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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a day of mourning for the political fraternity of Maharashtra - if not India, as senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar tragically lost his life in a plane crash. The incident occurred in Maharashtra’s Baramati, the same place where Pawar started his political journey. An aspiring leader and true people’s favourite, Pawar was famously called “Dada” (elder brother in Marathi) for his leadership and social involvement, while also becoming the face of the NCP (after his separation from uncle Sharad Pawar) since 2023.&nbsp;Pawar’s death also means Maharashtra will never see its beloved leader take the Chief Minister post, something he had aspired to become before tragedy struck in the morning of 28 Jan 2026. Dada was a renowned figure in Indian politics and famously wrote several chapters during his political career, including a rebellion against his uncle, Sharad Pawar, in 2023 and taking oath as Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in November 2019.<h2>Dada’s rise</h2>Having successfully contested the 1991 Baramati Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian parliament), Ajit Pawar vacated his seat in less than 60 days for his uncle Sharad, who was appointed Defence Minister by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. He would then start a new chapter in state politics, winning the Baramati Legislative seat in the 1991 state elections. He would serve the seat until his death, carrying on a winning legacy and interestingly never losing an election.&nbsp;Pawar’s first term as minister came early at the age of 33 when then CM Sudhakarrao Naik appointed him Minister of State for Agriculture and Power. He would later serve as cabinet minister in governments led by Sharad Pawar, Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ashok Chavan, Prithviraj Chavan, Devendra Fadnavis, Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde.<h2>Dada’s golden era</h2>In 2010, after then-CM Ashok Chavan was asked to vacate his post for corruption charges, a new government was formed in Maharashtra led by Prithviraj Chavan. While it was anticipated that Chhagan Bhujbal be retained as Dy CM, it was the internal support that saw Pawar become the front-runner and become the new deputy in the state.However, Pawar’s eyes were always on the big throne of the state and he would make desperate attempts to come into power.<h2>First attempt to be CM</h2>In the build-up to the 2014 Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Pawar advocated the idea of running for all 288 seats rather than forming an alliance with the Indian National Congress (INC). The decision was made officially on the same evening when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) broke its pre-election alliance with Shivsena. This was Pawar’s opportunity to become the kingmaker and if not the king in Maharashtra. However, the BJP’s success and their ideology to form a government with Shivsena saw Pawar and Co sit on the opposition bench despite having 41 seats.&nbsp;ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/was-pawar-s-body-identified-by-his-watch-what-we-know-about-tragic-plane-crash-1769591507027"> Was Ajit Pawar’s body identified by his watch? What we know about tragic plane crash</a><h2>The near miss</h2>In the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections, a period of political turmoil saw the BJP split with Shivsena as the latter was set to form a government with Congress and the NCP. Ajit Pawar was elected as the leader of the house for NCP and was advocated as the CM candidate by party leaders. However, uncle Sharad’s preference to support Uddhav Thackeray to become CM saw Pawar take the back seat.&nbsp;As an act of rebellion against uncle Sharad, Ajit Pawar and his supporting MLAs would support the BJP and form a government, which lasted mere three days before Devendra Fadnavis resigned. The formation of the government with the BJP became a huge front-page story while Thackeray was chosen as the CM face by the new alliance of Shivsena, Congress and NCP. Pawar threatened to return unless he was promised the CM post. However, in the coming days after the turmoil, Pawar had to settle for a Deputy CM post in the Thackeray-led government.&nbsp;It was the closest he came to becoming the CM of Maharashtra and was never in the running thereafter with the BJP emerging as the powerhouse in the coming years.<h2>The admission</h2>In a political rally in 2025, Pawar openly admitted that had he been offered the CM post in 2019, he would have stayed with the BJP. Interestingly, this statement came after the BJP supported Eknath Shinde to become the CM of the state in 2022. Shinde had famously rebelled against Shivsena party leader Uddhav Thackeray and supported the BJP in government formation, a move similar to Pawar when he supported Devendra Fadnavis in the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections.&nbsp;Unfortunately for Pawar, he was never offered the CM post like Shinde and missed out on the throne.&nbsp;ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/moment-when-maharashtra-deputy-cm-ajit-pawar-s-aircraft-crashed-cctv-footage-here-1769587382783"> Exact moment when Maharashtra Deputy CM Ajit Pawar's aircraft crashed: CCTV footage here</a><h2>The legacy</h2>Despite the near misses, Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure. As mentioned, he never lost any elections at the individual level and served for the state until his death on Jan 28.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer

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

It was a day of mourning for the political fraternity of Maharashtra - if not India, as senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar tragically lost his life in a plane crash. The incident occurred in Maharashtra’s Baramati, the same place where Pawar started his political journey. An aspiring leader and true people’s favourite, Pawar was famously called “Dada” (elder brother in Marathi) for his leadership and social involvement, while also becoming the face of the NCP (after his separation from uncle Sharad Pawar) since 2023. Pawar’s death also means Maharashtra will never see its beloved leader take the Chief Minister post, something he had aspired to become before tragedy struck in the morning of 28 Jan 2026. Dada was a renowned figure in Indian politics and famously wrote several chapters during his political career, including a rebellion against his uncle, Sharad Pawar, in 2023 and taking oath as Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in November 2019. Dada’s rise Having successfully contested the 1991 Baramati Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian parliament), Ajit Pawar vacated his seat in less than 60 days for his uncle Sharad, who was appointed Defence Minister by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. He would then start a new chapter in state politics, winning the Baramati Legislative seat in the 1991 state elections. He would serve the seat until his death, carrying on a winning legacy and interestingly never losing an election. Pawar’s first term as minister came early at the age of 33 when then CM Sudhakarrao Naik appointed him Minister of State for Agriculture and Power. He would later serve as cabinet minister in governments led by Sharad Pawar, Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ashok Chavan, Prithviraj Chavan, Devendra Fadnavis, Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde. Dada’s golden era In 2010, after then-CM Ashok Chavan was asked to vacate his post for corruption charges, a new government was formed in Maharashtra led by Prithviraj Chavan. While it was anticipated that Chhagan Bhujbal be retained as Dy CM, it was the internal support that saw Pawar become the front-runner and become the new deputy in the state. However, Pawar’s eyes were always on the big throne of the state and he would make desperate attempts to come into power. First attempt to be CM In the build-up to the 2014 Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Pawar advocated the idea of running for all 288 seats rather than forming an alliance with the Indian National Congress (INC). The decision was made officially on the same evening when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) broke its pre-election alliance with Shivsena. This was Pawar’s opportunity to become the kingmaker and if not the king in Maharashtra. However, the BJP’s success and their ideology to form a government with Shivsena saw Pawar and Co sit on the opposition bench despite having 41 seats. ALSO READ | Was Ajit Pawar’s body identified by his watch? What we know about tragic plane crash The near miss In the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections, a period of political turmoil saw the BJP split with Shivsena as the latter was set to form a government with Congress and the NCP. Ajit Pawar was elected as the leader of the house for NCP and was advocated as the CM candidate by party leaders. However, uncle Sharad’s preference to support Uddhav Thackeray to become CM saw Pawar take the back seat. As an act of rebellion against uncle Sharad, Ajit Pawar and his supporting MLAs would support the BJP and form a government, which lasted mere three days before Devendra Fadnavis resigned. The formation of the government with the BJP became a huge front-page story while Thackeray was chosen as the CM face by the new alliance of Shivsena, Congress and NCP. Pawar threatened to return unless he was promised the CM post. However, in the coming days after the turmoil, Pawar had to settle for a Deputy CM post in the Thackeray-led government. It was the closest he came to becoming the CM of Maharashtra and was never in the running thereafter with the BJP emerging as the powerhouse in the coming years. The admission In a political rally in 2025, Pawar openly admitted that had he been offered the CM post in 2019, he would have stayed with the BJP. Interestingly, this statement came after the BJP supported Eknath Shinde to become the CM of the state in 2022. Shinde had famously rebelled against Shivsena party leader Uddhav Thackeray and supported the BJP in government formation, a move similar to Pawar when he supported Devendra Fadnavis in the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections. Unfortunately for Pawar, he was never offered the CM post like Shinde and missed out on the throne. ALSO READ | Exact moment when Maharashtra Deputy CM Ajit Pawar's aircraft crashed: CCTV footage here The legacy Despite the near misses, Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure. As mentioned, he never lost any elections at the individual level and served for the state until his death on Jan 28. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer

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

Ajit Pawar: The Chief Minister Maharashtra never got

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

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

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

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

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

Every time we sleep peacefully at night, someone is awake at the border watching over us in the freezing cold or scorching heat. When we go to school without fear, when our parents travel for work, or when we celebrate festivals with joy, this is possible because somewhere a soldier is standing guard. This is why the defence budget matters so much—it is not just numbers on paper but the safety net that allows us to live freely and dream big. As Finance Minister Sitharaman prepares to present the Union Budget for 2026-27 in February, the question is critical: will our armed forces get what they need?Let us be honest and clear about numbers. The last budget allocated ₹6.81 lakh crore for defence, around thirteen per cent of central spending, increased nine and a half per cent from the previous year. But not all goes into new weapons or cutting-edge technology. Like a household budget, if most income covers old debts, rent, and groceries, little remains for future investment. That is what happens with defence spending.Nearly one-fourth goes toward pensions for retired soldiers who absolutely deserve every rupee of support. Significant amounts cover salaries of serving personnel, uniforms, food, fuel, and maintenance of equipment. After essential expenses, little remains for modernising forces—buying fighter jets, submarines, or developing AI for warfare. India spends only one point nine per cent of its GDP on defence. Experts say we need at least two point five percent to match other powers.Our neighbourhood is not the friendliest place. We have tensions with China and Pakistan. The world is unpredictable. Can we afford outdated weapons or delay modern equipment? Recent events like Operation Sindoor show that being prepared is necessary. When a jawan faces enemies with inferior equipment, it is not a fair fight.This is where Atmanirbhar Bharat becomes absolutely crucial. For decades, we bought defence equipment from Russia, France, America, and Israel. But what if international relations change overnight, or they refuse spare parts during a crisis? That is a risk we cannot afford. So India decided to make its own weapons, planes, ships, and technology. Defence production has grown, and exports jumped to over ₹21,000 crore. Indian-made missiles, radars, and patrol boats are now bought globally.The 2025-26 budget showed very promising signs. Capital expenditure increased to ₹1.8 lakh crore, with seventy-five per cent for Indian manufacturers. This means more jobs and economic benefits while our military strengthens. DRDO received nearly ₹27,000 crore. Programs like iDEX encourage innovators to create drones, cybersecurity tools, and AI defence systems.What should we expect from 2026-27? Analysts hope for an increase beyond ₹7.5 lakh crore. The Army needs new tanks, artillery, and armoured vehicles. The Navy wants submarines and another aircraft carrier. The Air Force needs advanced jets, including indigenous AMCA, Rafale aircraft, and drones. All services need artificial intelligence, cyber warfare capabilities, and unmanned systems.However, money alone won't solve everything. Pensions and salaries keep increasing. Global supply chains are disrupted, making imported parts expensive. Building things at home is a practical necessity.Experts suggest smart solutions. One idea is creating a non-lapsable defence fund. Currently, if the military doesn't spend allocated money by March 31st, it returns to the treasury. A non-lapsable fund ensures money stays available. Another suggestion is tax benefits and easier loans to private defence companies, encouraging competition.For ordinary citizens, especially teenagers, a strong defence budget matters deeply. The defence sector is becoming a hub for technology and innovation. Whether interested in aerospace, robotics, or computer science, there is growing space here. Plus, a secure country is prosperous. When businesses feel safe, they invest more.As we wait for February, the government needs courage and vision. Yes, education, healthcare, and infrastructure need funding. But defence cannot be just another expense. It is an investment in our survival. Viksit Bharat by 2047 cannot be achieved without a strong, modern defence force.My opinion is clear: the 2026-27 budget should prioritise three things. First, significantly increase capital spending for modernisation. Second, expand support for Indian defence manufacturers with better incentives and a clear policy. Third, invest heavily in research and future technologies because tomorrow's wars will be fought with AI, drones, and cyber weapons. Defence is not about aggressive posturing. It is about being prepared, being self-reliant, and respecting those who protect us. The budget is coming soon, and whatever number is announced, we should ask: is it enough? Are we truly ready? Because our soldiers are ready to give everything for us. The least we can do is give them the tools to succeed.

Our neighbourhood is not the friendliest place. We have tensions with China and Pakistan. The world is unpredictable. Can we afford outdated weapons or delay modern equipment? Recent events like Operation Sindoor show that being prepared is necessary. 

Every time we sleep peacefully at night, someone is awake at the border watching over us in the freezing cold or scorching heat. When we go to school without fear, when our parents travel for work, or when we celebrate festivals with joy, this is possible because somewhere a soldier is standing guard. This is why the defence budget matters so much—it is not just numbers on paper but the safety net that allows us to live freely and dream big. As Finance Minister Sitharaman prepares to present the Union Budget for 2026-27 in February, the question is critical: will our armed forces get what they need? Let us be honest and clear about numbers. The last budget allocated ₹6.81 lakh crore for defence, around thirteen per cent of central spending, increased nine and a half per cent from the previous year. But not all goes into new weapons or cutting-edge technology. Like a household budget, if most income covers old debts, rent, and groceries, little remains for future investment. That is what happens with defence spending. Nearly one-fourth goes toward pensions for retired soldiers who absolutely deserve every rupee of support. Significant amounts cover salaries of serving personnel, uniforms, food, fuel, and maintenance of equipment. After essential expenses, little remains for modernising forces—buying fighter jets, submarines, or developing AI for warfare. India spends only one point nine per cent of its GDP on defence. Experts say we need at least two point five percent to match other powers. Our neighbourhood is not the friendliest place. We have tensions with China and Pakistan. The world is unpredictable. Can we afford outdated weapons or delay modern equipment? Recent events like Operation Sindoor show that being prepared is necessary. When a jawan faces enemies with inferior equipment, it is not a fair fight. This is where Atmanirbhar Bharat becomes absolutely crucial. For decades, we bought defence equipment from Russia, France, America, and Israel. But what if international relations change overnight, or they refuse spare parts during a crisis? That is a risk we cannot afford. So India decided to make its own weapons, planes, ships, and technology. Defence production has grown, and exports jumped to over ₹21,000 crore. Indian-made missiles, radars, and patrol boats are now bought globally. The 2025-26 budget showed very promising signs. Capital expenditure increased to ₹1.8 lakh crore, with seventy-five per cent for Indian manufacturers. This means more jobs and economic benefits while our military strengthens. DRDO received nearly ₹27,000 crore. Programs like iDEX encourage innovators to create drones, cybersecurity tools, and AI defence systems. What should we expect from 2026-27? Analysts hope for an increase beyond ₹7.5 lakh crore. The Army needs new tanks, artillery, and armoured vehicles. The Navy wants submarines and another aircraft carrier. The Air Force needs advanced jets, including indigenous AMCA, Rafale aircraft, and drones. All services need artificial intelligence, cyber warfare capabilities, and unmanned systems. However, money alone won't solve everything. Pensions and salaries keep increasing. Global supply chains are disrupted, making imported parts expensive. Building things at home is a practical necessity. Experts suggest smart solutions. One idea is creating a non-lapsable defence fund. Currently, if the military doesn't spend allocated money by March 31st, it returns to the treasury. A non-lapsable fund ensures money stays available. Another suggestion is tax benefits and easier loans to private defence companies, encouraging competition. For ordinary citizens, especially teenagers, a strong defence budget matters deeply. The defence sector is becoming a hub for technology and innovation. Whether interested in aerospace, robotics, or computer science, there is growing space here. Plus, a secure country is prosperous. When businesses feel safe, they invest more. As we wait for February, the government needs courage and vision. Yes, education, healthcare, and infrastructure need funding. But defence cannot be just another expense. It is an investment in our survival. Viksit Bharat by 2047 cannot be achieved without a strong, modern defence force. My opinion is clear: the 2026-27 budget should prioritise three things. First, significantly increase capital spending for modernisation. Second, expand support for Indian defence manufacturers with better incentives and a clear policy. Third, invest heavily in research and future technologies because tomorrow's wars will be fought with AI, drones, and cyber weapons. Defence is not about aggressive posturing. It is about being prepared, being self-reliant, and respecting those who protect us. The budget is coming soon, and whatever number is announced, we should ask: is it enough? Are we truly ready? Because our soldiers are ready to give everything for us. The least we can do is give them the tools to succeed.

Our neighbourhood is not the friendliest place. We have tensions with China and Pakistan. The world is unpredictable. Can we afford outdated weapons or delay modern equipment? Recent events like Operation Sindoor show that being prepared is necessary.&nbsp;

Budget 2026: Will India finally arm itself for tomorrow's wars?

Somewhere between childhood and adulthood, many of us found a voice we didn’t know how to use. For me, and for countless others, that voice sounded like Linkin Park. I was barely 10 or 11 when their music first entered my life. I didn’t understand grief, mental health, or emotional exhaustion back then. But somehow, their lyrics understood me. The anger in “One Step Closer.” The resignation in “In the End.” The quiet desperation beneath the aggression. Chester Bennington didn’t just sing, he translated feelings we didn’t yet have language for.&nbsp;That’s why watching Linkin Park live in Bengaluru felt surreal. Not because it was loud or grand or perfectly produced, but because it felt personal. At Brigade Gardens, as the evening darkened and anticipation thickened the air, time seemed to slow down. Before Linkin Park took the stage at 8 pm, the crowd began counting down together, seconds ticking away in unison. It wasn’t organised. It was instinctive, thousands of people, different lives, same heartbeat.And then they arrived.&nbsp;The roar that followed wasn’t applause. It was release. Posters rose above the crowd, “We miss you, Chester.” No slogans. No dramatics. Just truth. Chester Bennington may not have been physically present, but his absence was acknowledged with reverence, not sadness. This wasn’t about replacing him. It was about carrying him forward.Emily Armstrong understood that.&nbsp;She didn’t attempt to be Chester. Instead, she honoured him by being fully herself. And in doing so, she met the crowd exactly where it was. When she revealed she was wearing a Team India cricket jersey under her jacket, it wasn’t a rehearsed moment; it felt spontaneous, human. When fans threw an Assamese gamosa onto the stage, and she wrapped it around herself before singing “Faint,” the symbolism was unmistakable: this wasn’t just Linkin Park visiting India; it was India being absorbed into the performance.Then came the songs.&nbsp;“In the End” turned into a mass confession. “Bleed It Out” felt cathartic. “One Step Closer” was raw, loud, and unapologetic. I screamed every lyric. I sang until my voice cracked. And at some point, without warning, I cried, not out of sadness, but relief. These were happy tears. Tears that come when something you’ve waited years for finally stands in front of you and says, yes, this was real.&nbsp;For many in that crowd, Linkin Park wasn’t just a band we discovered; they were a band that discovered us. They were there during exam stress, during teenage rage, during nights when headphones felt safer than conversations. Their music didn’t offer solutions. It offered understanding. And sometimes, that’s enough to survive. That’s why the Bengaluru concert felt less like a performance and more like a collective memory being created in real time. Everyone there had grown up differently, but we had all grown up with the same soundtrack.&nbsp;In a strange, beautiful way, we were raised by Linkin Park. That night proved something important: time moves forward, voices change, and eras evolve, but meaning doesn’t disappear. Music that once helped people cope doesn’t lose relevance; it gains weight. Nothing comes close to watching the band that shaped your inner world stand on a stage and play the songs that once held you together.&nbsp;Linkin Park didn’t just perform in Bengaluru. They reminded a generation who it was, and why it made it this far. And I am sure that Chester will be feeling the same way, looking from above, and how the bank kept its promise of performing in India. Until then, Linkin Park.&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.

