsp;When it comes to fentanyl, everything depends on China’s next steps. The U.S. has long urged China to stop the export of chemicals used to make this deadly synthetic drug, which has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in America.&nbsp;Stricter rules may not fix the fentanyl problem, as Chinese producers often change the chemical formula slightly to bypass government regulations.&nbsp;Experts say China must take stronger action, like arresting people who make the chemicals used for fentanyl. Such steps are vital to stop these chemicals from reaching Mexican drug cartels.&nbsp;For years, China has treated anti-drug cooperation as a bargaining tool. It would promise to help the U.S. curb fentanyl and related chemicals if Washington made certain compromises—but each time relations worsened, Beijing would quietly withdraw its support, leaving the issue unresolved.&nbsp;For American importers buying from China, the tariff cut to 10% on fentanyl-related products brings some relief. It could make Chinese goods cheaper again, after high tariffs earlier this year reduced trade between the two countries.&nbsp;According to Chinese government data, during the first nine months of this year, China’s exports to the U.S. dropped by nearly 17% compared to the same period last year. This means fewer Chinese goods were sold to America, mainly due to high tariffs and trade tensions between the two countries.&nbsp;Even with the new trade deal, U.S. buyers are still shifting their supply chains away from China. Many companies have moved production to Southeast Asian countries (like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia), spending millions of dollars to reduce their dependence on China.&nbsp;Many people still see the U.S.–China relationship as unstable, fearing that Trump could impose new tariffs anytime he wants.&nbsp;Trump said that Taiwan—seen as the most dangerous issue between the U.S. and China—was not discussed during the meeting.&nbsp;There are growing fears in Taiwan that Trump might use the island as a bargaining chip in his trade talks with China. People worry he could reduce U.S. support for Taiwan’s independence or soften America’s stance against Beijing’s territorial claims, if it helps him secure better trade deals with China.&nbsp;Trump said he will visit China in April, and President Xi will later visit the U.S. in return.&nbsp;Trump and Xi last met in 2019 during an 80-minute lunch at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, where they agreed to pause their trade war and ease tensions.&nbsp;At that time, the Trump administration was pressuring China to change its economic policies, asking it to stop giving government subsidies to industries and to end the practice of forcing American companies to share their technology to do business in China.&nbsp;The “Phase One” trade deal signed in early 2020 didn’t solve the main issues. Instead, it only required China to buy more soybeans from U.S. farmers, which Beijing mostly failed to do. The second phase of the deal never happened, leaving the major trade problems between the two countries unresolved.&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.)

While the temporary peace has eased tensions for now, it doesn’t solve the deeper differences between the two powerful nations. Their economies are separating in many areas, and both are competing fiercely for global dominance, especially in fields like artificial intelligence.