Linkin Park live in Bengaluru: Why it felt less like a concert and more like healing

Somewhere between childhood and adulthood, many of us found a voice we didn’t know how to use. For me, and for countless others, that voice sounded like Linkin Park. I was barely 10 or 11 when their music first entered my life. I didn’t understand grief, mental health, or emotional exhaustion back then. But somehow, their lyrics understood me. The anger in “One Step Closer.” The resignation in “In the End.” The quiet desperation beneath the aggression. Chester Bennington didn’t just sing, he translated feelings we didn’t yet have language for. That’s why watching Linkin Park live in Bengaluru felt surreal. Not because it was loud or grand or perfectly produced, but because it felt personal. At Brigade Gardens, as the evening darkened and anticipation thickened the air, time seemed to slow down. Before Linkin Park took the stage at 8 pm, the crowd began counting down together, seconds ticking away in unison. It wasn’t organised. It was instinctive, thousands of people, different lives, same heartbeat. And then they arrived. The roar that followed wasn’t applause. It was release. Posters rose above the crowd, “We miss you, Chester.” No slogans. No dramatics. Just truth. Chester Bennington may not have been physically present, but his absence was acknowledged with reverence, not sadness. This wasn’t about replacing him. It was about carrying him forward. Emily Armstrong understood that. She didn’t attempt to be Chester. Instead, she honoured him by being fully herself. And in doing so, she met the crowd exactly where it was. When she revealed she was wearing a Team India cricket jersey under her jacket, it wasn’t a rehearsed moment; it felt spontaneous, human. When fans threw an Assamese gamosa onto the stage, and she wrapped it around herself before singing “Faint,” the symbolism was unmistakable: this wasn’t just Linkin Park visiting India; it was India being absorbed into the performance. Then came the songs. “In the End” turned into a mass confession. “Bleed It Out” felt cathartic. “One Step Closer” was raw, loud, and unapologetic. I screamed every lyric. I sang until my voice cracked. And at some point, without warning, I cried, not out of sadness, but relief. These were happy tears. Tears that come when something you’ve waited years for finally stands in front of you and says, yes, this was real. For many in that crowd, Linkin Park wasn’t just a band we discovered; they were a band that discovered us. They were there during exam stress, during teenage rage, during nights when headphones felt safer than conversations. Their music didn’t offer solutions. It offered understanding. And sometimes, that’s enough to survive. That’s why the Bengaluru concert felt less like a performance and more like a collective memory being created in real time. Everyone there had grown up differently, but we had all grown up with the same soundtrack. In a strange, beautiful way, we were raised by Linkin Park. That night proved something important: time moves forward, voices change, and eras evolve, but meaning doesn’t disappear. Music that once helped people cope doesn’t lose relevance; it gains weight. Nothing comes close to watching the band that shaped your inner world stand on a stage and play the songs that once held you together. Linkin Park didn’t just perform in Bengaluru. They reminded a generation who it was, and why it made it this far. And I am sure that Chester will be feeling the same way, looking from above, and how the bank kept its promise of performing in India. Until then, Linkin Park. 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.

Linkin Park’s Bengaluru concert was more than a show, it was memory, healing, and a generation singing back the music that raised them

Amid mounting global tensions from ongoing wars, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Middle East flashpoints, coupled with rising geopolitical rivalries, the world order faces severe disruption. At the same time, the high-altitude Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026, held in freezing cold, sees world leaders coming together to seek lasting peace and growth for all. They aim to build economic strength for a common future. Leaders are ready to sign agreements running into trillions of dollars to tackle these challenges. As global warming and damage to nature grow, putting health and basic services at risk, the focus on clean energy sources has reached a key stage, grabbing worldwide notice and sparked urgent debates. Non-fossil fuels are now central to plans for a safer planet. India's role at the Davos WEF 2026, which began in January and ends on January 23, drew sharp attention. The country pushed hard for more renewable energy, guided by the idea of One Earth, One Family, One Future. This vision underlined India's call for joint action on green growth.<h2>Minister's Clean Call</h2>Union Minister Pralhad Joshi called on world investors to join India's fast push for clean energy at the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos. In the session on "Resilient Infrastructure for Growth", he shared India's story of large-scale work with strong systems. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's guidance, India has reached 267 GW of non-fossil fuel power by December 2025. The nation is on course to hit its 2030 climate and energy goals. This progress rests on solid rules, home-grown production, updated power grids, storage options, and new plans for geothermal and nuclear power. Joshi stressed the call for steady funds, mixed financing, and closer ties between governments, businesses, and global banks to drive a fair and lasting energy change worldwide.&nbsp;<h2>CEO Ties Strengthen</h2>In Davos, India's talks with top global company heads showed their strong wish to invest in clean energy back home. This has lifted India's place on the world stage. Stable rules and a welcoming setup for funds, led by Narendra Modi, have built trust among those putting in money. India now stands as a key link in world supply lines for clean and renewable power. Even in times of world economic dips and broken supply chains, India has sped up its rise by adding strength and skills with an eye on the future. The country is seen as a reliable spot for world funds, with sure gains, clear policies, and chances for new ideas, growth, and lasting worth.&nbsp;<h2>States’ Bold Pitch</h2>Back home, India used the Davos stage to highlight its own big project plans, with Maharashtra leading the way early on. State teams worked to draw in funds and tie-ups for growth. The Maharashtra government inked 19 pacts worth Rs 14.5 lakh crore, set to create over 15 lakh jobs. These cover areas from everyday goods and transport to eco-friendly steel and online setups. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met with firms like Coca-Cola, Antora Energy, and Brookfield in direct talks. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu used the forum to say India could climb from the fourth-biggest economy to number one by 2047 if it acts now. His words aimed to show India as a steady growth tale, while much of Davos worried about world unrest. The Adani Group laid out a $66 billion spending plan for Maharashtra, adding to the state's draw for large funds in key fields.&nbsp;Notably, Karnataka's team linked up with ReNew Power, which handles solar, wind, and mixed energy works. New York-based Xylem showed interest in building a plant to treat wastewater in the state. Octopus Energy, focused on updating power networks, also talked with Karnataka officials. On the other hand, Uttar Pradesh locked in deals worth Rs 9,000 crore at Davos, targeting clean power, smart tech like AI, and defence making. The Jharkhand government also signed a pact with Tata Steel for over Rs 11,000 crore, boosting the state's industrial base.&nbsp;Overall, Davos 2026 boosted India's image as a leader in energy shifts and investment. With climate risks growing, the focus on renewables fits the global need. India's story of scale and strength, shared at the forum, draws partners for a shared path ahead. As deals flow in, the country steps up its role in a world seeking balance. This meet could spark real changes, from job creation to green tech, aiding India's long goals and vision of Viksit Bharat.&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 pushed hard for more renewable energy, guided by the idea of One Earth, One Family, One Future. This vision underlined Indias call for joint action on green growth.

Amid mounting global tensions from ongoing wars, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Middle East flashpoints, coupled with rising geopolitical rivalries, the world order faces severe disruption. At the same time, the high-altitude Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026, held in freezing cold, sees world leaders coming together to seek lasting peace and growth for all. They aim to build economic strength for a common future. Leaders are ready to sign agreements running into trillions of dollars to tackle these challenges. As global warming and damage to nature grow, putting health and basic services at risk, the focus on clean energy sources has reached a key stage, grabbing worldwide notice and sparked urgent debates. Non-fossil fuels are now central to plans for a safer planet. India's role at the Davos WEF 2026, which began in January and ends on January 23, drew sharp attention. The country pushed hard for more renewable energy, guided by the idea of One Earth, One Family, One Future. This vision underlined India's call for joint action on green growth. Minister's Clean Call Union Minister Pralhad Joshi called on world investors to join India's fast push for clean energy at the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos. In the session on "Resilient Infrastructure for Growth", he shared India's story of large-scale work with strong systems. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's guidance, India has reached 267 GW of non-fossil fuel power by December 2025. The nation is on course to hit its 2030 climate and energy goals. This progress rests on solid rules, home-grown production, updated power grids, storage options, and new plans for geothermal and nuclear power. Joshi stressed the call for steady funds, mixed financing, and closer ties between governments, businesses, and global banks to drive a fair and lasting energy change worldwide. CEO Ties Strengthen In Davos, India's talks with top global company heads showed their strong wish to invest in clean energy back home. This has lifted India's place on the world stage. Stable rules and a welcoming setup for funds, led by Narendra Modi, have built trust among those putting in money. India now stands as a key link in world supply lines for clean and renewable power. Even in times of world economic dips and broken supply chains, India has sped up its rise by adding strength and skills with an eye on the future. The country is seen as a reliable spot for world funds, with sure gains, clear policies, and chances for new ideas, growth, and lasting worth. States’ Bold Pitch Back home, India used the Davos stage to highlight its own big project plans, with Maharashtra leading the way early on. State teams worked to draw in funds and tie-ups for growth. The Maharashtra government inked 19 pacts worth Rs 14.5 lakh crore, set to create over 15 lakh jobs. These cover areas from everyday goods and transport to eco-friendly steel and online setups. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met with firms like Coca-Cola, Antora Energy, and Brookfield in direct talks. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu used the forum to say India could climb from the fourth-biggest economy to number one by 2047 if it acts now. His words aimed to show India as a steady growth tale, while much of Davos worried about world unrest. The Adani Group laid out a $66 billion spending plan for Maharashtra, adding to the state's draw for large funds in key fields. Notably, Karnataka's team linked up with ReNew Power, which handles solar, wind, and mixed energy works. New York-based Xylem showed interest in building a plant to treat wastewater in the state. Octopus Energy, focused on updating power networks, also talked with Karnataka officials. On the other hand, Uttar Pradesh locked in deals worth Rs 9,000 crore at Davos, targeting clean power, smart tech like AI, and defence making. The Jharkhand government also signed a pact with Tata Steel for over Rs 11,000 crore, boosting the state's industrial base. Overall, Davos 2026 boosted India's image as a leader in energy shifts and investment. With climate risks growing, the focus on renewables fits the global need. India's story of scale and strength, shared at the forum, draws partners for a shared path ahead. As deals flow in, the country steps up its role in a world seeking balance. This meet could spark real changes, from job creation to green tech, aiding India's long goals and vision of Viksit Bharat. 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 pushed hard for more renewable energy, guided by the idea of One Earth, One Family, One Future. This vision underlined India's call for joint action on green growth.

Davos WEF 2026: From 267 GW Milestone to Global Deals – India's Renewable Surge Steals the Show, Here’s Why

At the start of the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos, China warned the international community against return to the 'law of the jungle'. Donald Trump might want to make WEF all about himself and America, but the US president might take note of the quiet progress made by China in all areas of competition: trade, technology, warfare and climate. One recurring story in the current world order is the increasing territorial ambitions of both nations, one which assumes American supremacy and exceptionalism, and the other stressing a multipolar world. China’s slowly warming relations with European nations, Canada, India and the Arab world sharply contrast with the renewed conflict-mongering of Trump, from Greenland to Iran and further afield. Trump wants to thrust America into the centre of everything, be it the pursuit of peace in Gaza or the technology-trade rivalries involving semiconductors. But it appears China is smiling as Trump destroys alliances and friendships that took American leaders decades to build. Here is how the rivalry is shaping up.<h2>World Economic Forum: An annual 'do' turns into a crisis meeting</h2>Geopolitical tensions and trade and tariff wars form the backdrop for this year’s WEF, taking place on January 19–23, under the theme "A Spirit of Dialogue" with the aim of fostering cooperation amid global fractures. &nbsp;The WEF’s Global Risks Report 2026 identified geoeconomic - not geopolitical- confrontation as the most significant short-term threat to global stability. This includes the use of sanctions, tariffs, export controls and trade restrictions as instruments of state power. Most of it actually applies to the Trump administration. Cooperative mechanisms are crumbling, and multilateralism is in retreat. China–US rivalries are at the core of this global uncertainty.The WEF's session names are also ominous. One is titled "Is the World at a Breaking Point?", an example of the forum's shift from optimism to panic-mode realism. That's because trade, technology and finance are increasingly being weaponised in a global order where economic tools are central to strategic influence.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/davos-2026-economic-development-trade-minister-of-maldives-mohamed-saeed-speaks-to-wion-1768971956455/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/davos-2026-economic-development-trade-minister-of-maldives-mohamed-saeed-speaks-to-wion-1768971956455/embed</a><h2>Trade, a new frontline pitting America against China</h2>China is working hard to appear as a stable and predictable trade partner, and has had a record $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025 as evidence. Vice-Premier He Lifeng highlighted China’s role in defending globalisation, touting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a tool for global stability and investment. Remember, only a few years ago, there was a lot of pessimism about BRI. US actions, on the other hand, prioritised protectionism and unilateral action under Trump’s so-called "Donroe doctrine".Tariffs, export controls on high-tech items like chips, and trade restrictions are framed as necessary to counter China’s industrial dominance. This approach risks the US being seen as a "bully".Both US allies and emerging powers are now exploring independent or China-aligned strategies. Global trade, which used to be largely immune to geopolitical tensions, is now fragmenting into geopolitical zones. This is leading several companies to adopt the "China +1" supply-chain strategy, hedging by diversifying production to India, South-East Asia, Mexico and Europe. India, Brazil and Gulf states are seeking more autonomy in global relations, but still face pressure from the US in the form of tariffs, sanctions or disincentives, making some of them tilt more towards China.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/wef-davos-2026-opens-without-founder-after-whistleblower-flags-financial-and-ethical-misconduct-1768897765147">WEF Davos 2026 opens without founder after whistleblower flags 'financial and ethical misconduct'</a><h2>Technology rivalry to the forefront: AI race, semiconductors</h2>Perhaps the fiercest arena of US–China competition is technology. AI acceleration and industrial innovation are dominating the Davos discussions. While the US has leadership in frontier AI research, proprietary ecosystems and advanced semiconductors, it is also employing export controls on critical chips to stay at the top of the race. But China enjoys advantages in scaling, deployment and industrial ecosystems. It is already leading the world in electric vehicles, &nbsp;renewable energy, robotics, 5G infrastructure and batteries. China has perfected this through decades of state-backed strategic investment, process knowledge and ferocious market competition.Low electricity costs in China, at $0.04–0.08/kWh, enable massive AI computing deployment compared to $0.15/kWh in the US. State-backed industrial policy and alternative chip quests position China to compete effectively despite US export restrictions.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/davos-2026-kerala-pavilion-inaugurated-at-wef-davos-as-global-investors-line-up-1768970543478">Davos 2026: Kerala Pavilion inaugurated at WEF Davos as global investors line up</a><h2>China vs US: A tussle between hegemony and multipolarity</h2>Davos 2026 reflects a broader power struggle over global governance, with China and the US at the two ends of the spectrum. China challenges US dominance in covert, overt or subtle manners, advocating a multipolar world through the Global Development Initiative and leadership in AI and clean energy standards. This is an approach that developing nations, particularly in regions like Africa, appear to embrace. China continues to be one of the key contributors to global GDP growth, more than 22 per cent of the total as per some estimates for 2026.The US, on the other hand, appears to be operating in chaos, controlled or otherwise. Under Trump, it is showing inconsistent diplomacy, reliance on sanctions, and choreographed rhetoric regarding actual conflicts and wars. Under such leadership, globalisation is fragmenting, and companies and nations are navigating these dual blocs or adopting hedging strategies.Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer. &nbsp;

Davos 2026 is taking place amid intensifying US–China rivalry across geopolitics, trade and technology. China projects stability and multipolarity in spite of its domestic issues, while Trump’s America disrupts alliances and global cooperation.

At the start of the World Economic Forum 2026 in Davos, China warned the international community against return to the 'law of the jungle'. Donald Trump might want to make WEF all about himself and America, but the US president might take note of the quiet progress made by China in all areas of competition: trade, technology, warfare and climate. One recurring story in the current world order is the increasing territorial ambitions of both nations, one which assumes American supremacy and exceptionalism, and the other stressing a multipolar world. China’s slowly warming relations with European nations, Canada, India and the Arab world sharply contrast with the renewed conflict-mongering of Trump, from Greenland to Iran and further afield. Trump wants to thrust America into the centre of everything, be it the pursuit of peace in Gaza or the technology-trade rivalries involving semiconductors. But it appears China is smiling as Trump destroys alliances and friendships that took American leaders decades to build. Here is how the rivalry is shaping up. World Economic Forum: An annual 'do' turns into a crisis meeting Geopolitical tensions and trade and tariff wars form the backdrop for this year’s WEF, taking place on January 19–23, under the theme "A Spirit of Dialogue" with the aim of fostering cooperation amid global fractures. The WEF’s Global Risks Report 2026 identified geoeconomic - not geopolitical- confrontation as the most significant short-term threat to global stability. This includes the use of sanctions, tariffs, export controls and trade restrictions as instruments of state power. Most of it actually applies to the Trump administration. Cooperative mechanisms are crumbling, and multilateralism is in retreat. China–US rivalries are at the core of this global uncertainty. The WEF's session names are also ominous. One is titled "Is the World at a Breaking Point?", an example of the forum's shift from optimism to panic-mode realism. That's because trade, technology and finance are increasingly being weaponised in a global order where economic tools are central to strategic influence. https://www.wionews.com/videos/davos-2026-economic-development-trade-minister-of-maldives-mohamed-saeed-speaks-to-wion-1768971956455/embed Trade, a new frontline pitting America against China China is working hard to appear as a stable and predictable trade partner, and has had a record $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025 as evidence. Vice-Premier He Lifeng highlighted China’s role in defending globalisation, touting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a tool for global stability and investment. Remember, only a few years ago, there was a lot of pessimism about BRI. US actions, on the other hand, prioritised protectionism and unilateral action under Trump’s so-called "Donroe doctrine". Tariffs, export controls on high-tech items like chips, and trade restrictions are framed as necessary to counter China’s industrial dominance. This approach risks the US being seen as a "bully". Both US allies and emerging powers are now exploring independent or China-aligned strategies. Global trade, which used to be largely immune to geopolitical tensions, is now fragmenting into geopolitical zones. This is leading several companies to adopt the "China +1" supply-chain strategy, hedging by diversifying production to India, South-East Asia, Mexico and Europe. India, Brazil and Gulf states are seeking more autonomy in global relations, but still face pressure from the US in the form of tariffs, sanctions or disincentives, making some of them tilt more towards China. Also read: WEF Davos 2026 opens without founder after whistleblower flags 'financial and ethical misconduct' Technology rivalry to the forefront: AI race, semiconductors Perhaps the fiercest arena of US–China competition is technology. AI acceleration and industrial innovation are dominating the Davos discussions. While the US has leadership in frontier AI research, proprietary ecosystems and advanced semiconductors, it is also employing export controls on critical chips to stay at the top of the race. But China enjoys advantages in scaling, deployment and industrial ecosystems. It is already leading the world in electric vehicles, renewable energy, robotics, 5G infrastructure and batteries. China has perfected this through decades of state-backed strategic investment, process knowledge and ferocious market competition. Low electricity costs in China, at $0.04–0.08/kWh, enable massive AI computing deployment compared to $0.15/kWh in the US. State-backed industrial policy and alternative chip quests position China to compete effectively despite US export restrictions. Also read: Davos 2026: Kerala Pavilion inaugurated at WEF Davos as global investors line up China vs US: A tussle between hegemony and multipolarity Davos 2026 reflects a broader power struggle over global governance, with China and the US at the two ends of the spectrum. China challenges US dominance in covert, overt or subtle manners, advocating a multipolar world through the Global Development Initiative and leadership in AI and clean energy standards. This is an approach that developing nations, particularly in regions like Africa, appear to embrace. China continues to be one of the key contributors to global GDP growth, more than 22 per cent of the total as per some estimates for 2026. The US, on the other hand, appears to be operating in chaos, controlled or otherwise. Under Trump, it is showing inconsistent diplomacy, reliance on sanctions, and choreographed rhetoric regarding actual conflicts and wars. Under such leadership, globalisation is fragmenting, and companies and nations are navigating these dual blocs or adopting hedging strategies. Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Davos 2026 is taking place amid intensifying US–China rivalry across geopolitics, trade and technology. China projects stability and multipolarity in spite of its domestic issues, while Trump’s America disrupts alliances and global cooperation.

Davos 2026 is also about US-China rivalry in geopolitics, trade and tech. And China is quietly winning

Statements, comments, social media posts by U.S. President Donald Trump could fill a vast library, m ore so because they usually prompt learned analyses of what they mean what they say. Many seem so bizarre that Trump watchers scour the Internet to see whether they are authentic.&nbsp;The latest case in point is an exchange between Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store and Trump after the American president threatened to impose a 10 per cent tariff on eight European countries, including Norway, if they failed to back his plan to acquire – “one way or the other” – Greenland.&nbsp;In a polite text message, the Norwegian suggested a telephone call to de-escalate the tension and shock the tariff threat has caused among the members of the European Union and NATO. Within 17 minutes, Trump replied with a text that shed light on reasons that go beyond Washington’s official rationale – that Greenland if essential for the national security of the United States.&nbsp;“Dear Jonas,” Trump wrote, “Considering your Country decided to not give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I NO LONGER feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but now can think what is &nbsp;good an proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents…”&nbsp;Trump statements are a fact-checker’s dream, but this one in particular highlights the spin and omissions that are standard procedure of the Trump White House. Greenland is an autonomous self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark, and a 1951 treaty with Denmark allows the U.S. to operate as many U.S. bases as Washington thinks necessary.&nbsp;Trump’s complaint about Norway failing to give him the Nobel Peace Prize fails to mention that the Prize committee is an independent entity and the Norwegian government plays no role in the selection of its prizes.&nbsp;No matter. Trump says he is determined to impose a 10 per cent tariff on Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands and Finland unless they bend to his will and stop opposing his plans to own Greenland. The tariffs will jump to 25 percent by June 1 and stay at that level as long as the country remains part of Denmark.&nbsp;Denmark is a founding member of NATO and military intervention by the U.S., which Trump has not taken off the table, would prompt the collapse of one of the world’s most effective military alliances. &nbsp;&nbsp;Trump is likely to address the issue on Wednesday at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Wednesday (Jan. 21). Whether he and the large delegation he is taking along will be able to convince that Trump’s 19th century worldview – might makes right – fits the 21st century remains to be seen. &nbsp;&nbsp;Both the president and some of his closest aides have been unambiguous of how they see the world since Trump took office exactly a year ago.&nbsp;Stephen Miller, who is White House chief of staff for policy, put I bluntly in a television interview in which the host referred to the network of international alliances and rules promoted by the U.S. after World War Two. &nbsp;&nbsp;“You cane talk all about you want about international niceties and everything else,” Miller said. “But we live in te real world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”&nbsp;His boss, Trump, went one step further in an interview with the New York Times, whose reporters asked him whether he saw any limits on his global powers. “Yeah, there is one thing, “Trump replied, “my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” &nbsp;&nbsp;This mindset is reflected in America’s new National Security Strategy, published on December 4. A voluminous document, it differs from previous strategic guidelines by an emphasis on regional balances of power. It stresses that America’s fundamental interest is in the Western Hemisphere, which includes Greenland.&nbsp;The document makes clear that America wants to shift to a new world order of spheres of influence. The strategy invokes the Monroe Doctrine, a policy vision first articulated in 1823 by then-President James Monroe, who warned European powers to stay out of Latin America, where several countries had just broken free from Spanish and Portuguese empires.&nbsp;“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago. “But we superseded it by a lot, a whole lot, by a real lot. They now call it the Donroe Doctrine.”&nbsp;Its first application was a spectacular military success when U.S. Special Forces, in an intricate operation supported by 150 aircraft, snatched Venezuela’s long-time dictator, Nicolas Maduro, from his home in Caracas and brought him and his wife to New York to stand trial for drug smuggling and “hosting foreign adversaries in our region.”&nbsp;That referred to Cubans who served as part of the security detail of Maduro – 32 were killed in the attack –and Iranian electronic intelligence experts. Their presence, according to Trump, violated the core principles of U.S. foreign policy.&nbsp;Carving out spheres of influence by big powers is an idea shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose unprovoked war on Ukraine, now nearing its fifth year, is an attempt to recreate the Kremlin-dominated Soviet Union as his sphere of influence. &nbsp;Perhaps that helps understand Trump’s apparent affinity for the Russian dictator.&nbsp;Historians point out that the 19th-century concept of spheres of influence dominated by leaders who believed that might makes right helped the world to slide into two devastating world wars.

Carving out spheres of influence by big powers is an idea shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Perhaps that helps understand Trump’s apparent affinity for the Russian dictator.

Statements, comments, social media posts by U.S. President Donald Trump could fill a vast library, m ore so because they usually prompt learned analyses of what they mean what they say. Many seem so bizarre that Trump watchers scour the Internet to see whether they are authentic. The latest case in point is an exchange between Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store and Trump after the American president threatened to impose a 10 per cent tariff on eight European countries, including Norway, if they failed to back his plan to acquire – “one way or the other” – Greenland. In a polite text message, the Norwegian suggested a telephone call to de-escalate the tension and shock the tariff threat has caused among the members of the European Union and NATO. Within 17 minutes, Trump replied with a text that shed light on reasons that go beyond Washington’s official rationale – that Greenland if essential for the national security of the United States. “Dear Jonas,” Trump wrote, “Considering your Country decided to not give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I NO LONGER feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but now can think what is good an proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents…” Trump statements are a fact-checker’s dream, but this one in particular highlights the spin and omissions that are standard procedure of the Trump White House. Greenland is an autonomous self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark, and a 1951 treaty with Denmark allows the U.S. to operate as many U.S. bases as Washington thinks necessary. Trump’s complaint about Norway failing to give him the Nobel Peace Prize fails to mention that the Prize committee is an independent entity and the Norwegian government plays no role in the selection of its prizes. No matter. Trump says he is determined to impose a 10 per cent tariff on Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands and Finland unless they bend to his will and stop opposing his plans to own Greenland. The tariffs will jump to 25 percent by June 1 and stay at that level as long as the country remains part of Denmark. Denmark is a founding member of NATO and military intervention by the U.S., which Trump has not taken off the table, would prompt the collapse of one of the world’s most effective military alliances. Trump is likely to address the issue on Wednesday at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Wednesday (Jan. 21). Whether he and the large delegation he is taking along will be able to convince that Trump’s 19th century worldview – might makes right – fits the 21st century remains to be seen. Both the president and some of his closest aides have been unambiguous of how they see the world since Trump took office exactly a year ago. Stephen Miller, who is White House chief of staff for policy, put I bluntly in a television interview in which the host referred to the network of international alliances and rules promoted by the U.S. after World War Two. “You cane talk all about you want about international niceties and everything else,” Miller said. “But we live in te real world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” His boss, Trump, went one step further in an interview with the New York Times, whose reporters asked him whether he saw any limits on his global powers. “Yeah, there is one thing, “Trump replied, “my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” This mindset is reflected in America’s new National Security Strategy, published on December 4. A voluminous document, it differs from previous strategic guidelines by an emphasis on regional balances of power. It stresses that America’s fundamental interest is in the Western Hemisphere, which includes Greenland. The document makes clear that America wants to shift to a new world order of spheres of influence. The strategy invokes the Monroe Doctrine, a policy vision first articulated in 1823 by then-President James Monroe, who warned European powers to stay out of Latin America, where several countries had just broken free from Spanish and Portuguese empires. “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago. “But we superseded it by a lot, a whole lot, by a real lot. They now call it the Donroe Doctrine.” Its first application was a spectacular military success when U.S. Special Forces, in an intricate operation supported by 150 aircraft, snatched Venezuela’s long-time dictator, Nicolas Maduro, from his home in Caracas and brought him and his wife to New York to stand trial for drug smuggling and “hosting foreign adversaries in our region.” That referred to Cubans who served as part of the security detail of Maduro – 32 were killed in the attack –and Iranian electronic intelligence experts. Their presence, according to Trump, violated the core principles of U.S. foreign policy. Carving out spheres of influence by big powers is an idea shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose unprovoked war on Ukraine, now nearing its fifth year, is an attempt to recreate the Kremlin-dominated Soviet Union as his sphere of influence. Perhaps that helps understand Trump’s apparent affinity for the Russian dictator. Historians point out that the 19th-century concept of spheres of influence dominated by leaders who believed that might makes right helped the world to slide into two devastating world wars.

Carving out spheres of influence by big powers is an idea shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin. &nbsp;Perhaps that helps understand Trump’s apparent affinity for the Russian dictator.

Under Trump 2.0, US slides back to the 19th century

Nikkhil Advani’s latest web series, Freedom At Midnight Season 2, which was released last week, is a must-watch for the times we live in. In an era of war, where bigotry has become an intrinsic part of everyday life, the series urges us to look back in order to understand what truly holds a diverse country like India together.Without sermonising or softening the truth, it highlights the social fabric on which India was founded—one woven with ideals of peace, harmony, and secularism.&nbsp;The show, based on Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's expansive novel by the same name, talks of the incidents and decisions that paved the way for India’s independence and the formation of Pakistan. Brilliantly adapted by writer Abhinandan Gupta, the show beautifully highlights the pain and the anguish of not just the people but also our leaders during the partition of India- a decision which was taken by a handful of men but defined the future of millions of people.<h2>Humanising our leaders</h2>&nbsp;Partition has been a subject of interest for many writers and filmmakers over the years. It has been 78 years since India got its freedom, but Partition remains one of the most harrowing incidents in history- scars of that moment have left deep wounds on families for generations.&nbsp;Season 2 begins with Mountbatten ordering Sir Radcliffe to do the needful and draw the lines that would divide the Hindu and Muslim populations into two countries. While Mountbatten seemed nonchalant, it is Sir Radcliffe who seemed reluctant (or so says the show). How to divide people who have lived together in harmony for generations? How to remove people from their origin? A task that seemed monumental and heavy on Radcliffe’s shoulders despite years of experience.&nbsp;While the first season concentrated on the incidents and moments that led to the Independence, season two shows Independent India grappling with a multitude of problems. The partition that has torn apart the country, the accession of princely states into the newly formed union, and the Hindu-Muslim riots that ravaged the streets of Calcutta and Lahore. It is a time when both India and Pakistan are taking the first steps as independent nations. While there are celebrations on the streets, the series shows the leaders in anguish- especially Nehru- conscious of how they have had to lose out on a huge chunk of the population and land to satisfy Jinnah’s wishes and carve out Pakistan.&nbsp;Jinnah, for obvious reasons, is shown as this mad egotistical man, who was adamant to have a Muslim state- the writers also add a human side to the maglanomaniac. A poignant scene shows Jinnah looking lonely at his home in India, one last time as he leaves for Pakistan. No words are spoken, but actor Arif Zakaria, who plays Jinnah in the show, emotes through sheer expressions, delivering how even the toughest of men had a softer side- especially when it came to one’s home and motherland.<h2>Freedom, but at what cost?</h2>&nbsp;Freedom at Midnight, in fact, has some of the most poignant moments, which constantly make you realise that the decision of Partition was not an easy one- and one that never let the leaders rest easy. As Nehru (Sidhant Gupta) delivers the historic ‘At The Stroke of Midnight’ speech at the parliament, celebrations erupt across the nation. Men and women take to the streets to celebrate, and Gandhi(Chirag Vohra) is shown lying in an empty room, facing the wall, unwilling to celebrate the moment that would define Indian history and a moment that he had yearned and strived for decades. The beauty lies in the detailed screenplay, which shows Gandhi tearing up at the stroke of midnight as India makes its tryst with destiny. The emotions are perhaps due to a sense of failure, for he is conscious of how the much yearned-for independence has come at a cost.&nbsp;<h2>The problematic neighbour</h2>&nbsp;Freedom at Midnight was released a month after the country was treated to a blitzkrieg called Dhurandhar. Most of us have watched Aditya Dhar’s detailed, somewhat gory and very long spy thriller. Dhar’s film and Advani’s series both show the complexities that come with having Pakistan as a neighbour. But the treatment is starkly different. Dhar’s film pumps the adrenaline, making you feel aggressively angry towards the neighbour. Freedom of Midnight instead makes you question the divisive politics that the leaders sought in order to get freedom in the first place. A moment in the series has Nehru and Jinnah standing in their respective homes, perhaps reflecting on what has led to the decision of partition, while Gandhi’s voice looms over in the background, foretelling how a decision of a handful of men will cost the future of billions in both countries. The poignant moment makes you think hard. Was the two-nation theory really worth it? For over seven decades, the two countries have been warring, and there have been more losses than gains for both countries. Back then, people lost their homes, their childhood, and their wealth due to partition; now, people lose their lives and homes due to war and cross-border terrorism.&nbsp;&nbsp;It's a choice that one must make- which costs us more, to live peacefully or constantly wanting to be at war.&nbsp;Before anyone jumps in to question whether the show is pro-Pakistan, it must be reiterated that the show is actually pro-peace, pro-secularism, where a PM Nehru is shown constantly pushing for the secular fabric of the newly formed democratic country. Sure, it shies away from naming Nathuram Godse as Gandhi’s murderer instead resorting to a show figure, and instead concentrates on a certain Pahwa- a man anguished at Gandhi’s empathy towards the Muslim brothers in post- partition India, but the show constantly reiterates how the leaders could never fully be free from the burden that Partition bore. It came with a cost, and as Gandhi points out, its impact continues to dominate the politics of the subcontinent, decades later.&nbsp;Freedom at Midnight, Season 1 and 2, are streaming on Sony Liv.

Nikkhil Advani's latest series Freedom at Midnight is a timely reminder of what our country India has always been known for. The series goes back in time to narrate the darkest petriod of Indian history- the partition- and the consequences it bore. 

Nikkhil Advani’s latest web series, Freedom At Midnight Season 2, which was released last week, is a must-watch for the times we live in. In an era of war, where bigotry has become an intrinsic part of everyday life, the series urges us to look back in order to understand what truly holds a diverse country like India together. Without sermonising or softening the truth, it highlights the social fabric on which India was founded—one woven with ideals of peace, harmony, and secularism. The show, based on Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's expansive novel by the same name, talks of the incidents and decisions that paved the way for India’s independence and the formation of Pakistan. Brilliantly adapted by writer Abhinandan Gupta, the show beautifully highlights the pain and the anguish of not just the people but also our leaders during the partition of India- a decision which was taken by a handful of men but defined the future of millions of people. Humanising our leaders Partition has been a subject of interest for many writers and filmmakers over the years. It has been 78 years since India got its freedom, but Partition remains one of the most harrowing incidents in history- scars of that moment have left deep wounds on families for generations. Season 2 begins with Mountbatten ordering Sir Radcliffe to do the needful and draw the lines that would divide the Hindu and Muslim populations into two countries. While Mountbatten seemed nonchalant, it is Sir Radcliffe who seemed reluctant (or so says the show). How to divide people who have lived together in harmony for generations? How to remove people from their origin? A task that seemed monumental and heavy on Radcliffe’s shoulders despite years of experience. While the first season concentrated on the incidents and moments that led to the Independence, season two shows Independent India grappling with a multitude of problems. The partition that has torn apart the country, the accession of princely states into the newly formed union, and the Hindu-Muslim riots that ravaged the streets of Calcutta and Lahore. It is a time when both India and Pakistan are taking the first steps as independent nations. While there are celebrations on the streets, the series shows the leaders in anguish- especially Nehru- conscious of how they have had to lose out on a huge chunk of the population and land to satisfy Jinnah’s wishes and carve out Pakistan. Jinnah, for obvious reasons, is shown as this mad egotistical man, who was adamant to have a Muslim state- the writers also add a human side to the maglanomaniac. A poignant scene shows Jinnah looking lonely at his home in India, one last time as he leaves for Pakistan. No words are spoken, but actor Arif Zakaria, who plays Jinnah in the show, emotes through sheer expressions, delivering how even the toughest of men had a softer side- especially when it came to one’s home and motherland. Freedom, but at what cost? Freedom at Midnight, in fact, has some of the most poignant moments, which constantly make you realise that the decision of Partition was not an easy one- and one that never let the leaders rest easy. As Nehru (Sidhant Gupta) delivers the historic ‘At The Stroke of Midnight’ speech at the parliament, celebrations erupt across the nation. Men and women take to the streets to celebrate, and Gandhi(Chirag Vohra) is shown lying in an empty room, facing the wall, unwilling to celebrate the moment that would define Indian history and a moment that he had yearned and strived for decades. The beauty lies in the detailed screenplay, which shows Gandhi tearing up at the stroke of midnight as India makes its tryst with destiny. The emotions are perhaps due to a sense of failure, for he is conscious of how the much yearned-for independence has come at a cost. The problematic neighbour Freedom at Midnight was released a month after the country was treated to a blitzkrieg called Dhurandhar. Most of us have watched Aditya Dhar’s detailed, somewhat gory and very long spy thriller. Dhar’s film and Advani’s series both show the complexities that come with having Pakistan as a neighbour. But the treatment is starkly different. Dhar’s film pumps the adrenaline, making you feel aggressively angry towards the neighbour. Freedom of Midnight instead makes you question the divisive politics that the leaders sought in order to get freedom in the first place. A moment in the series has Nehru and Jinnah standing in their respective homes, perhaps reflecting on what has led to the decision of partition, while Gandhi’s voice looms over in the background, foretelling how a decision of a handful of men will cost the future of billions in both countries. The poignant moment makes you think hard. Was the two-nation theory really worth it? For over seven decades, the two countries have been warring, and there have been more losses than gains for both countries. Back then, people lost their homes, their childhood, and their wealth due to partition; now, people lose their lives and homes due to war and cross-border terrorism. It's a choice that one must make- which costs us more, to live peacefully or constantly wanting to be at war. Before anyone jumps in to question whether the show is pro-Pakistan, it must be reiterated that the show is actually pro-peace, pro-secularism, where a PM Nehru is shown constantly pushing for the secular fabric of the newly formed democratic country. Sure, it shies away from naming Nathuram Godse as Gandhi’s murderer instead resorting to a show figure, and instead concentrates on a certain Pahwa- a man anguished at Gandhi’s empathy towards the Muslim brothers in post- partition India, but the show constantly reiterates how the leaders could never fully be free from the burden that Partition bore. It came with a cost, and as Gandhi points out, its impact continues to dominate the politics of the subcontinent, decades later. Freedom at Midnight, Season 1 and 2, are streaming on Sony Liv.