BUSAN, South Korea: President Donald Trump and China’s leader Xi Jinping met for the first time in six years and agreed to a temporary pause in their ongoing trade dispute between the two major world powers. Busan is the country’s second-largest port city. The agreement has eased tensions between the U.S. and China, who have been locked in a long trade and technology dispute that has damaged both economies. China also agreed to relax restrictions on exporting rare earth minerals, which Western countries need to make many products. In addition, Beijing promised to buy large quantities of American soybeans, President Trump said. Under the deal, the U.S. will lower some of its high tariffs on Chinese goods, while China has agreed to take strong action against the trade of chemicals used to make fentanyl, a highly dangerous drug. While the temporary peace has eased tensions for now, it doesn’t solve the deeper differences between the two powerful nations. Their economies are separating in many areas, and both are competing fiercely for global dominance, especially in fields like artificial intelligence (AI), reports The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). While speaking to reporters on his way back to the U.S. from South Korea, President Trump spoke very positively about the meeting. He said the meeting was better than excellent—on a 0 to 10 scale, with 10 being the best, he rated it “a 12,” meaning it far exceeded expectations. Trump announced that tariffs on Chinese goods linked to fentanyl will drop from 20% to 10%, effective immediately. He said the cut is a reward for China’s stronger action against chemicals used to make fentanyl. After this move, the overall U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will fall from 57% to 47%, which is lower than what many had expected. China agreed to relax export controls on processed rare-earth minerals for one year, providing some relief to global industries. These minerals are essential for manufacturing everything from smartphones to submarines, and China, the world’s top producer, had recently restricted exports, which badly hurt U.S. businesses. In addition, China promised to buy large quantities of U.S. soybeans, according to President Trump. The country has already purchased several shipments this week, bringing much-needed relief to American farmers who were hit hard during the harvest season after trade tensions pushed Chinese buyers to other markets. The drop in Chinese soybean purchases badly affected President Trump’s rural supporters. U.S. farmers lost billions of dollars in sales to China, the world’s largest soybean buyer, and urged the government for help. China placed new orders for soybeans just before Thursday’s, 30th October meeting, offering some hope to struggling farmers. China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed the deal details mentioned by President Trump, including soybean purchases, cooperation on fentanyl control, and relaxing export limits on rare-earth minerals. The Chinese Commerce Ministry explained that the U.S. has agreed to delay for one year its plan to impose export restrictions on certain subsidiaries of already blacklisted Chinese companies. These subsidiaries are Chinese-owned firms operating in other countries, including the U.S., and the delay means they can continue limited trade and business activities with American companies for now. This move offers temporary relief to Chinese technology firms while broader trade talks continue. Both countries agreed to stop charging port fees on each other’s ships for one year. This decision comes right after South Korea announced a $150 billion investment in America’s shipbuilding industry. Xi has been Trump’s toughest opponent, as he refused to give in to U.S. pressure and fought back against American tariffs while the White House tried to control global trade partners. The trade standoff has shaken global markets and worried U.S. allies, who are urged by Washington to act against China even though they too face Trump’s tariffs. Despite Xi’s resistance—or maybe because of it—Trump has often praised him, including during their meeting at a long white table at Gimhae Air Base (located in South Korea) on Thursday, October 30. Trump said, “President Xi is a great leader of a great country, and I believe we’ll have a strong, long-lasting relationship.” Xi told Trump, through an interpreter, that China’s growth aligns with Trump’s goal to make America great again, adding that both nations can grow and prosper together by supporting each other. Since starting his second term, Trump has promised to finish a full trade deal with China to reduce America’s huge trade gap, something he couldn’t achieve in his first term even after a costly trade war. Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he believes the U.S. and China will sign a trade deal soon, as there are only a few issues left to resolve. Some trade experts were doubtful. William Bratton from BNP Paribas Securities told WSJ that Thursday’s deals were minor steps, not a major breakthrough or a big change in U.S.–China relations. Analysts said Xi seemed to gain the upper hand after the meeting, especially on the issue of rare earth minerals. China started strict export controls on rare earth minerals in April. By October, it tightened these rules even more, adding more rare-earth elements to the restricted list, which upset the Trump administration. Even if the new rare-earth export rules are delayed, experts believe China will continue using the strict controls it introduced earlier in the spring (March–May). This would let Beijing keep the power to hurt the U.S. economy by blocking export licenses for American companies that depend on rare earth minerals. When it comes to fentanyl, everything depends on China’s next steps. The U.S. has long urged China to stop the export of chemicals used to make this deadly synthetic drug, which has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in America. Stricter rules may not fix the fentanyl problem, as Chinese producers often change the chemical formula slightly to bypass government regulations. Experts say China must take stronger action, like arresting people who make the chemicals used for fentanyl. Such steps are vital to stop these chemicals from reaching Mexican drug cartels. For years, China has treated anti-drug cooperation as a bargaining tool. It would promise to help the U.S. curb fentanyl and related chemicals if Washington made certain compromises—but each time relations worsened, Beijing would quietly withdraw its support, leaving the issue unresolved. For American importers buying from China, the tariff cut to 10% on fentanyl-related products brings some relief. It could make Chinese goods cheaper again, after high tariffs earlier this year reduced trade between the two countries. According to Chinese government data, during the first nine months of this year, China’s exports to the U.S. dropped by nearly 17% compared to the same period last year. This means fewer Chinese goods were sold to America, mainly due to high tariffs and trade tensions between the two countries. Even with the new trade deal, U.S. buyers are still shifting their supply chains away from China. Many companies have moved production to Southeast Asian countries (like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia), spending millions of dollars to reduce their dependence on China. Many people still see the U.S.–China relationship as unstable, fearing that Trump could impose new tariffs anytime he wants. Trump said that Taiwan—seen as the most dangerous issue between the U.S. and China—was not discussed during the meeting. There are growing fears in Taiwan that Trump might use the island as a bargaining chip in his trade talks with China. People worry he could reduce U.S. support for Taiwan’s independence or soften America’s stance against Beijing’s territorial claims, if it helps him secure better trade deals with China. Trump said he will visit China in April, and President Xi will later visit the U.S. in return. Trump and Xi last met in 2019 during an 80-minute lunch at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, where they agreed to pause their trade war and ease tensions. At that time, the Trump administration was pressuring China to change its economic policies, asking it to stop giving government subsidies to industries and to end the practice of forcing American companies to share their technology to do business in China. The “Phase One” trade deal signed in early 2020 didn’t solve the main issues. Instead, it only required China to buy more soybeans from U.S. farmers, which Beijing mostly failed to do. The second phase of the deal never happened, leaving the major trade problems between the two countries unresolved. (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.)