Nikkhil Advani's latest series Freedom at Midnight is a timely reminder of what our country India has always been known for. The series goes back in time to narrate the darkest petriod of Indian history- the partition- and the consequences it bore.&nbsp;

Freedom At Midnight Season 2 arrives when India needs its secular memory the most

India appears to be slowly losing the strategic heft and influence in the Gulf region and Iran as China and Pakistan assert their economic, military and cultural footprint in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). India’s balancing act of mixing transactional trade ties and diaspora presence with non-commitment or non-alignment in the region's conflicts has frequently come to the fore, most recently in the US–Iran–Israel tensions and the Gaza conflict between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. India took decades to build trade and economic partnerships with Iran and GCC heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, on the strong foundations of migration that resulted in large expatriate populations in most of these nations. But in practically all aspects of bilateral ties, China and Pakistan are slowly edging India out, or filling vacuums. Here are the facts.<h2>China, Pakistan approaches differ from India's pragmatic, non-interventionist stance&nbsp;</h2>The GCC—comprising mainly the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman—is a key region for Indian foreign policy, given energy security, trade and the diaspora. But India’s influence remains largely economic and transactional, with limited geopolitical leverage. Its approach is defined by pragmatism and non-intervention, similar to its Iran policy. By contrast, China has scaled up investments and strategic mediation in the region and is no longer just a business partner or a spectator to unfolding geopolitical events. Pakistan, despite its economic weakness and dependence on GCC aid, retains influence through long-standing military and security partnerships, particularly with Saudi Arabia.<h2>India's hedging strategy: Stay relevant but don’t overextend influence</h2>India’s overarching strategy in the Gulf appears to have been to remain relevant without overextending itself militarily or politically. This ‘hedging approach’ prioritises economic engagement and diplomatic neutrality while avoiding security entanglements that could jeopardise energy flows or diaspora interests.<h2>India's robust economic ties with GCC nations</h2>Even as its geopolitical engagement remains measured, India’s economic ties with GCC nations remain strong. Bilateral trade with the GCC is estimated in the range of $170 billion. Gulf nations enjoy a sizeable trade surplus with India, with Indian exports estimated at about $56–57 billion and imports—mostly energy—at around $121–122 billion.The UAE and Saudi Arabia are standout partners. India–UAE trade reached an estimated $100 billion in 2025. India–Saudi trade stood at roughly $41–43 billion in 2023–24, with new energy cooperation agreements in 2025 covering crude oil, LPG, petrochemicals and green hydrogen.Energy remains the central pillar of the relationship, as the GCC supplies roughly 35 to 40 per cent of India’s crude oil imports and close to 70 per cent of its LNG requirements, making the region indispensable to India’s energy security.<h2>India's diaspora and remittances footprint in the GCC</h2>An estimated 9–10 million Indians reside in GCC nations, sending between $38 billion and $50 billion annually in remittances, with a strong post-pandemic rebound in recent years. These people-to-people ties reinforce economic and cultural links. Indian entrepreneurship is increasingly visible across the Gulf. For example, 9,038 new Indian members joined Dubai’s Chamber of Commerce in the first half of 2025 alone.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-arabia-is-pak-saudi-u-s-defence-nexus-a-threat-to-india-1763486610172/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-arabia-is-pak-saudi-u-s-defence-nexus-a-threat-to-india-1763486610172/embed</a><h2>GCC's foreign direct investment links and connectivity initiatives</h2>GCC foreign direct investment in India crossed $28.28 billion by December 2024. Connectivity and trade facilitation initiatives also gained prominence. The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), launched in 2023, aims to link Indian ports to Europe through the Gulf, positioning itself as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).India has also entered into Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements with the UAE in 2022 and Oman in 2025 to boost non-oil trade in technology, infrastructure and renewable energy.The first India–GCC Joint Ministerial Meeting in September 2024 adopted a 2024–2028 Action Plan covering health, trade, security, energy and culture. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia and other high-level exchanges expanded defence cooperation and counterterrorism engagement.<h2>India's aversion to direct intervention in GCC conflicts</h2>Despite these advances, India’s influence in the Gulf that peaked in the mid-2010s is now under strain. India has consistently avoided direct intervention in regional conflicts, choosing neutrality even during periods of intense tensions. It remained diplomatically cautious during the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza, the Israel–Yemen conflict involving the Houthis, Iran-related tensions involving Qatar, and the Iran–Israel escalations accompanied by US threats and strikes on Iran. During the Iran–Israel crisis, India limited itself to calls for de-escalation without military support to either side.While this approach protects India’s immediate interests, it has also drawn criticism for not being a “friend in need” during moments of crisis.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/could-india-sanction-saudi-arabia-if-it-sides-with-pakistan-in-war-due-to-defence-pact-1758183642802">Could India sanction Saudi Arabia if it sides with Pakistan in war due to defence pact?</a><h2>The competition from China in the Gulf region</h2>China’s growing presence has amplified the relative limits of India’s Gulf strategy. China has moved well beyond transactional trade and now combines economic scale with diplomatic activism.China has far outperformed India in GCC energy and trade through larger investments and proactive diplomacy. The world’s largest oil importer, China accounted for about 19 per cent of GCC energy exports in 2024. While the GCC runs a trade surplus of roughly $60 billion with India, China’s trade imbalance with the region is significantly lower, estimated at around $25 billion. This reflects China’s investment-led model: even as it imports vast quantities of energy, it reinvests heavily in the region.Gulf–China trade is projected to reach around $375 billion by 2028, comfortably outpacing India. China has also emerged as a preferred partner for long-term energy cooperation through BRI-linked downstream investments such as the $3.95 billion Sinopec–Aramco Fujian refinery joint venture.<h2>China is helping the GCC’s green energy transition</h2>China plays a leading role in supporting the GCC’s green transition. As a nation that dominates global solar manufacturing with over 80 per cent of key components, China supplies the bulk of solar equipment used across the Gulf. Between 2018 and 2023, Chinese firms invested an estimated $9.5 billion in green energy projects in the UAE and Saudi Arabia alone.In the first half of 2025, China added more solar and wind capacity than the rest of the world combined. At the same time, it enabled rapid GCC solar expansion through low-cost exports and manufacturing partnerships.India, by contrast, remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels from the Gulf, which still account for around two-thirds of its energy needs. Compared to China, India lacks reciprocal investments of similar scale in GCC energy and infrastructure.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-qatar-to-bahrain-us-military-bases-iran-could-attack-in-case-of-war-1768393403698">From Qatar to Bahrain: US military bases Iran could attack in case of war</a><h2>China’s mediation role in the Gulf crises</h2>Unlike India, China has positioned itself as a mediator in regional tensions. Its role in facilitating the 2023 Saudi–Iran rapprochement significantly enhanced its political credibility in the Gulf.China has actively appealed to GCC states seeking to diversify away from dependence on the United States.&nbsp;While India continues negotiations for a free trade agreement with the GCC, talks have stalled due to concerns over rising imports without matching export gains. China’s FTA discussions, meanwhile, are advancing, including in digital transition and green energy.Overall, China’s Gulf strategy combines economic heft with geopolitical assertiveness and selective mediation, making it more effective than India’s cautious, risk-averse approach.<h2>Pakistan, the X factor in India–GCC ties</h2>Pakistan represents a different but significant challenge to India’s Gulf positioning. Despite economic troubles and political instability at home, Pakistan has retained influence by leveraging its historical military ties with Gulf states, and playing on the Islamic conscience. Pakistan often projects itself as a “Muslim power”, drawing on relationships that date back to the 1960s. For decades, the Pakistani military trained GCC forces and provided security assistance. It deployed around 20,000 troops to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War and maintained advisory roles since.Remittances from Pakistanis working in the GCC form a major share of Pakistan’s inflows, often estimated to excceed $38 billion.<h2>Pakistan’s expanding security footprint in the Gulf region</h2>The September 2025 Saudi–Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) marked a major shift. The pact treats aggression against one as aggression against both, similar to NATO’s Article 5. Pakistan is reportedly exploring similar arrangements with Qatar and the UAE, potentially turning SMDA into a framework for the entire GCC region.&nbsp;The SMDA builds on Pakistan’s 1967 security arrangement with Saudi Arabia and consolidates Islamabad’s role in Gulf security architecture. Pakistan supported Saudi Arabia with troop deployments between 1982 and 1987 and continues to conduct joint naval, army and air force exercises with the UAE, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.It's interesting to note here that Iran, despite its historically tense relations with both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, has welcomed the SMDA, possibly viewing it as a foundation for a broader regional security framework.Having witnessed the Israel–Hamas tensions and US interventions in Iran, Saudi Arabia appears to be diversifying its security guarantees beyond the US.Saudi–Pakistan ties now extend to intelligence sharing, troop training and elements of strategic cooperation, and growing specutions on potential nuclear cooperation.Pakistan is also expanding its defence footprint elsewhere in the region, pursuing arms deals worth several billion dollars with countries such as Libya and Sudan. Army chief General Asim Munir’s visits to Libya and Jordan underpin this growing outreach.<h2>Pakistan’s possible role in Gaza peace force: A chance to rise as a security player in the region</h2>Pakistan reportedly brokered aspects of the 2025 Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and has positioned itself as a potential contributor to a stabilisation force in the Palestinian enclave.&nbsp;Pakistan has expressed willingness to deploy up to 3,500 troops to a Gaza stabilisation force, subject to the mandate excluding disarmament of Hamas or direct enforcement operations, though the final scope of such a force is still under discussion.What Pakistan lacks in economic might, it compensates for by adding security layers to its Gulf relationships—an area India deliberately avoids.<h2>A more multipolar Gulf is emerging, and India could lose the race for influence</h2>India has carefully stayed away from military interventions and security entanglements in the Gulf to preserve strategic autonomy and protect vital energy flows and diaspora interests. While India's ties with the Gulf remain resilient, China currently outperforms it in trade, investment and mediation, while Pakistan fills selective security gaps.This is a new Gulf—one that is diversifying beyond exclusive US dependence and embracing a more multipolar world order. India’s pragmatism may ensure stability, but bolder steps may be required if it is to match the growing assertiveness and advantages of its competitors.Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.&nbsp;

India’s Gulf influence is under strain as China deepens trade, energy and mediation ties and Pakistan expands its military partnerships. India's transactional approach is facing limitations as the region beset with conflicts diversifies its partners and friendships. Here are the facts

India appears to be slowly losing the strategic heft and influence in the Gulf region and Iran as China and Pakistan assert their economic, military and cultural footprint in member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). India’s balancing act of mixing transactional trade ties and diaspora presence with non-commitment or non-alignment in the region's conflicts has frequently come to the fore, most recently in the US–Iran–Israel tensions and the Gaza conflict between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. India took decades to build trade and economic partnerships with Iran and GCC heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, on the strong foundations of migration that resulted in large expatriate populations in most of these nations. But in practically all aspects of bilateral ties, China and Pakistan are slowly edging India out, or filling vacuums. Here are the facts. China, Pakistan approaches differ from India's pragmatic, non-interventionist stance The GCC—comprising mainly the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman—is a key region for Indian foreign policy, given energy security, trade and the diaspora. But India’s influence remains largely economic and transactional, with limited geopolitical leverage. Its approach is defined by pragmatism and non-intervention, similar to its Iran policy. By contrast, China has scaled up investments and strategic mediation in the region and is no longer just a business partner or a spectator to unfolding geopolitical events. Pakistan, despite its economic weakness and dependence on GCC aid, retains influence through long-standing military and security partnerships, particularly with Saudi Arabia. India's hedging strategy: Stay relevant but don’t overextend influence India’s overarching strategy in the Gulf appears to have been to remain relevant without overextending itself militarily or politically. This ‘hedging approach’ prioritises economic engagement and diplomatic neutrality while avoiding security entanglements that could jeopardise energy flows or diaspora interests. India's robust economic ties with GCC nations Even as its geopolitical engagement remains measured, India’s economic ties with GCC nations remain strong. Bilateral trade with the GCC is estimated in the range of $170 billion. Gulf nations enjoy a sizeable trade surplus with India, with Indian exports estimated at about $56–57 billion and imports—mostly energy—at around $121–122 billion. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are standout partners. India–UAE trade reached an estimated $100 billion in 2025. India–Saudi trade stood at roughly $41–43 billion in 2023–24, with new energy cooperation agreements in 2025 covering crude oil, LPG, petrochemicals and green hydrogen. Energy remains the central pillar of the relationship, as the GCC supplies roughly 35 to 40 per cent of India’s crude oil imports and close to 70 per cent of its LNG requirements, making the region indispensable to India’s energy security. India's diaspora and remittances footprint in the GCC An estimated 9–10 million Indians reside in GCC nations, sending between $38 billion and $50 billion annually in remittances, with a strong post-pandemic rebound in recent years. These people-to-people ties reinforce economic and cultural links. Indian entrepreneurship is increasingly visible across the Gulf. For example, 9,038 new Indian members joined Dubai’s Chamber of Commerce in the first half of 2025 alone. https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-arabia-is-pak-saudi-u-s-defence-nexus-a-threat-to-india-1763486610172/embed GCC's foreign direct investment links and connectivity initiatives GCC foreign direct investment in India crossed $28.28 billion by December 2024. Connectivity and trade facilitation initiatives also gained prominence. The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), launched in 2023, aims to link Indian ports to Europe through the Gulf, positioning itself as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India has also entered into Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements with the UAE in 2022 and Oman in 2025 to boost non-oil trade in technology, infrastructure and renewable energy. The first India–GCC Joint Ministerial Meeting in September 2024 adopted a 2024–2028 Action Plan covering health, trade, security, energy and culture. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia and other high-level exchanges expanded defence cooperation and counterterrorism engagement. India's aversion to direct intervention in GCC conflicts Despite these advances, India’s influence in the Gulf that peaked in the mid-2010s is now under strain. India has consistently avoided direct intervention in regional conflicts, choosing neutrality even during periods of intense tensions. It remained diplomatically cautious during the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza, the Israel–Yemen conflict involving the Houthis, Iran-related tensions involving Qatar, and the Iran–Israel escalations accompanied by US threats and strikes on Iran. During the Iran–Israel crisis, India limited itself to calls for de-escalation without military support to either side. While this approach protects India’s immediate interests, it has also drawn criticism for not being a “friend in need” during moments of crisis. Also read: Could India sanction Saudi Arabia if it sides with Pakistan in war due to defence pact? The competition from China in the Gulf region China’s growing presence has amplified the relative limits of India’s Gulf strategy. China has moved well beyond transactional trade and now combines economic scale with diplomatic activism. China has far outperformed India in GCC energy and trade through larger investments and proactive diplomacy. The world’s largest oil importer, China accounted for about 19 per cent of GCC energy exports in 2024. While the GCC runs a trade surplus of roughly $60 billion with India, China’s trade imbalance with the region is significantly lower, estimated at around $25 billion. This reflects China’s investment-led model: even as it imports vast quantities of energy, it reinvests heavily in the region. Gulf–China trade is projected to reach around $375 billion by 2028, comfortably outpacing India. China has also emerged as a preferred partner for long-term energy cooperation through BRI-linked downstream investments such as the $3.95 billion Sinopec–Aramco Fujian refinery joint venture. China is helping the GCC’s green energy transition China plays a leading role in supporting the GCC’s green transition. As a nation that dominates global solar manufacturing with over 80 per cent of key components, China supplies the bulk of solar equipment used across the Gulf. Between 2018 and 2023, Chinese firms invested an estimated $9.5 billion in green energy projects in the UAE and Saudi Arabia alone. In the first half of 2025, China added more solar and wind capacity than the rest of the world combined. At the same time, it enabled rapid GCC solar expansion through low-cost exports and manufacturing partnerships. India, by contrast, remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels from the Gulf, which still account for around two-thirds of its energy needs. Compared to China, India lacks reciprocal investments of similar scale in GCC energy and infrastructure. Also read: From Qatar to Bahrain: US military bases Iran could attack in case of war China’s mediation role in the Gulf crises Unlike India, China has positioned itself as a mediator in regional tensions. Its role in facilitating the 2023 Saudi–Iran rapprochement significantly enhanced its political credibility in the Gulf. China has actively appealed to GCC states seeking to diversify away from dependence on the United States. While India continues negotiations for a free trade agreement with the GCC, talks have stalled due to concerns over rising imports without matching export gains. China’s FTA discussions, meanwhile, are advancing, including in digital transition and green energy. Overall, China’s Gulf strategy combines economic heft with geopolitical assertiveness and selective mediation, making it more effective than India’s cautious, risk-averse approach. Pakistan, the X factor in India–GCC ties Pakistan represents a different but significant challenge to India’s Gulf positioning. Despite economic troubles and political instability at home, Pakistan has retained influence by leveraging its historical military ties with Gulf states, and playing on the Islamic conscience. Pakistan often projects itself as a “Muslim power”, drawing on relationships that date back to the 1960s. For decades, the Pakistani military trained GCC forces and provided security assistance. It deployed around 20,000 troops to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War and maintained advisory roles since. Remittances from Pakistanis working in the GCC form a major share of Pakistan’s inflows, often estimated to excceed $38 billion. Pakistan’s expanding security footprint in the Gulf region The September 2025 Saudi–Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) marked a major shift. The pact treats aggression against one as aggression against both, similar to NATO’s Article 5. Pakistan is reportedly exploring similar arrangements with Qatar and the UAE, potentially turning SMDA into a framework for the entire GCC region. The SMDA builds on Pakistan’s 1967 security arrangement with Saudi Arabia and consolidates Islamabad’s role in Gulf security architecture. Pakistan supported Saudi Arabia with troop deployments between 1982 and 1987 and continues to conduct joint naval, army and air force exercises with the UAE, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain. It's interesting to note here that Iran, despite its historically tense relations with both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, has welcomed the SMDA, possibly viewing it as a foundation for a broader regional security framework. Having witnessed the Israel–Hamas tensions and US interventions in Iran, Saudi Arabia appears to be diversifying its security guarantees beyond the US. Saudi–Pakistan ties now extend to intelligence sharing, troop training and elements of strategic cooperation, and growing specutions on potential nuclear cooperation. Pakistan is also expanding its defence footprint elsewhere in the region, pursuing arms deals worth several billion dollars with countries such as Libya and Sudan. Army chief General Asim Munir’s visits to Libya and Jordan underpin this growing outreach. Pakistan’s possible role in Gaza peace force: A chance to rise as a security player in the region Pakistan reportedly brokered aspects of the 2025 Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and has positioned itself as a potential contributor to a stabilisation force in the Palestinian enclave. Pakistan has expressed willingness to deploy up to 3,500 troops to a Gaza stabilisation force, subject to the mandate excluding disarmament of Hamas or direct enforcement operations, though the final scope of such a force is still under discussion. What Pakistan lacks in economic might, it compensates for by adding security layers to its Gulf relationships—an area India deliberately avoids. A more multipolar Gulf is emerging, and India could lose the race for influence India has carefully stayed away from military interventions and security entanglements in the Gulf to preserve strategic autonomy and protect vital energy flows and diaspora interests. While India's ties with the Gulf remain resilient, China currently outperforms it in trade, investment and mediation, while Pakistan fills selective security gaps. This is a new Gulf—one that is diversifying beyond exclusive US dependence and embracing a more multipolar world order. India’s pragmatism may ensure stability, but bolder steps may be required if it is to match the growing assertiveness and advantages of its competitors. Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

India’s Gulf influence is under strain as China deepens trade, energy and mediation ties and Pakistan expands its military partnerships. India's transactional approach is facing limitations as the region beset with conflicts diversifies its partners and friendships. Here are the facts

India losing the Gulf? How China, Pakistan fill strategic and economic space amid Delhi's transactional balancing act

The morning of January 12, 2026, should have been another routine victory lap for India's space program. Instead, at 10:45 AM, the PSLV-C62 rocket carrying our critical EOS-N1 surveillance satellite veered off course and had to be terminated. This wasn't just another technical hiccup. This was the second PSLV failure in eight months, and it should terrify every Indian who cares about our Gaganyaan dream of putting our astronauts in space.Let me be blunt. The PSLV has been our workhorse for thirty years. Sixty successful flights have made it the Maruti 800 of rockets—reliable, dependable, boring in the best possible way. When a system this proven fails twice in rapid succession, it's not bad luck. It's a symptom of something deeply wrong in how we're building these machines.The official term thrown around is "disturbance in roll rates during the third stage." For those of us who aren't rocket scientists, imagine you're driving on the highway and your car suddenly starts spinning uncontrollably. That's essentially what happened to our rocket. The third stage, which uses solid fuel, either had a nozzle malfunction or the rocket casing cracked. Either way, once a solid rocket motor is lit, you cannot shut it down. It's a controlled explosion, and when it goes wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong.Here's what keeps me up at night. The Gaganyaan mission, which will carry Indian astronauts to space for the first time, uses a different rocket called the LVM3. "Different rocket, different problem," the optimists might say. But both rockets share the same fundamental technology—solid propulsion systems. More importantly, they share the same factories, the same quality control teams, the same institutional culture at ISRO's Thiruvananthapuram facility.After the May 2025 failure, ISRO conducted a high-level investigation. Clearly, whatever fixes were implemented weren't enough. That's the terrifying part. If your best engineers examine a problem, implement solutions, and the same problem happens again, you don't have a technical problem. You have a systemic culture problem.Think about it from a parent's perspective. Would you put your child on a school bus if it had broken down twice in eight months, even after the mechanic swore it was fixed? That's the question facing Chairman V. Narayanan right now, except the stakes aren't a delayed school day. The first uncrewed Gaganyaan test flight, called G1, is scheduled for March 2026—just two months away.The pressure on ISRO is immense, and not just domestic. We have joint missions with Japan's space agency JAXA for the Chandrayaan-5 lunar mission and with NASA for the NISAR Earth observation satellite. These partners didn't just buy Indian rockets; they bought into Indian reliability. In international space cooperation, your reputation is built over decades but can be destroyed in minutes. Japan and NASA are watching these failures and asking hard questions behind closed doors.There's also the uncomfortable truth about ISRO's rapid expansion. For years, we celebrated our frugal engineering—doing more with less. But recently, through the commercial arm NewSpace India Limited, we've ramped up from three launches a year to ten. We've moved from careful craftsmanship to industrial-scale production. That transition requires not just more workers but an entirely different safety culture. You cannot scale up rocket production the way you scale up making smartphones.Some will argue I'm being alarmist. "Space is hard," they'll say. "Failures happen." Yes, they do. But the question isn't whether failures happen; it's whether we're learning from them fast enough when human lives are about to enter the equation. The Americans lost two Space Shuttles and fourteen astronauts before they fundamentally reformed their safety culture. We have the chance to learn from their tragedies without repeating them.What ISRO needs now isn't cheerleading. It needs a hard pause. Not just for PSLV launches, but a complete manufacturing audit of all solid rocket motors currently in production. For the first time in its proud history, ISRO should invite external experts—from private industry like HAL and L&amp;T, and from international agencies—to inspect its facilities and processes. The era of ISRO checking its own homework must end.Most importantly, the G1 uncrewed Gaganyaan flight must be delayed until we have absolute confidence in our systems. I don't care if it takes until 2027. A delayed launch is a footnote in history books. A tragedy is a permanent scar on the nation's soul.The silence in Sriharikota's Mission Control Centre this morning was deafening. But let that silence be our wake-up call. Space doesn't care about our ambitions or our deadlines. It only cares about physics and engineering precision. It has now told us twice, in eight months, that something is fundamentally wrong.The question is simple: Are we listening? Or will we let schedule pressure and national pride push us toward a catastrophe that could set India's space program back by decades? Chairman Narayanan's decision in the coming weeks will define not just his legacy, but the future of Indian spaceflight itself. 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.

When a system this proven fails twice in rapid succession, its not bad luck. Its a symptom of something deeply wrong in how were building these machines.

The morning of January 12, 2026, should have been another routine victory lap for India's space program. Instead, at 10:45 AM, the PSLV-C62 rocket carrying our critical EOS-N1 surveillance satellite veered off course and had to be terminated. This wasn't just another technical hiccup. This was the second PSLV failure in eight months, and it should terrify every Indian who cares about our Gaganyaan dream of putting our astronauts in space. Let me be blunt. The PSLV has been our workhorse for thirty years. Sixty successful flights have made it the Maruti 800 of rockets—reliable, dependable, boring in the best possible way. When a system this proven fails twice in rapid succession, it's not bad luck. It's a symptom of something deeply wrong in how we're building these machines. The official term thrown around is "disturbance in roll rates during the third stage." For those of us who aren't rocket scientists, imagine you're driving on the highway and your car suddenly starts spinning uncontrollably. That's essentially what happened to our rocket. The third stage, which uses solid fuel, either had a nozzle malfunction or the rocket casing cracked. Either way, once a solid rocket motor is lit, you cannot shut it down. It's a controlled explosion, and when it goes wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong. Here's what keeps me up at night. The Gaganyaan mission, which will carry Indian astronauts to space for the first time, uses a different rocket called the LVM3. "Different rocket, different problem," the optimists might say. But both rockets share the same fundamental technology—solid propulsion systems. More importantly, they share the same factories, the same quality control teams, the same institutional culture at ISRO's Thiruvananthapuram facility. After the May 2025 failure, ISRO conducted a high-level investigation. Clearly, whatever fixes were implemented weren't enough. That's the terrifying part. If your best engineers examine a problem, implement solutions, and the same problem happens again, you don't have a technical problem. You have a systemic culture problem. Think about it from a parent's perspective. Would you put your child on a school bus if it had broken down twice in eight months, even after the mechanic swore it was fixed? That's the question facing Chairman V. Narayanan right now, except the stakes aren't a delayed school day. The first uncrewed Gaganyaan test flight, called G1, is scheduled for March 2026—just two months away. The pressure on ISRO is immense, and not just domestic. We have joint missions with Japan's space agency JAXA for the Chandrayaan-5 lunar mission and with NASA for the NISAR Earth observation satellite. These partners didn't just buy Indian rockets; they bought into Indian reliability. In international space cooperation, your reputation is built over decades but can be destroyed in minutes. Japan and NASA are watching these failures and asking hard questions behind closed doors. There's also the uncomfortable truth about ISRO's rapid expansion. For years, we celebrated our frugal engineering—doing more with less. But recently, through the commercial arm NewSpace India Limited, we've ramped up from three launches a year to ten. We've moved from careful craftsmanship to industrial-scale production. That transition requires not just more workers but an entirely different safety culture. You cannot scale up rocket production the way you scale up making smartphones. Some will argue I'm being alarmist. "Space is hard," they'll say. "Failures happen." Yes, they do. But the question isn't whether failures happen; it's whether we're learning from them fast enough when human lives are about to enter the equation. The Americans lost two Space Shuttles and fourteen astronauts before they fundamentally reformed their safety culture. We have the chance to learn from their tragedies without repeating them. What ISRO needs now isn't cheerleading. It needs a hard pause. Not just for PSLV launches, but a complete manufacturing audit of all solid rocket motors currently in production. For the first time in its proud history, ISRO should invite external experts—from private industry like HAL and L&T, and from international agencies—to inspect its facilities and processes. The era of ISRO checking its own homework must end. Most importantly, the G1 uncrewed Gaganyaan flight must be delayed until we have absolute confidence in our systems. I don't care if it takes until 2027. A delayed launch is a footnote in history books. A tragedy is a permanent scar on the nation's soul. The silence in Sriharikota's Mission Control Centre this morning was deafening. But let that silence be our wake-up call. Space doesn't care about our ambitions or our deadlines. It only cares about physics and engineering precision. It has now told us twice, in eight months, that something is fundamentally wrong. The question is simple: Are we listening? Or will we let schedule pressure and national pride push us toward a catastrophe that could set India's space program back by decades? Chairman Narayanan's decision in the coming weeks will define not just his legacy, but the future of Indian spaceflight itself. 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.

When a system this proven fails twice in rapid succession, it's not bad luck. It's a symptom of something deeply wrong in how we're building these machines.&nbsp;

The Trust Deficit: Why PSLV’s Crisis Could Ground Gaganyaan’s Dreams

When the umpires called it Stumps at the end of the second day of the fifth Ashes Test Match at the SCG in Sydney, the pitch curators and the ground staff might have breathed a sigh of relief following the horror show that saw the iconic Boxing Day Test conclude in just two days. Losing a whopping 60 million Australian dollars ($10 million) following the shoddy end at the G.&nbsp;Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg might have loosened up his crossed fingers once the match moved to the third day, ensuring that the New Year did not start on a bad note. Bearing witness to one of the worst shoot-out incidents in the country (Bondi Beach Shooting), fans at the Sydney Cricket Ground, and residents in Sydney would have been unable to reprieve, just weeks after mourning losses for their loved ones.&nbsp;Long story short, the fans might not had an opportunity to move on from the tragedy if the contest had not reached the moving day (Day 3) of the Test Match. Although the priced urn had returned to the trophy cabinet of Australia, Test cricket barely managed to survive despite record crowd turnovers across the entire series.&nbsp;Records almost tumbled not for the quantum of runs scored or for wickets scalped but for how long the entire game lasted. A rivalry that spans more than a century saw Test matches end inside two days in over hundred years.&nbsp;Considered to be the cradle of greatness and the holy grail of cricket, the Ashes has been reduced to a shell of its former self. Modern-day power hitting that stems from white-ball cricket has dampened the batters’ ability to graft and scrape for runs when the pitch has a little bit of bounce and swing for the bowlers.&nbsp;While the Poms have to do some soul-searching over what they have achieved with &nbsp;Bazball. The Kangaroos, on the other hand, despite edging past the English by 4-1, capitulated on more than one occasion in their own backyards, first at Perth, then at the MCG. The Aussies had the opportunity to show restraint, but chose to flash their bravado that proved too dearly for the fans and for the board that was looking to make the most of the holiday season.&nbsp;Both teams are going to get a fair amount of bashing from experts and former cricketers, who will now be on a lecturing spree on the history and legacy of the Ashes on their respective YouTube channels. Albeit the criticism of the batters, the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is, is the World Test Championship helping or hurting Test Cricket? &nbsp;&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-leonard-hutton-to-don-bradman-5-batters-with-highest-individual-score-in-ashes-bob-simpson-bob-cowper-ashes-2025-26-1762276944046">From Leonard Hutton to Don Bradman, 5 batters with highest individual score in Ashes</a>&nbsp;With teams aiming to finish in the top two positions, sides are unwilling to give an inch and are going for the win instead of settling for a draw. This is pushing the batters to put the foot down and go for the flashy shots instead of milking the runs and defending and holding fort at one end.&nbsp;The WTC cycle has revealed that even the oldest rivals in cricket will have to adapt to the changing times. For Test Cricket to stay relevant, the impetus should not only be on introducing a world championship but also tweak the format.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-steve-smith-to-joe-root-5-active-batters-with-most-runs-in-ashes-ben-stokes-jonny-bairstow-usman-khawaja-1762275784636">From Steve Smith to Joe Root, 5 active batters with most runs in Ashes</a>&nbsp;Earlier, Test matches used to be held for six days with a rest day in between, which was later pruned to five days.&nbsp;Maybe it is time to make Test Cricket a four-day format. Doing so would not only help players but would also help cricket boards in negotiating with advertisers to get sponsorship deals.&nbsp;In a year’s time, the Ashes will complete its 150th anniversary, and both ECB and CA will have to decide whether they will be adapting to the changing times or whether they will stick to the tradition that’s been followed for the last 150 years.The ball is in their courts, or better, in their pitches.

Records almost tumbled not for the quantum of runs scored or for wickets scalped but for how long the entire game lasted. An Ashes rivalry that spans more than a century saw Test matches end inside two days in over hundred years.

When the umpires called it Stumps at the end of the second day of the fifth Ashes Test Match at the SCG in Sydney, the pitch curators and the ground staff might have breathed a sigh of relief following the horror show that saw the iconic Boxing Day Test conclude in just two days. Losing a whopping 60 million Australian dollars ($10 million) following the shoddy end at the G. Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg might have loosened up his crossed fingers once the match moved to the third day, ensuring that the New Year did not start on a bad note. Bearing witness to one of the worst shoot-out incidents in the country (Bondi Beach Shooting), fans at the Sydney Cricket Ground, and residents in Sydney would have been unable to reprieve, just weeks after mourning losses for their loved ones. Long story short, the fans might not had an opportunity to move on from the tragedy if the contest had not reached the moving day (Day 3) of the Test Match. Although the priced urn had returned to the trophy cabinet of Australia, Test cricket barely managed to survive despite record crowd turnovers across the entire series. Records almost tumbled not for the quantum of runs scored or for wickets scalped but for how long the entire game lasted. A rivalry that spans more than a century saw Test matches end inside two days in over hundred years. Considered to be the cradle of greatness and the holy grail of cricket, the Ashes has been reduced to a shell of its former self. Modern-day power hitting that stems from white-ball cricket has dampened the batters’ ability to graft and scrape for runs when the pitch has a little bit of bounce and swing for the bowlers. While the Poms have to do some soul-searching over what they have achieved with Bazball. The Kangaroos, on the other hand, despite edging past the English by 4-1, capitulated on more than one occasion in their own backyards, first at Perth, then at the MCG. The Aussies had the opportunity to show restraint, but chose to flash their bravado that proved too dearly for the fans and for the board that was looking to make the most of the holiday season. Both teams are going to get a fair amount of bashing from experts and former cricketers, who will now be on a lecturing spree on the history and legacy of the Ashes on their respective YouTube channels. Albeit the criticism of the batters, the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed is, is the World Test Championship helping or hurting Test Cricket? ALSO READ | From Leonard Hutton to Don Bradman, 5 batters with highest individual score in Ashes With teams aiming to finish in the top two positions, sides are unwilling to give an inch and are going for the win instead of settling for a draw. This is pushing the batters to put the foot down and go for the flashy shots instead of milking the runs and defending and holding fort at one end. The WTC cycle has revealed that even the oldest rivals in cricket will have to adapt to the changing times. For Test Cricket to stay relevant, the impetus should not only be on introducing a world championship but also tweak the format. ALSO READ | From Steve Smith to Joe Root, 5 active batters with most runs in Ashes Earlier, Test matches used to be held for six days with a rest day in between, which was later pruned to five days. Maybe it is time to make Test Cricket a four-day format. Doing so would not only help players but would also help cricket boards in negotiating with advertisers to get sponsorship deals. In a year’s time, the Ashes will complete its 150th anniversary, and both ECB and CA will have to decide whether they will be adapting to the changing times or whether they will stick to the tradition that’s been followed for the last 150 years. The ball is in their courts, or better, in their pitches.

Records almost tumbled not for the quantum of runs scored or for wickets scalped but for how long the entire game lasted. An Ashes rivalry that spans more than a century saw Test matches end inside two days in over hundred years.

Australia won, England lost, but Test cricket barely survived

Despite a flurry of diplomatic efforts and an unusually optimistic statement from US President Donald Trump, military experts see scant chance of an early end to the war of aggression Russia began almost four years ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;The losses in the biggest conflict in Europe since World War 2 have been staggering. Precise, verified numbers on either side are secret, but estimates suggest well over a million Russian casualties killed or wounded, with Ukraine suffering at least 400,000. &nbsp;&nbsp;The war is being waged on two distinct fronts: on the battlefield and what the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War calls “cognitive warfare.” That is a battle for how key leaders, above all, Trump, assess the strengths of the warring parties. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Kremlin has gone all out in a campaign to convince the world that a Russian victory is inevitable. That has had some success. In a December interview with the news site Politico, Trump repeated a Kremlin talking point: “Russia has the upper hand, and they always had. They are much bigger. They are much stronger. You know, at some point, they will win.” &nbsp;&nbsp;Facts on the ground do not support this assessment. During this year’s summer offensive, Russia seized just under one per cent of Ukrainian territory at the cost of more than 200,000 dead or wounded.&nbsp;The “Russian victory is inevitable” message is designed to pressure the United States and Ukraine’s European allies into reducing their support and pushing Kyiv towards concessions.&nbsp;In late November, the Trump administration came up with a 28-point peace proposal, which prompted immediate criticism both from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s European allies and several US lawmakers for being favourable to Russia. It included territorial concessions and a cap on the size of the Ukrainian army.&nbsp;The hostile reaction prompted more rounds of diplomatic talks and resulted in a 20-point plan leaning less towards the Kremlin’s demands. &nbsp;&nbsp;That plan was discussed by Trump and Zelensky at Trump’s winter home in Florida on December 28. Both leaders expressed optimism after the talks, and Trump said that Russia and Ukraine were “getting a lot closer, maybe very close” to a peace deal.&nbsp;A day later, the Kremlin accused Ukraine of having launched a massive drone strike on one of Putin’s official residences, in the Novgorod region north of Moscow. The Russian Defence Ministry asserted the attack had involved 91 long-range drones – all of which were shot down.&nbsp;According to the Russians, there was no damage in what they termed “an act of state terrorism” which would be answered with toughened negotiating positions in forthcoming Trump-mediated talks. In other words, the Americans’ “maybe very close” might not be as close as he thought.&nbsp;There is no physical evidence of the alleged attack on a Putin residence, unusual in a world where almost nothing ever happens without video images.&nbsp;No senior official or analyst has made predictions on how long the conflict will last, perhaps keeping in mind the mockery generated by Trump’s assertion during the campaign for the 2024 elections he won that he would solve the war in a day.&nbsp;The first time he made that claim was on January 26, 2023 on his social network, Truth Social. “If I were president,” he said, “the Russia/Ukraine war would never have happened, but even now, if president, I would be able to negotiate an end to this horrible and rapidly escalating war within 24 hours.”&nbsp;That was 1,074 days ago, and the “solution in one day” assertion became a standard phrase in his campaign speeches. &nbsp;&nbsp;While Putin has made clear that he thinks time is on Russia’s side because of its greater size and larger numbers, some US analysts think he is making a strategic mistake in drawing out the conflict.&nbsp;In a thoughtful analysis in Foreign Affairs, the must-read publication of the American foreign policy establishment, Sergey Radchenko, a professor at the &nbsp;John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, &nbsp;headlined his analysis America’s Magical Thinking about Ukraine. &nbsp;&nbsp;He said that “it should be evident to anyone who has closely followed this conflict that, nearly four years on, Russia is much worse off than it was in February 2022. . Its economy… is now in dire straits. With runaway inflation and an interest rate of 16.5 per cent, Russia is on a steady track to recession. It has a shortage of labour, especially highly qualified labour.&nbsp;“Russia finds itself increasingly dependent on China as a source of key technologies and as a market for Russian hydrocarbons; such dependence makes Russia deeply vulnerable to the whims of Beijing.”Radchenko summed up with a sobering assessment of the conflict: “In reality, both countries are losing the war. The question is which one will lose first.”