While the temporary peace has eased tensions for now, it doesn’t solve the deeper differences between the two powerful nations. Their economies are separating in many areas, and both are competing fiercely for global dominance, especially in fields like artificial intelligence.

US-China deal eases tensions, but deeper economic rifts remain

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership has been a significant factor in the global acceptance of India as a key player in international affairs. He is considered one of the most prominent leaders. His foreign trips are marked by personal rapport including hugs and handshakes with leaders and diaspora events . But in recent months, Modi was missing from some major global meetings, where India was represented by officials or ministers. Particularly noteworthy are the Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt and the ASEAN–India Summit in Kuala Lumpur. Is India re-evaluating its diplomatic tactics, or is it just trying to stay away from awkward situations?<h2>The Gaza Peace Summit: A calculated absence?</h2>India was represented at the landmark event by the Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh when the world leaders met in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss the Gaza peace plan. The summit, co-chaired by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and US President Donald Trump, brought together more than 20 heads of state, which included Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.&nbsp;Was Modi's absence intentional?&nbsp;As per the reports in the Indian media, New Delhi was concerned about the political fallout caused by Pakistan's participation in the discussions, given that relations remain strained in the wake of Operation Sindoor. The fact that Trump was the prominent figure in the summit may have led Modi's team to exercise caution, given the US president's unpredictable rhetoric or claims of having mediated to resolve India-Pakistan tensions. The likes of Shashi Tharoor in the opposition were quick to condemn the decision as “a missed opportunity for India to play a central role in shaping West Asia’s peace architecture.”<h2>ASEAN Summit: Priorities vs&nbsp;Optics</h2>In October, Modi also decided against in-person participation at the ASEAN–India Summit, choosing instead to attend via video link. This summit was viewed as an opportunity for India to further its “Act East Policy” — especially given China’s expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) officially said that scheduling conflicts and the proximity of the Diwali festival were the reasons for his virtual participation.&nbsp;&nbsp;But reports pointed to a more nuanced scenario: one reason could be wanting to avoid a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, which Modi’s team may have wanted to postpone until trade talks were concluded. External Affairs Minister S&nbsp; Jaishankar attended the summit&nbsp;and thus, India was still represented, without the risks of any high-stakes confrontations. Analysts such as Brahma Chellaney commented that the move was indicative of “the growing trend of selective diplomacy — putting engagements with tangible outcomes in the first place and over visibility through ceremonies.”<h2>Pattern or coincidence?</h2>The rapid succession of these two incidents has already led to speculation about a major strategic recalibration in India’s foreign policy. If we look at the past, Modi was everywhere, very often present at global events, which were mainly G20, COP summits, BRICS and the Quad. Therefore, his absence at several events in late 2025 is a striking contrast. The pattern does not suggest withdrawal, but rather, planned selectivity. “India is claiming that it will be the master when it comes to negotiations,” said Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, a former diplomat. “Power doesn’t necessarily mean being present at every forum — sometimes, staying away is a form of indicating.”<h2>Strategic Motivations</h2>1. Avoiding Unfavourable OpticsNew Delhi is extremely conscious of the optics related to Modi possibly meeting&nbsp; - or being even seen in the same room with - Pakistan’s leaders, or taking part in the summits that are dominated by the Western narrative. Participating in a peace conference that has Islamabad as one of the parties risks media interpretations of “equivalence” — a matter that is delicate for a government that has very clearly labelled Pakistan as a terrorist supporter. 2. Domestic and Political PrioritiesWith some important state elections - particularly Bihar -&nbsp; right around the corner and some major Hindu holidays being celebrated, Modi’s domestic calendar is really crowded. The government might also want to show “India-first” optics at home, and give preference to domestic lead over global appearances, especially when the international forums provide very little policy gains.&nbsp;3. Strategic autonomy and controlIndia’s current diplomatic posture emphasises multi-alignment — engaging with the US, Russia, and the Global South simultaneously. Skipping or limiting participation in some summits allows Modi’s team to control the narrative and avoid being boxed into predefined positions, particularly on contentious global issues like Gaza or Ukraine.<h2>Risks and repercussions</h2>The selective engagement strategy, while providing a fallback, still has its unwelcome side effects. Giving up attendance at such events may initially lead to lost dominance over rivals—particularly if such a rival happens to be China, which uses these platforms for extracting dominance.<h2>The bigger picture</h2>The method used by Modi is probably a new development in Indian diplomacy: One that's &nbsp;mature, focused more on results than on appearances. India has gained worldwide attention by hosting the G20 summit and Quad diplomacy, among others. The focus may now be shifting from “loud power” to “quiet power”—inferring from the backside rather than trying to be at the forefront of the situation.<h2>What have we learned?</h2>The decision of Prime Minister Modi not to attend the Gaza Peace Conference and ASEAN meetings, and some other major summits, was not merely a matter of conflicting schedules but rather a tactical move to exercise restraint.&nbsp;Through selective attending, Modi is changing the game of Indian diplomacy—he is giving up the principle of being always seen and recognised. He is possibly using the power of being recognised, but not visible.&nbsp;&nbsp;The question of whether this selective engagement will enhance or weaken India’s power will depend on the results: if India can still play a significant role in regional and global political affairs despite fewer photo-ops, the strategy used may prove to be wise. &nbsp;The most famous prime minister in the world appears to be trading visibility for accuracy—a clear indication of how India’s leader and its diplomacy are gradually adapting to a more complicated world.&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.

PM Narendra Modi skipped key global summits recently: Strategy, symbolism or scheduling?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership has been a significant factor in the global acceptance of India as a key player in international affairs. He is considered one of the most prominent leaders. His foreign trips are marked by personal rapport including hugs and handshakes with leaders and diaspora events . But in recent months, Modi was missing from some major global meetings, where India was represented by officials or ministers. Particularly noteworthy are the Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt and the ASEAN–India Summit in Kuala Lumpur. Is India re-evaluating its diplomatic tactics, or is it just trying to stay away from awkward situations? The Gaza Peace Summit: A calculated absence? India was represented at the landmark event by the Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh when the world leaders met in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss the Gaza peace plan. The summit, co-chaired by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and US President Donald Trump, brought together more than 20 heads of state, which included Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Was Modi's absence intentional? As per the reports in the Indian media, New Delhi was concerned about the political fallout caused by Pakistan's participation in the discussions, given that relations remain strained in the wake of Operation Sindoor. The fact that Trump was the prominent figure in the summit may have led Modi's team to exercise caution, given the US president's unpredictable rhetoric or claims of having mediated to resolve India-Pakistan tensions. The likes of Shashi Tharoor in the opposition were quick to condemn the decision as “a missed opportunity for India to play a central role in shaping West Asia’s peace architecture.” ASEAN Summit: Priorities vs Optics In October, Modi also decided against in-person participation at the ASEAN–India Summit, choosing instead to attend via video link. This summit was viewed as an opportunity for India to further its “Act East Policy” — especially given China’s expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) officially said that scheduling conflicts and the proximity of the Diwali festival were the reasons for his virtual participation. But reports pointed to a more nuanced scenario: one reason could be wanting to avoid a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, which Modi’s team may have wanted to postpone until trade talks were concluded. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar attended the summit and thus, India was still represented, without the risks of any high-stakes confrontations. Analysts such as Brahma Chellaney commented that the move was indicative of “the growing trend of selective diplomacy — putting engagements with tangible outcomes in the first place and over visibility through ceremonies.” Pattern or coincidence? The rapid succession of these two incidents has already led to speculation about a major strategic recalibration in India’s foreign policy. If we look at the past, Modi was everywhere, very often present at global events, which were mainly G20, COP summits, BRICS and the Quad. Therefore, his absence at several events in late 2025 is a striking contrast. The pattern does not suggest withdrawal, but rather, planned selectivity. “India is claiming that it will be the master when it comes to negotiations,” said Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, a former diplomat. “Power doesn’t necessarily mean being present at every forum — sometimes, staying away is a form of indicating.” Strategic Motivations 1. Avoiding Unfavourable Optics New Delhi is extremely conscious of the optics related to Modi possibly meeting - or being even seen in the same room with - Pakistan’s leaders, or taking part in the summits that are dominated by the Western narrative. Participating in a peace conference that has Islamabad as one of the parties risks media interpretations of “equivalence” — a matter that is delicate for a government that has very clearly labelled Pakistan as a terrorist supporter. 2. Domestic and Political Priorities With some important state elections - particularly Bihar - right around the corner and some major Hindu holidays being celebrated, Modi’s domestic calendar is really crowded. The government might also want to show “India-first” optics at home, and give preference to domestic lead over global appearances, especially when the international forums provide very little policy gains. 3. Strategic autonomy and control India’s current diplomatic posture emphasises multi-alignment — engaging with the US, Russia, and the Global South simultaneously. Skipping or limiting participation in some summits allows Modi’s team to control the narrative and avoid being boxed into predefined positions, particularly on contentious global issues like Gaza or Ukraine. Risks and repercussions The selective engagement strategy, while providing a fallback, still has its unwelcome side effects. Giving up attendance at such events may initially lead to lost dominance over rivals—particularly if such a rival happens to be China, which uses these platforms for extracting dominance. The bigger picture The method used by Modi is probably a new development in Indian diplomacy: One that's mature, focused more on results than on appearances. India has gained worldwide attention by hosting the G20 summit and Quad diplomacy, among others. The focus may now be shifting from “loud power” to “quiet power”—inferring from the backside rather than trying to be at the forefront of the situation. What have we learned? The decision of Prime Minister Modi not to attend the Gaza Peace Conference and ASEAN meetings, and some other major summits, was not merely a matter of conflicting schedules but rather a tactical move to exercise restraint. Through selective attending, Modi is changing the game of Indian diplomacy—he is giving up the principle of being always seen and recognised. He is possibly using the power of being recognised, but not visible. The question of whether this selective engagement will enhance or weaken India’s power will depend on the results: if India can still play a significant role in regional and global political affairs despite fewer photo-ops, the strategy used may prove to be wise. The most famous prime minister in the world appears to be trading visibility for accuracy—a clear indication of how India’s leader and its diplomacy are gradually adapting to a more complicated world. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Modi is considered one of the most prominent leaders. His foreign trips are marked by personal rapport including hugs and handshakes with leaders and diaspora events . But in recent months, Modi was missing from some major global meetings, where India was represented by officials or ministers