No senior official or analyst has made predictions on how long the conflict will last, perhaps keeping in mind the mockery generated by Trump’s assertion during the campaign for the 2024 elections he won that he would solve the war in a day.



Despite a flurry of diplomatic efforts and an unusually optimistic statement from US President Donald Trump, military experts see scant chance of an early end to the war of aggression Russia began almost four years ago. The losses in the biggest conflict in Europe since World War 2 have been staggering. Precise, verified numbers on either side are secret, but estimates suggest well over a million Russian casualties killed or wounded, with Ukraine suffering at least 400,000. The war is being waged on two distinct fronts: on the battlefield and what the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War calls “cognitive warfare.” That is a battle for how key leaders, above all, Trump, assess the strengths of the warring parties. The Kremlin has gone all out in a campaign to convince the world that a Russian victory is inevitable. That has had some success. In a December interview with the news site Politico, Trump repeated a Kremlin talking point: “Russia has the upper hand, and they always had. They are much bigger. They are much stronger. You know, at some point, they will win.” Facts on the ground do not support this assessment. During this year’s summer offensive, Russia seized just under one per cent of Ukrainian territory at the cost of more than 200,000 dead or wounded. The “Russian victory is inevitable” message is designed to pressure the United States and Ukraine’s European allies into reducing their support and pushing Kyiv towards concessions. In late November, the Trump administration came up with a 28-point peace proposal, which prompted immediate criticism both from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s European allies and several US lawmakers for being favourable to Russia. It included territorial concessions and a cap on the size of the Ukrainian army. The hostile reaction prompted more rounds of diplomatic talks and resulted in a 20-point plan leaning less towards the Kremlin’s demands. That plan was discussed by Trump and Zelensky at Trump’s winter home in Florida on December 28. Both leaders expressed optimism after the talks, and Trump said that Russia and Ukraine were “getting a lot closer, maybe very close” to a peace deal. A day later, the Kremlin accused Ukraine of having launched a massive drone strike on one of Putin’s official residences, in the Novgorod region north of Moscow. The Russian Defence Ministry asserted the attack had involved 91 long-range drones – all of which were shot down. According to the Russians, there was no damage in what they termed “an act of state terrorism” which would be answered with toughened negotiating positions in forthcoming Trump-mediated talks. In other words, the Americans’ “maybe very close” might not be as close as he thought. There is no physical evidence of the alleged attack on a Putin residence, unusual in a world where almost nothing ever happens without video images. No senior official or analyst has made predictions on how long the conflict will last, perhaps keeping in mind the mockery generated by Trump’s assertion during the campaign for the 2024 elections he won that he would solve the war in a day. The first time he made that claim was on January 26, 2023 on his social network, Truth Social. “If I were president,” he said, “the Russia/Ukraine war would never have happened, but even now, if president, I would be able to negotiate an end to this horrible and rapidly escalating war within 24 hours.” That was 1,074 days ago, and the “solution in one day” assertion became a standard phrase in his campaign speeches. While Putin has made clear that he thinks time is on Russia’s side because of its greater size and larger numbers, some US analysts think he is making a strategic mistake in drawing out the conflict. In a thoughtful analysis in Foreign Affairs, the must-read publication of the American foreign policy establishment, Sergey Radchenko, a professor at the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, headlined his analysis America’s Magical Thinking about Ukraine. He said that “it should be evident to anyone who has closely followed this conflict that, nearly four years on, Russia is much worse off than it was in February 2022. . Its economy… is now in dire straits. With runaway inflation and an interest rate of 16.5 per cent, Russia is on a steady track to recession. It has a shortage of labour, especially highly qualified labour. “Russia finds itself increasingly dependent on China as a source of key technologies and as a market for Russian hydrocarbons; such dependence makes Russia deeply vulnerable to the whims of Beijing.” Radchenko summed up with a sobering assessment of the conflict: “In reality, both countries are losing the war. The question is which one will lose first.”

No senior official or analyst has made predictions on how long the conflict will last, perhaps keeping in mind the mockery generated by Trump’s assertion during the campaign for the 2024 elections he won that he would solve the war in a day.

Forget Ukraine progress reports. There’s no end in sight for the war

Think about the last time you felt truly proud to be Indian. Maybe it was during a cricket match, or when you saw our flag at the Olympics. But this year, 2025, has given us so many more reasons to feel that pride—and it all happened thousands of kilometers above our heads, in the vastness of space.&nbsp;Just this morning, December 24, 2025, while most of us were preparing for the day, ISRO launched something absolutely massive into space. The BlueBird 6 satellite weighs 6,500 kilograms—imagine lifting three full-sized cars and throwing them into orbit! What makes this even more incredible is what it can do. This satellite can beam internet directly to your smartphone, even if you are trekking in Ladakh or traveling through the deserts of Rajasthan where there are no mobile towers. High-speed 4G and 5G, available anywhere in India. That is not science fiction anymore—it is our reality now.&nbsp;But let me take you back to where this amazing year really began. On January 16, 2025, ISRO did something that only three other countries had ever managed. They launched two small spacecraft on December 30, 2024, and made them "dock" in space—basically, they made two machines traveling at 28,000 kilometers per hour connect perfectly, like threading a needle while riding a bullet train. Why does this matter? Because without this technology, we cannot build our own space station. And yes, India is planning its own space station (Bharatiya Antariksh Station) by 2047. The SpaDeX mission did not stop there. By April 21, one satellite was even transferring power to another in space. We are not just reaching space anymore; we are learning how to live and work there.&nbsp;Here is something that might sound strange: ISRO sent cowpea seeds to space in the CROPS-1 experiment. Within 90 minutes of adding water, they started germinating. By day five, tiny green leaves appeared. Why would anyone grow plants in space? Because if we are going to Mars or building a Moon base, we need to know if we can grow our own food. Now we know—Indian crops can survive in space. This year, we also looked closely at our own planet. ISRO satellites helped farmers by forecasting that India would produce 122.724 million tonnes of wheat by March 31, 2025, helping the government plan for food security.&nbsp;On January 29, 2025, ISRO reached a historic milestone by completing its 100th launch from Sriharikota. One hundred times our rockets have pierced through the clouds, carrying dreams and technology into orbit. While some missions faced technical challenges, like the satellite valve issues after the January 29 launch, every mission taught us something valuable. On March 4, 2025, our POEM-4 platform completed 1,000 orbits, carrying a record 24 different experiments, including space robotics and AI.&nbsp;For those of you interested in engineering, March 5, 2025, was a big day. ISRO unveiled two microprocessors—VIKRAM3201 and KALPANA3201—designed and made entirely in India. These are the computer "brains" that will control our future rockets. Later, on March 27, we finished a 1,000-hour test of an "Electric Engine" that is six times more efficient than traditional rocket fuel. This means future satellites can stay in space much longer.The most emotional moment came on June 25, 2025, when Shubhanshu Shukla became the first Indian to visit the International Space Station (ISS). For 18 days, he lived among the stars, conducting experiments on how muscles and plants behave in zero gravity. On June 28, he spoke to our Prime Minister from space, and on July 3, he talked to school students, showing them that the kid sitting in their classroom today could one day float in space too.&nbsp;Speaking of Gaganyaan—India’s dream of sending our own astronauts to space—the preparations are intense. A crew capsule uses 10 different parachutes to land safely. ISRO tested them by dropping a simulated module from a helicopter on August 24, 2025. Then, on December 18-19, just last week, they successfully tested the "drogue" parachutes using rocket sleds in Chandigarh. These tests are about one thing: bringing our astronauts back home safely to their families.&nbsp;ISRO also proved that space is now open for everyone. On August 8, they tested a rocket motor for Skyroot Aerospace, a private startup. On September 10, they signed an agreement with HAL to produce rockets commercially. Even more exciting, from April to December, over 700 students from Northeast India visited ISRO centers to see where history is made. They met scientists who studied in regular schools and faced the same board exams you do.&nbsp;Other massive highlights include the July 30 launch of NISAR, a joint mission with NASA to scan Earth for earthquakes and disasters, and the July 31 inauguration of the HOPE mission in Ladakh, where scientists are living in extreme cold to prepare for life on Mars. On November 2, ISRO launched CMS-03, the heaviest satellite we ever sent to its high orbit from Indian soil, using a cryogenic engine that was restarted while in space—a feat only a few nations can do.&nbsp;As I write this, looking at today's successful BlueBird 6 launch, it is clear we are living through something extraordinary. Every time an Indian rocket lifts off, it carries our ambitions and our refusal to be left behind. Somewhere in India right now, a teenager is looking up at the night sky and dreaming. Thanks to ISRO’s remarkable 2025, that dream does not seem impossible anymore. It seems inevitable. Could the next great scientist or astronaut be you?&nbsp;KEY DATES TO REMEMBER:Jan 6: Aditya-L1 Sun mission data releasedJan 16: Successful Space Docking (The Space Handshake)Jan 29: 100th Launch from SriharikotaMar 5: First Made-in-India space microprocessors unveiledJun 25: First Indian visits the International Space StationJul 30: NISAR (India-NASA) satellite launchAug 24: Gaganyaan major parachute air drop testDec 18-19: Final safety tests for Gaganyaan parachutesDec 24: BlueBird 6 launch (Heaviest commercial satellite)

Every time an Indian rocket lifts off, it carries our ambitions and our refusal to be left behind. Somewhere in India right now, a teenager is looking up at the night sky and dreaming. Thanks to ISRO’s remarkable 2025, that dream does not seem impossible anymore. 

Think about the last time you felt truly proud to be Indian. Maybe it was during a cricket match, or when you saw our flag at the Olympics. But this year, 2025, has given us so many more reasons to feel that pride—and it all happened thousands of kilometers above our heads, in the vastness of space. Just this morning, December 24, 2025, while most of us were preparing for the day, ISRO launched something absolutely massive into space. The BlueBird 6 satellite weighs 6,500 kilograms—imagine lifting three full-sized cars and throwing them into orbit! What makes this even more incredible is what it can do. This satellite can beam internet directly to your smartphone, even if you are trekking in Ladakh or traveling through the deserts of Rajasthan where there are no mobile towers. High-speed 4G and 5G, available anywhere in India. That is not science fiction anymore—it is our reality now. But let me take you back to where this amazing year really began. On January 16, 2025, ISRO did something that only three other countries had ever managed. They launched two small spacecraft on December 30, 2024, and made them "dock" in space—basically, they made two machines traveling at 28,000 kilometers per hour connect perfectly, like threading a needle while riding a bullet train. Why does this matter? Because without this technology, we cannot build our own space station. And yes, India is planning its own space station (Bharatiya Antariksh Station) by 2047. The SpaDeX mission did not stop there. By April 21, one satellite was even transferring power to another in space. We are not just reaching space anymore; we are learning how to live and work there. Here is something that might sound strange: ISRO sent cowpea seeds to space in the CROPS-1 experiment. Within 90 minutes of adding water, they started germinating. By day five, tiny green leaves appeared. Why would anyone grow plants in space? Because if we are going to Mars or building a Moon base, we need to know if we can grow our own food. Now we know—Indian crops can survive in space. This year, we also looked closely at our own planet. ISRO satellites helped farmers by forecasting that India would produce 122.724 million tonnes of wheat by March 31, 2025, helping the government plan for food security. On January 29, 2025, ISRO reached a historic milestone by completing its 100th launch from Sriharikota. One hundred times our rockets have pierced through the clouds, carrying dreams and technology into orbit. While some missions faced technical challenges, like the satellite valve issues after the January 29 launch, every mission taught us something valuable. On March 4, 2025, our POEM-4 platform completed 1,000 orbits, carrying a record 24 different experiments, including space robotics and AI. For those of you interested in engineering, March 5, 2025, was a big day. ISRO unveiled two microprocessors—VIKRAM3201 and KALPANA3201—designed and made entirely in India. These are the computer "brains" that will control our future rockets. Later, on March 27, we finished a 1,000-hour test of an "Electric Engine" that is six times more efficient than traditional rocket fuel. This means future satellites can stay in space much longer. The most emotional moment came on June 25, 2025, when Shubhanshu Shukla became the first Indian to visit the International Space Station (ISS). For 18 days, he lived among the stars, conducting experiments on how muscles and plants behave in zero gravity. On June 28, he spoke to our Prime Minister from space, and on July 3, he talked to school students, showing them that the kid sitting in their classroom today could one day float in space too. Speaking of Gaganyaan—India’s dream of sending our own astronauts to space—the preparations are intense. A crew capsule uses 10 different parachutes to land safely. ISRO tested them by dropping a simulated module from a helicopter on August 24, 2025. Then, on December 18-19, just last week, they successfully tested the "drogue" parachutes using rocket sleds in Chandigarh. These tests are about one thing: bringing our astronauts back home safely to their families. ISRO also proved that space is now open for everyone. On August 8, they tested a rocket motor for Skyroot Aerospace, a private startup. On September 10, they signed an agreement with HAL to produce rockets commercially. Even more exciting, from April to December, over 700 students from Northeast India visited ISRO centers to see where history is made. They met scientists who studied in regular schools and faced the same board exams you do. Other massive highlights include the July 30 launch of NISAR, a joint mission with NASA to scan Earth for earthquakes and disasters, and the July 31 inauguration of the HOPE mission in Ladakh, where scientists are living in extreme cold to prepare for life on Mars. On November 2, ISRO launched CMS-03, the heaviest satellite we ever sent to its high orbit from Indian soil, using a cryogenic engine that was restarted while in space—a feat only a few nations can do. As I write this, looking at today's successful BlueBird 6 launch, it is clear we are living through something extraordinary. Every time an Indian rocket lifts off, it carries our ambitions and our refusal to be left behind. Somewhere in India right now, a teenager is looking up at the night sky and dreaming. Thanks to ISRO’s remarkable 2025, that dream does not seem impossible anymore. It seems inevitable. Could the next great scientist or astronaut be you? KEY DATES TO REMEMBER: Jan 6: Aditya-L1 Sun mission data released Jan 16: Successful Space Docking (The Space Handshake) Jan 29: 100th Launch from Sriharikota Mar 5: First Made-in-India space microprocessors unveiled Jun 25: First Indian visits the International Space Station Jul 30: NISAR (India-NASA) satellite launch Aug 24: Gaganyaan major parachute air drop test Dec 18-19: Final safety tests for Gaganyaan parachutes Dec 24: BlueBird 6 launch (Heaviest commercial satellite)

Every time an Indian rocket lifts off, it carries our ambitions and our refusal to be left behind. Somewhere in India right now, a teenager is looking up at the night sky and dreaming. Thanks to ISRO’s remarkable 2025, that dream does not seem impossible anymore.&nbsp;

The year India touched the sky: How ISRO redefined our future in 2025

Warfare has never been static. Over centuries, the ways in which nations fight and the means they use to influence outcomes; have constantly adapted to technology, society and geopolitics. Today, as conflicts unfold across different parts of the world, we are witnessing another major shift. Battles are no longer confined to land, sea, air or even cyberspace. Increasingly, they are being fought in the cognitive domain; the realm of perception, beliefs, emotions and decision-making.To understand why cognitive operations have become so important, it is helpful to revisit how warfare itself has evolved.<h2>The Five Generations of Warfare: A Quick Journey</h2>1. First Generation Warfare (1GW): The Age of Lines and ColumnsThe earliest organised wars were dominated by mass formations of soldiers standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Order, discipline and direct confrontation defined battles. Influence was physical and visible.2. Second Generation Warfare (2GW): Industrial FirepowerThe advent of artillery, machine guns and mechanised forces changed the battlefield dramatically. Firepower became more decisive than manpower. The aim was to wear down the enemy through sustained strikes.3. Third Generation Warfare (3GW): Manoeuvre and SpeedLater, militaries learned to avoid direct attrition and instead rely on mobility, surprise and rapid penetration. Blitzkrieg-style tactics, decentralised execution and initiative became key elements.4. Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW): The Blurring of LinesBy the late 20th century, the clear divide between combatants and civilians began to erode. Non-state actors, insurgencies, media narratives and public sentiment became important factors. Legitimacy and perception started influencing outcomes as much as firepower.5. Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): The Battle of InfluenceIn the last decade, strategists have observed a new shift towards wars without formal declarations, where influence becomes the primary weapon. Here, the focus is on shaping how societies think, react and decide. Actors aim to achieve strategic results without large-scale kinetic conflict.This is where cognitive operations take centre stage.<h2>Cognitive Operations: The Logic of the Next Generation</h2>Cognitive operations are deliberate actions by state or non-state actors to influence the mental landscape of individuals, groups and institutions. Unlike propaganda of the past, which was often one-directional and slow, today’s cognitive efforts are fast, targeted and often personalised.They take advantage of:<ul><li>digital and social media platforms</li><li>emotional storytelling through influencers</li><li>selective information release</li><li>misinformation and disinformation</li><li>data-driven targeting</li><li>AI-generated content</li><li>behavioural insights and psychological triggers</li></ul>The aim is not merely to deliver information, but to shape interpretation to influence how people understand events, evaluate options and choose actions. This is the essence of Fifth Generation Warfare: winning without fighting, through influence instead of destruction.<h2>What Today’s Conflicts Reveal</h2>Across multiple global conflicts, regardless of which actors are involved, a few trends are clear.1. Narrative Shape OutcomesThe earliest videos, images or explanations from a conflict often set the tone for global opinion. Even if later corrections emerge, the first impression tends to stick. This “first-frame effect” shows how crucial early narrative control has become.2. Information Velocity Is a Strategic FactorEarlier wars had time for verification. Today, information spreads faster than official statements. Actors who recognise this speed advantage can shape public understanding before facts can be confirmed.3. The Grey Zone Is Now CognitiveMany tensions across the world occur below the threshold of declared conflict. These “grey zone” activities, ambiguous military signalling, diplomatic messaging, cyber intrusions, and online narratives, seek psychological and political effects rather than territorial gains. They work by influencing risk perception, expectations and political discourse.4. AI Is a Game-ChangerArtificial intelligence now allows anyone to create convincing synthetic audio, video and imagery. This lowers the cost of influence and increases the scale of cognitive operations. Distinguishing truth from fabrication is becoming harder.5. Civilians Are Active ParticipantsFrontline journalists, local residents with smartphones, diaspora communities and online volunteers all shape global perceptions. Their posts often travel faster than official briefings, making the cognitive domain highly decentralised and complex.<h2>Why Cognitive Resilience Matters for Nations</h2>As warfare has evolved from physical destruction (1GW–3GW) to a contest of legitimacy and perception (4GW–5GW), national security now depends heavily on cognitive resilience; the ability of societies to absorb, interpret and respond to information without being misled or manipulated.Nations must therefore strengthen:<ul><li>public trust through transparent communication</li><li>digital literacy in schools and colleges</li><li>fact-checking networks</li><li>ethical and credible media ecosystems</li><li>AI tools for detecting manipulated content</li><li>whole-of-nation partnerships involving government, industry, academia and civil society</li></ul>Just as countries build air defence or cyber defence, they must now build cognitive defence.<h2>The Road Ahead: Preparing for 6th Generation Warfare?</h2>Some scholars argue that the next stage, perhaps a future Sixth Generation Warfare, will integrate physical, cyber, space and cognitive domains seamlessly. In such an environment, influence and perception may determine outcomes even before any physical confrontation occurs.In my opinion, this vision holds true. Cognitive operations will not just be a component of warfare; they will be the central operating logic.<h2>Conclusion: The Mind as the Final High Ground</h2>Looking back at the evolution of warfare, one pattern is clear: each generation expanded the battlespace. From linear formations to firepower, from manoeuvre to insurgency and media warfare, conflict has steadily moved closer to the human mind.Today, cognitive operations represent the next step in this progression. They challenge nations not just to defend territory, but to defend understanding. They show that security is no longer limited to borders; it now exists in beliefs, perceptions and the shared narratives that hold societies together.Modern conflicts remind us that while armies may win battles on the ground, it is the control of perception that often shapes the political and strategic outcomes.In the era of Fifth Generation Warfare, the mind has become the final high ground. And nations that recognise, prepare for and adapt to this reality will be best positioned to protect their interests and maintain stability in an increasingly complex world.&nbsp;

In the era of Fifth Generation Warfare, the mind has become the final high ground. And nations that recognise, prepare for and adapt to this reality will be best positioned to protect their interests and maintain stability in an increasingly complex world.

Warfare has never been static. Over centuries, the ways in which nations fight and the means they use to influence outcomes; have constantly adapted to technology, society and geopolitics. Today, as conflicts unfold across different parts of the world, we are witnessing another major shift. Battles are no longer confined to land, sea, air or even cyberspace. Increasingly, they are being fought in the cognitive domain; the realm of perception, beliefs, emotions and decision-making. To understand why cognitive operations have become so important, it is helpful to revisit how warfare itself has evolved. The Five Generations of Warfare: A Quick Journey 1. First Generation Warfare (1GW): The Age of Lines and Columns The earliest organised wars were dominated by mass formations of soldiers standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Order, discipline and direct confrontation defined battles. Influence was physical and visible. 2. Second Generation Warfare (2GW): Industrial Firepower The advent of artillery, machine guns and mechanised forces changed the battlefield dramatically. Firepower became more decisive than manpower. The aim was to wear down the enemy through sustained strikes. 3. Third Generation Warfare (3GW): Manoeuvre and Speed Later, militaries learned to avoid direct attrition and instead rely on mobility, surprise and rapid penetration. Blitzkrieg-style tactics, decentralised execution and initiative became key elements. 4. Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW): The Blurring of Lines By the late 20th century, the clear divide between combatants and civilians began to erode. Non-state actors, insurgencies, media narratives and public sentiment became important factors. Legitimacy and perception started influencing outcomes as much as firepower. 5. Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): The Battle of Influence In the last decade, strategists have observed a new shift towards wars without formal declarations, where influence becomes the primary weapon. Here, the focus is on shaping how societies think, react and decide. Actors aim to achieve strategic results without large-scale kinetic conflict. This is where cognitive operations take centre stage. Cognitive Operations: The Logic of the Next Generation Cognitive operations are deliberate actions by state or non-state actors to influence the mental landscape of individuals, groups and institutions. Unlike propaganda of the past, which was often one-directional and slow, today’s cognitive efforts are fast, targeted and often personalised. They take advantage of: digital and social media platforms emotional storytelling through influencers selective information release misinformation and disinformation data-driven targeting AI-generated content behavioural insights and psychological triggers The aim is not merely to deliver information, but to shape interpretation to influence how people understand events, evaluate options and choose actions. This is the essence of Fifth Generation Warfare: winning without fighting, through influence instead of destruction. What Today’s Conflicts Reveal Across multiple global conflicts, regardless of which actors are involved, a few trends are clear. 1. Narrative Shape Outcomes The earliest videos, images or explanations from a conflict often set the tone for global opinion. Even if later corrections emerge, the first impression tends to stick. This “first-frame effect” shows how crucial early narrative control has become. 2. Information Velocity Is a Strategic Factor Earlier wars had time for verification. Today, information spreads faster than official statements. Actors who recognise this speed advantage can shape public understanding before facts can be confirmed. 3. The Grey Zone Is Now Cognitive Many tensions across the world occur below the threshold of declared conflict. These “grey zone” activities, ambiguous military signalling, diplomatic messaging, cyber intrusions, and online narratives, seek psychological and political effects rather than territorial gains. They work by influencing risk perception, expectations and political discourse. 4. AI Is a Game-Changer Artificial intelligence now allows anyone to create convincing synthetic audio, video and imagery. This lowers the cost of influence and increases the scale of cognitive operations. Distinguishing truth from fabrication is becoming harder. 5. Civilians Are Active Participants Frontline journalists, local residents with smartphones, diaspora communities and online volunteers all shape global perceptions. Their posts often travel faster than official briefings, making the cognitive domain highly decentralised and complex. Why Cognitive Resilience Matters for Nations As warfare has evolved from physical destruction (1GW–3GW) to a contest of legitimacy and perception (4GW–5GW), national security now depends heavily on cognitive resilience; the ability of societies to absorb, interpret and respond to information without being misled or manipulated. Nations must therefore strengthen: public trust through transparent communication digital literacy in schools and colleges fact-checking networks ethical and credible media ecosystems AI tools for detecting manipulated content whole-of-nation partnerships involving government, industry, academia and civil society Just as countries build air defence or cyber defence, they must now build cognitive defence. The Road Ahead: Preparing for 6th Generation Warfare? Some scholars argue that the next stage, perhaps a future Sixth Generation Warfare, will integrate physical, cyber, space and cognitive domains seamlessly. In such an environment, influence and perception may determine outcomes even before any physical confrontation occurs. In my opinion, this vision holds true. Cognitive operations will not just be a component of warfare; they will be the central operating logic. Conclusion: The Mind as the Final High Ground Looking back at the evolution of warfare, one pattern is clear: each generation expanded the battlespace. From linear formations to firepower, from manoeuvre to insurgency and media warfare, conflict has steadily moved closer to the human mind. Today, cognitive operations represent the next step in this progression. They challenge nations not just to defend territory, but to defend understanding. They show that security is no longer limited to borders; it now exists in beliefs, perceptions and the shared narratives that hold societies together. Modern conflicts remind us that while armies may win battles on the ground, it is the control of perception that often shapes the political and strategic outcomes. In the era of Fifth Generation Warfare, the mind has become the final high ground. And nations that recognise, prepare for and adapt to this reality will be best positioned to protect their interests and maintain stability in an increasingly complex world.

In the era of Fifth Generation Warfare, the mind has become the final high ground. And nations that recognise, prepare for and adapt to this reality will be best positioned to protect their interests and maintain stability in an increasingly complex world.

From battlefields to minds: How the evolution of warfare has made cognitive operations central to modern conflict

The Indian team for the 2026 T20 World Cup was announced on Saturday (Dec 20) as the selectors’ panel, led by Ajit Agarkar, made a couple of bold decisions. The 15-man squad that will play in the 2026 T20 World Cup will not feature the likes of Shubman Gill and Jitesh Sharma, while Rinku Singh and Ishan Kishan have been granted wildcard entries. While a statement was made off the pitch, will there be an on-field statement as well with captain Suryakumar Yadav struggling for form?<h2>Surya’s concerning form</h2>Across the last nine innings for India and Mumbai (in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy), Suryakumar Yadav’s form has become a huge cause for concern for the management. During that period, he has scored 199 runs with an average of 24.88, raising concerns for the management. In his last 22 innings for India in T20Is, Surya’s form makes poor reading as well.&nbsp;During this period, Surya's average of 13.37 across 22 innings, with a total of 254 runs and no fifties, underscores prolonged struggles. His only notable performance was an unbeaten 47 against Pakistan in the Asia Cup 2025 group stage in Dubai.&nbsp;The current India T20I captain’s last fifty for the national side came in Hyderabad against Bangladesh in October 2024. In fact, since becoming the captain of the Indian T20I side, he has managed to score only two fifties.<h2>Why is Surya’s position in trouble?</h2>Highly unlikely that a sitting captain will be dropped from the Playing XI for non-injury-related and rest issues; nothing is guaranteed in the Indian side. Rohit Sharma, India’s then Test captain during the 2024-25 Australia tour, was dropped from the Sydney Test in January. On Saturday, Shubman Gill, India’s current captain in Tests and ODIs and vice-captain in the T20Is, was dropped from the World Cup squad.&nbsp;If the same pattern continues, another statement could be on the way from the Indian team management. Surya, however, will have to buckle up and improve his form with just one more series remaining before the 2026 T20 World Cup begins on Indian soil on February 7.&nbsp;The likes of Ishan Kishan, Rinku Singh and Sanju Samson are awaiting their opportunities in the Playing XI with the World Cup on the horizon. While these players are unlikely to bat at No.4, given the circumstances, it won’t be a surprise.&nbsp;Also, Surya’s future in the team will be an issue as well, considering he is keeping his position ahead of Shreyas Iyer and other key domestic performers.&nbsp;While the captain remains in place for now, it would not be a shock if Axar Patel leads the team during the World Cup, with an in-form batter replacing Surya in the XI.

Across the last nine innings for India and Mumbai (in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy), Suryakumar Yadav’s form has become a huge cause for concern for the management. During that period, he has scored 199 runs with an average of 24.88, raising concerns for the management.

The Indian team for the 2026 T20 World Cup was announced on Saturday (Dec 20) as the selectors’ panel, led by Ajit Agarkar, made a couple of bold decisions. The 15-man squad that will play in the 2026 T20 World Cup will not feature the likes of Shubman Gill and Jitesh Sharma, while Rinku Singh and Ishan Kishan have been granted wildcard entries. While a statement was made off the pitch, will there be an on-field statement as well with captain Suryakumar Yadav struggling for form? Surya’s concerning form Across the last nine innings for India and Mumbai (in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy), Suryakumar Yadav’s form has become a huge cause for concern for the management. During that period, he has scored 199 runs with an average of 24.88, raising concerns for the management. In his last 22 innings for India in T20Is, Surya’s form makes poor reading as well. During this period, Surya's average of 13.37 across 22 innings, with a total of 254 runs and no fifties, underscores prolonged struggles. His only notable performance was an unbeaten 47 against Pakistan in the Asia Cup 2025 group stage in Dubai. The current India T20I captain’s last fifty for the national side came in Hyderabad against Bangladesh in October 2024. In fact, since becoming the captain of the Indian T20I side, he has managed to score only two fifties. Why is Surya’s position in trouble? Highly unlikely that a sitting captain will be dropped from the Playing XI for non-injury-related and rest issues; nothing is guaranteed in the Indian side. Rohit Sharma, India’s then Test captain during the 2024-25 Australia tour, was dropped from the Sydney Test in January. On Saturday, Shubman Gill, India’s current captain in Tests and ODIs and vice-captain in the T20Is, was dropped from the World Cup squad. If the same pattern continues, another statement could be on the way from the Indian team management. Surya, however, will have to buckle up and improve his form with just one more series remaining before the 2026 T20 World Cup begins on Indian soil on February 7. The likes of Ishan Kishan, Rinku Singh and Sanju Samson are awaiting their opportunities in the Playing XI with the World Cup on the horizon. While these players are unlikely to bat at No.4, given the circumstances, it won’t be a surprise. Also, Surya’s future in the team will be an issue as well, considering he is keeping his position ahead of Shreyas Iyer and other key domestic performers. While the captain remains in place for now, it would not be a shock if Axar Patel leads the team during the World Cup, with an in-form batter replacing Surya in the XI.

Across the last nine innings for India and Mumbai (in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy), Suryakumar Yadav’s form has become a huge cause for concern for the management. During that period, he has scored 199 runs with an average of 24.88, raising concerns for the management.

Selectors make statement by dropping Gill, but should India drop SKY from Playing XI amid poor form?

To hear US President Donald Trump and his aides tell it, a military campaign to blow up suspected drug-carrying boats in international waters off Latin America has saved more than 2.3 million Americans from drug overdose deaths. How so?&nbsp;Beginning on September 2, bomb and missile strikes have blown apart 25 fast boats suspected of carrying drugs. Trump has repeatedly insisted that each boat carried enough drugs to kill 25,000 Americans. Multiply that by 25 and you arrive at 2,375,000 as of mid-December.&nbsp;Compare that with statistics provided by the government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) which recorded 80,391 drug overdose deaths in the United States in all of 2024, a decline of 27 percent of the estimated 110,037 in 2023.&nbsp;In short, Trump’s claim of 25,000 lives saved for each boats sunk is pure fiction, crude propaganda to back up his assertion, backed up by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, that the United States is in “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels.&nbsp;The administration is describing drug cartels as “non-state armed groups” and people involved with them as “unlawful combatants.” Thus, the argument goes, they must be fought as soldiers not as criminals with a right to legal process.&nbsp;The aim of the “unlawful combatants,” according to Trump and Hegseth, who now calls himself Secretary of War, is to poison and kill Americans. This is simply nonsense. The aim of the globe-spanning criminal organisations that grow, process and traffic drugs is to make money.&nbsp;Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank, in October valued global drug trafficking between $840 billion and $1.44 trillion. Given the nature of criminal enterprises, estimates are difficult but GFI reckons that transnational crime as a whole generates up to seven percent of world GDP, with drug trafficking yielding the most profit.&nbsp;One way “unlawful combatants” go about killing Americans, according to Trump and Hegseth, is to smuggle into the country fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.On December 15, the president signed an executive order declaring fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.”&nbsp;The order termed fentanyl a national security threat. It followed the official classification of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organisations, a term previously used for groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. According to the CDC, 48,000 Americans died of fentanyl overdoses in 2024.Hyperbole has become so much part of the Trump administration’s vocabulary that many Americans just shrug it off. Drug experts saw the “weapons of mass destruction” designation as political exercise with little practical effect.&nbsp;Bombing boats suspected of carrying drugs across the Caribbean is not likely to make much of a dent into the overall criminal enterprise. The 95 crew killed make up a small part of those who risk crossing the seas for payments of a few thousand dollars, experts say.&nbsp;Tump’s proclaimed alarm over smuggled drugs stood in sharp contrast to his pardon for former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez who was found guilty in March 2024 by a federal court jury of conspiring to import 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. His sentence: 45 years in prison.&nbsp;There was jubilation across Honduras when Hernandez was sentenced in New York after more than two years of investigations. A week after Trump granted him “a full pardon”, the Attorney General of Honduras issued a fresh arrest warrant for Hernandez and requested that Interpol execute the order now that Hernandez is free.&nbsp;In Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, hundreds took to the streets in protest against the unpopular former president’s release less than a year into his sentence.&nbsp;Asked for an explanation for the pardon, Trump said the Honduran leader had been the victim of political persecution and “many Hondurans” had asked him to grant the pardon. Not coincidentally, it was given a few days before Honduran elections. A Trump-endorsed candidate held a razor-thin lead before a recount which is still not complete two weeks after the vote.&nbsp;In Washington, the campaign to blow up suspected smuggling vessels off Latin America has led to a bitter debate over the legality of the operation. For the pastweek, much of it has been a matter of lawmakers failing to see the wood for the trees.&nbsp;How so? The first strike, on September 2, wrecked the boat but left two survivors cling to a piece of wreckage the size of a dining table. Admiral Mitch Bradley, following general instructions by Hegseth, ordered a second strike to kill the survivors.&nbsp;The “double-tap” strike drew criticism from both sides of the political divide. The bluntest rebuke came from a Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, who said “shooting unarmed people floundering in the water, clinging to wreckage, is not who we are as a people.”&nbsp;He and others viewed the killing of the survivors as a war crime. The debate, that followed included a demand for the public to see the full, un-edited version of the video which showed only the first hit of the boat. Hegseth has refused to show the double-tap, declaring its classification as top secret.&nbsp;While the argument over the survivors, the trees mentioned above, dragged on, the wood tended to be ignored. What is the wood? The entire campaign treating civilian criminals as combatants, with the commander-in-chief and his “secretary of war” in the role of judge, jury and executioner.&nbsp;You can find none of the labels the administration has pasted on the civilian smugglers international law. Not “unlawful combatants.” Not “unprivileged belligerents.” Not “narco-terrorist.”&nbsp;There are international armed conflicts between two or more states; there are non-international armed conflicts defined as armed confrontations within the territory of a single state between government armed forces and one or more armed groups.&nbsp;This does not apply to civilians who seek profit rather than armed confrontation.&nbsp;If you take the Trump administration’s present “armed conflict” argument to its logical conclusion, you might well conclude that the government would have been justified to kill sales executives of Purdue Pharma, the company that aggressively marketed the prescription painkiller OxyContin.&nbsp;It was promoted as a painkiller with a low risk of addiction. That claim was false. OxyContion was addictive. Crushed and snorted, it was widely abused and led tothousands of overdose deaths. Purdue and three of its top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges of misbranding OxyContin.&nbsp;The company faced thousands of lawsuits but none of those involved in producing, promoting , or selling the drug was executed. Unlike the drivers of the Caribbean boats crewed by profit-seeking civilians

In short, Trump’s claim of 25,000 lives saved for each boats sunk is pure fiction, crude propaganda to back up his assertion, backed up by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, that the United States is in “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels. 