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

JeM’s evolution since the Parliament Attack: Why India cannot lower its guard

Pak’s AI navy: How deepfakes targeting Indian naval leadership signal new front

In the army, religion unites and does not divide

Putin-Modi summit shows limits of Donald Trump’s global clout

Putin’s India visit is strong on potential but needs a long haul to match optics

Operation Trident: Why India celebrates Navy Day on December 4th

India-Russia Summit 2025: Why Vladimir Putin’s India trip actually matters

Year of deepening defence ties: Why Indian army chief’s Sri Lanka visit matters

The bone in the throat: Munir's unwinnable war against Imran Khan

Reversing course, Trump pushes for regime change in Venezuela

Why India and Sri Lanka are building a two navy security partnership

Gambhir's Test track record: A recipe for disaster or a failed 'transition'?

Zero-zero ejection: Unspoken limits, fatal Tejas crash

Indian Army as architect: Structuring Bangladesh’s first military force

How China makes protest disappear: Inside the machinery of real-time censorship

The zero margin: Why physics defeated the Tejas ejection seat in Dubai

Double-engine govt must double the speed of Bihar people

Tracking the financial trail: Narco-profits and infra projects in Balochistan

Once a critic of 'endless wars', Trump wades into the world’s longest war

Shah Rukh Khan at 60 still reigns: A people's King for every generation

Jemimah's record shattering innings sets new benchmark for Indian cricket

Desolation by Smog: How politics polluted India’s capital Delhi, once again

US-China deal eases tensions, but deeper economic rifts remain

PM Modi skipped key global summits recently: Strategy, symbolism or scheduling?