To hear US President Donald Trump and his aides tell it, a military campaign to blow up suspected drug-carrying boats in international waters off Latin America has saved more than 2.3 million Americans from drug overdose deaths. How so? Beginning on September 2, bomb and missile strikes have blown apart 25 fast boats suspected of carrying drugs. Trump has repeatedly insisted that each boat carried enough drugs to kill 25,000 Americans. Multiply that by 25 and you arrive at 2,375,000 as of mid-December. Compare that with statistics provided by the government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) which recorded 80,391 drug overdose deaths in the United States in all of 2024, a decline of 27 percent of the estimated 110,037 in 2023. In short, Trump’s claim of 25,000 lives saved for each boats sunk is pure fiction, crude propaganda to back up his assertion, backed up by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, that the United States is in “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels. The administration is describing drug cartels as “non-state armed groups” and people involved with them as “unlawful combatants.” Thus, the argument goes, they must be fought as soldiers not as criminals with a right to legal process. The aim of the “unlawful combatants,” according to Trump and Hegseth, who now calls himself Secretary of War, is to poison and kill Americans. This is simply nonsense. The aim of the globe-spanning criminal organisations that grow, process and traffic drugs is to make money. Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank, in October valued global drug trafficking between $840 billion and $1.44 trillion. Given the nature of criminal enterprises, estimates are difficult but GFI reckons that transnational crime as a whole generates up to seven percent of world GDP, with drug trafficking yielding the most profit. One way “unlawful combatants” go about killing Americans, according to Trump and Hegseth, is to smuggle into the country fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid. On December 15, the president signed an executive order declaring fentanyl a “weapon of mass destruction.” The order termed fentanyl a national security threat. It followed the official classification of drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organisations, a term previously used for groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. According to the CDC, 48,000 Americans died of fentanyl overdoses in 2024. Hyperbole has become so much part of the Trump administration’s vocabulary that many Americans just shrug it off. Drug experts saw the “weapons of mass destruction” designation as political exercise with little practical effect. Bombing boats suspected of carrying drugs across the Caribbean is not likely to make much of a dent into the overall criminal enterprise. The 95 crew killed make up a small part of those who risk crossing the seas for payments of a few thousand dollars, experts say. Tump’s proclaimed alarm over smuggled drugs stood in sharp contrast to his pardon for former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez who was found guilty in March 2024 by a federal court jury of conspiring to import 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. His sentence: 45 years in prison. There was jubilation across Honduras when Hernandez was sentenced in New York after more than two years of investigations. A week after Trump granted him “a full pardon”, the Attorney General of Honduras issued a fresh arrest warrant for Hernandez and requested that Interpol execute the order now that Hernandez is free. In Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, hundreds took to the streets in protest against the unpopular former president’s release less than a year into his sentence. Asked for an explanation for the pardon, Trump said the Honduran leader had been the victim of political persecution and “many Hondurans” had asked him to grant the pardon. Not coincidentally, it was given a few days before Honduran elections. A Trump-endorsed candidate held a razor-thin lead before a recount which is still not complete two weeks after the vote. In Washington, the campaign to blow up suspected smuggling vessels off Latin America has led to a bitter debate over the legality of the operation. For the past week, much of it has been a matter of lawmakers failing to see the wood for the trees. How so? The first strike, on September 2, wrecked the boat but left two survivors cling to a piece of wreckage the size of a dining table. Admiral Mitch Bradley, following general instructions by Hegseth, ordered a second strike to kill the survivors. The “double-tap” strike drew criticism from both sides of the political divide. The bluntest rebuke came from a Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, who said “shooting unarmed people floundering in the water, clinging to wreckage, is not who we are as a people.” He and others viewed the killing of the survivors as a war crime. The debate, that followed included a demand for the public to see the full, un-edited version of the video which showed only the first hit of the boat. Hegseth has refused to show the double-tap, declaring its classification as top secret. While the argument over the survivors, the trees mentioned above, dragged on, the wood tended to be ignored. What is the wood? The entire campaign treating civilian criminals as combatants, with the commander-in-chief and his “secretary of war” in the role of judge, jury and executioner. You can find none of the labels the administration has pasted on the civilian smugglers international law. Not “unlawful combatants.” Not “unprivileged belligerents.” Not “narco-terrorist.” There are international armed conflicts between two or more states; there are non-international armed conflicts defined as armed confrontations within the territory of a single state between government armed forces and one or more armed groups. This does not apply to civilians who seek profit rather than armed confrontation. If you take the Trump administration’s present “armed conflict” argument to its logical conclusion, you might well conclude that the government would have been justified to kill sales executives of Purdue Pharma, the company that aggressively marketed the prescription painkiller OxyContin. It was promoted as a painkiller with a low risk of addiction. That claim was false. OxyContion was addictive. Crushed and snorted, it was widely abused and led to thousands of overdose deaths. Purdue and three of its top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges of misbranding OxyContin. The company faced thousands of lawsuits but none of those involved in producing, promoting , or selling the drug was executed. Unlike the drivers of the Caribbean boats crewed by profit-seeking civilians

In short, Trump’s claim of 25,000 lives saved for each boats sunk is pure fiction, crude propaganda to back up his assertion, backed up by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, that the United States is in “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels.

In Trump’s America, fictitious drug numbers and a new definition of war

As India marks the 54th anniversary of its 1971 victory, one crucial name is still missing from most history books — Lieutenant General Sagat Singh. As commander of IV Corps, his bold decisions and refusal to wait changed the course of the war and forced Pakistan’s surrender.<h2>The River That Was Meant to Stop India</h2>By December 7, 1971, the Indian Army was moving rapidly toward Dhaka. Lt Gen Sagat Singh’s IV Corps, based in Agartala, had already captured Akhaura and Brahmanbaria at great speed. But the advance suddenly stopped at the Meghna River — one of the widest rivers in the world, stretching about 3.6 kilometres even at its narrowest point.The railway bridge at Ashuganj had been blown up by retreating Pakistani troops. On the opposite bank, Pakistani forces were heavily dug in at Bhairab Bazar. They believed the river would delay India long enough for international pressure — possibly from the US or China — to force a ceasefire.Army engineers warned that building a bridge would take weeks. A normal river crossing would be slow and extremely costly in lives. Acting on this assessment, Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora ordered Sagat Singh to halt and wait.<h2>“Jaggi, Over My Dead Body”</h2>At 52, Sagat Singh was not the kind of commander who believed in waiting. A World War II veteran, he had led Indian troops during the liberation of Goa in 1961 as commander of the 50th Parachute Brigade, earning his maroon beret at the age of 42. In 1967 at Nathula Pass, he had defied orders and struck Chinese forces, securing Indian control that still holds today.When Lt Gen Aurora flew in on December 8 and repeated his order not to cross the Meghna, Sagat Singh’s reply became legendary: “Jaggi, over my dead body.”<h2>Operation Cactus Lily: A Daring Idea</h2>Sagat Singh worked closely with Group Captain Chandan Singh of the Indian Air Force to plan something never attempted by India before — a large-scale heliborne crossing.The plan was simple but risky: use Mi-4 helicopters to fly entire infantry units across the Meghna at night. The helicopters would land in paddy fields, marked by torches placed by Mukti Bahini fighters.The helicopters had never been used on such a scale. The landing zones were rough, visibility was poor, and Pakistani forces were nearby.<h2>The Night That Changed the War</h2>On the night of December 9, 1971, the plan was put into action. The 4th Battalion of the Guards Regiment boarded Mi-4 helicopters at Brahmanbaria. Flying low, just above treetops, the helicopters crossed the dark Meghna waters.Squadron Leader Pushp Kumar Vaid, who flew 35 sorties and later received the Vir Chakra, recalled: “The Mi-4 never let us down. It was a wonderful workhorse.”<h2>A Blitzkrieg Towards Dhaka</h2>By dawn on December 10, Indian troops had secured the railway bridge at Narsingdi, just 12 kilometres from Dhaka. Their mission was clear — prevent Pakistani forces from blowing up the bridge. Over the next 36 hours, 14 Mi-4 helicopters flew more than 200 sorties, transporting the entire 311 Mountain Brigade — nearly 5,000 soldiers and 680 tonnes of equipment — across the Meghna.The Pakistani command was completely shocked.Lt Gen A.A.K. Niazi, Pakistan’s commander in East Pakistan, had believed the Meghna was impossible to cross. His 27th Infantry Brigade, positioned at Bhairab Bazar, was suddenly outflanked and surrounded. Indian troops had appeared behind enemy lines, making Pakistani defences useless.<h2>The Collapse of Pakistani Resistance</h2>By December 12, Indian artillery was already within range of Dhaka. Pakistani resistance began to fall apart. Just four days later, on December 16, 1971, at 4:31 pm, Lt Gen Niazi signed the instrument of surrender. A total of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers became prisoners of war — the largest military surrender since World War II.<h2>The General History Almost Forgot</h2>Despite planning the operation that effectively ended the war, Sagat Singh remained in the background during the surrender ceremony. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan and Param Vishisht Seva Medal. When a junior officer was promoted ahead of him after the war, he accepted another Corps command quietly and later retired to Jaipur, where he named his farmhouse “Meghna Farm.”Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw once said: “If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.” One could add — or Sagat Singh.<h2>A Legacy Written in the Air</h2>This Vijay Diwas, the Meghna heli-bridge stands as a symbol of bold leadership, innovation, and courage. Without Sagat Singh’s decision to defy orders and move fast, the war could have dragged on, allowing foreign powers to interfere and possibly deny Bangladesh its freedom.In March 2013, Bangladesh honoured this legacy by inviting Ran Vijay Singh, Sagat Singh’s son, to Dhaka — calling his father “the liberator of Bangladesh.”Lt Gen Sagat Singh passed away on September 26, 2001, but his legacy lives on — in Goa, Sikkim, and most importantly, in a free Bangladesh, where 14 helicopters once flew through the night, carrying not just soldiers, but the destiny of a new nation.

This Vijay Diwas, the Meghna heli-bridge stands as a symbol of bold leadership, innovation, and courage. Without Sagat Singh’s decision to defy orders and move fast, the war could have dragged on, allowing foreign powers to interfere and possibly deny Bangladesh its freedom.

As India marks the 54th anniversary of its 1971 victory, one crucial name is still missing from most history books — Lieutenant General Sagat Singh. As commander of IV Corps, his bold decisions and refusal to wait changed the course of the war and forced Pakistan’s surrender. The River That Was Meant to Stop India By December 7, 1971, the Indian Army was moving rapidly toward Dhaka. Lt Gen Sagat Singh’s IV Corps, based in Agartala, had already captured Akhaura and Brahmanbaria at great speed. But the advance suddenly stopped at the Meghna River — one of the widest rivers in the world, stretching about 3.6 kilometres even at its narrowest point. The railway bridge at Ashuganj had been blown up by retreating Pakistani troops. On the opposite bank, Pakistani forces were heavily dug in at Bhairab Bazar. They believed the river would delay India long enough for international pressure — possibly from the US or China — to force a ceasefire. Army engineers warned that building a bridge would take weeks. A normal river crossing would be slow and extremely costly in lives. Acting on this assessment, Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora ordered Sagat Singh to halt and wait. “Jaggi, Over My Dead Body” At 52, Sagat Singh was not the kind of commander who believed in waiting. A World War II veteran, he had led Indian troops during the liberation of Goa in 1961 as commander of the 50th Parachute Brigade, earning his maroon beret at the age of 42. In 1967 at Nathula Pass, he had defied orders and struck Chinese forces, securing Indian control that still holds today. When Lt Gen Aurora flew in on December 8 and repeated his order not to cross the Meghna, Sagat Singh’s reply became legendary: “Jaggi, over my dead body.” Operation Cactus Lily: A Daring Idea Sagat Singh worked closely with Group Captain Chandan Singh of the Indian Air Force to plan something never attempted by India before — a large-scale heliborne crossing. The plan was simple but risky: use Mi-4 helicopters to fly entire infantry units across the Meghna at night. The helicopters would land in paddy fields, marked by torches placed by Mukti Bahini fighters. The helicopters had never been used on such a scale. The landing zones were rough, visibility was poor, and Pakistani forces were nearby. The Night That Changed the War On the night of December 9, 1971, the plan was put into action. The 4th Battalion of the Guards Regiment boarded Mi-4 helicopters at Brahmanbaria. Flying low, just above treetops, the helicopters crossed the dark Meghna waters. Squadron Leader Pushp Kumar Vaid, who flew 35 sorties and later received the Vir Chakra, recalled: “The Mi-4 never let us down. It was a wonderful workhorse.” A Blitzkrieg Towards Dhaka By dawn on December 10, Indian troops had secured the railway bridge at Narsingdi, just 12 kilometres from Dhaka. Their mission was clear — prevent Pakistani forces from blowing up the bridge. Over the next 36 hours, 14 Mi-4 helicopters flew more than 200 sorties, transporting the entire 311 Mountain Brigade — nearly 5,000 soldiers and 680 tonnes of equipment — across the Meghna. The Pakistani command was completely shocked. Lt Gen A.A.K. Niazi, Pakistan’s commander in East Pakistan, had believed the Meghna was impossible to cross. His 27th Infantry Brigade, positioned at Bhairab Bazar, was suddenly outflanked and surrounded. Indian troops had appeared behind enemy lines, making Pakistani defences useless. The Collapse of Pakistani Resistance By December 12, Indian artillery was already within range of Dhaka. Pakistani resistance began to fall apart. Just four days later, on December 16, 1971, at 4:31 pm, Lt Gen Niazi signed the instrument of surrender. A total of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers became prisoners of war — the largest military surrender since World War II. The General History Almost Forgot Despite planning the operation that effectively ended the war, Sagat Singh remained in the background during the surrender ceremony. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan and Param Vishisht Seva Medal. When a junior officer was promoted ahead of him after the war, he accepted another Corps command quietly and later retired to Jaipur, where he named his farmhouse “Meghna Farm.” Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw once said: “If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.” One could add — or Sagat Singh. A Legacy Written in the Air This Vijay Diwas, the Meghna heli-bridge stands as a symbol of bold leadership, innovation, and courage. Without Sagat Singh’s decision to defy orders and move fast, the war could have dragged on, allowing foreign powers to interfere and possibly deny Bangladesh its freedom. In March 2013, Bangladesh honoured this legacy by inviting Ran Vijay Singh, Sagat Singh’s son, to Dhaka — calling his father “the liberator of Bangladesh.” Lt Gen Sagat Singh passed away on September 26, 2001, but his legacy lives on — in Goa, Sikkim, and most importantly, in a free Bangladesh, where 14 helicopters once flew through the night, carrying not just soldiers, but the destiny of a new nation.

This Vijay Diwas, the Meghna heli-bridge stands as a symbol of bold leadership, innovation, and courage. Without Sagat Singh’s decision to defy orders and move fast, the war could have dragged on, allowing foreign powers to interfere and possibly deny Bangladesh its freedom.

'Over my dead body': Lt Gen Sagat Singh’s Bold leap that won 1971 war | How a daring helicopter crossing of Meghna river ended the war in 13 days

If you are not a Rajinikanth fan, close this page now. Or maybe not; after reading this, you might also become a fan of the South Indian superstar. As someone who learned the Tamil language only to be able to better understand Rajinikanth films, my reasons for loving him are probably different from yours. On his 75th birthday, I am asking the same question that both friends and family asked me over three decades: Why do I love Rajinikanth?<h2>I became a Rajinikanth fan from Thalapathi</h2>For me, the start of watching Rajini films was not from one of the typical "Tamil padam" drivel that milked his stardom from the late 1970s onwards. It was from Thalapathi, the 1991 thriller directed by veteran Mani Ratnam, a retelling of the Karna story from the Indian epic Mahabharata. I was 15. Rajinikanth was 41, already in the middle phase of his career and at the peak of his stardom, even as his hairline was receding. Thalapathi went on to become a classic of Tamil cinema, proven again by the fact that Gen Z audiences were dancing in theatres when the film re-released a few months ago. From 1991 onwards, I became interested not only in Rajinikanth’s filmography, but also in the Rajinikanth story, while catching up on his older movies and lining up for the new ones.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/happy-birthday-rajinikanth-from-a-bus-conductor-to-superstar-journey-of-thalaiva-in-pics-1765513102523">Happy birthday Rajinikanth: From a bus conductor to superstar - journey of Thalaiva | In pics</a><h2>The unlikely superstar: How Rajinikanth represented the dark-skinned masses</h2>Rajinikanth has been candid that his stardom as an unlikely occurrence, often cracking self-deprecating jokes about his dark skin, face, and looks, even admitting that he had only a fixed set of mannerisms and styles that he repeated in most films. But if you look at how he appears on screen, he was above the average Tamil or south Indian: Dressing like no Tamil would, from leather vests to boots to stylish suits. To the average Tamil and South Indian, Rajinikanth became what was possible: He was their aspirational superstar. Skin colour, scars, and marks on the face didn’t matter as long as he exuded confidence and screen presence. To fans like me, he taught us to dream beyond our circumstances, without knowing he was doing so.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/rajinikanth-birthday-pm-modi-kamal-haasan-and-others-wish-the-actor-1765521802147">75 years of a remarkable life! PM Modi, Kamal Haasan and others wish Rajinikanth on his birthday</a><h2>Rajinikanth was always the class warrior</h2>Most of the films of Rajinikanth, irrespective of the specific storyline, had an underlying subtext: a hero who is rejected by the system, fights back, and becomes victorious, through strategy and street fights. The Rajini character always stayed with the people who were seated in the front rows of his theatres. He was a mass hero, even though the classes liked him too. His was a masculinity and heroism both overstated and down to earth, with at least one song in most of his films referring to the Tamil people as 'Gods' who made him rule as their matinee demigod.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/rajnikanth-announces-sequel-to-1999-blockbuster-padayappa-original-film-to-re-release-on-his-75th-birthday-1765285444638">Rajnikanth announces sequel to 1999 blockbuster Padayappa; original film to re-release on his 75th birthday</a><h2>Rajinikanth, the Muhammad Ali of Tamil cinema: It was not always a bed of roses</h2>Many of Rajinikanth’s films flopped, even forcing him to spend money from his own pocket to recoup losses for producers and distributors. He was written off several times after failures, which include Baba (2002), Kuselan (2008), Lingaa (2014), Darbar (2020), and Annaatthe (2021). But he was like boxing’s Muhammad Ali, willing to take the punches and still stand up for another round. While Rajini continues to get the "initial" – the first few days of run ensured by his fan following – the rest of a film’s success depends on whether it appeals to a wider audience. And Rajini was always accepting of the people's verdict.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/thalaivar-marks-50-years-in-cinema-with-padayappa-re-release-1765521255319/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/thalaivar-marks-50-years-in-cinema-with-padayappa-re-release-1765521255319/embed</a><h2>Rajinikanth’s legacy is a truly pan-India story</h2>Rajinikanth’s is a truly pan-Indian story and a true testament to what he said in his Dadasaheb Phalke Award acceptance speech in 2021: "Miracles do happen."He was born Shivaji Rao Gaikwad on 12 December 1950 in Bangalore (now Bengaluru) to a Marathi family. Who would have thought that a boy with roots in the western Maharastra state, raised in the state of Karnataka, would rule as the longstanding superstar of another southern state Tamil Nadu, for nearly 50 years? Contrast that with the North vs South debate raging in Indian cinema in the past few years. Tamils first embraced M. G. Ramachandran, who had roots in Kerala, as their mass star, and continued that with Rajinikanth. Recently, politically motivated rhetoric has tried to argue that Rajinikanth is not "Tamil enough", but that hasn’t dissuaded anyone who knows his legacy.&nbsp; In the mid-2010s, Rajinikanth suddenly became more famous in the north, though he had acted in Hindi films, including major hits like Hum in the past. But this fame was also tinged with north-south racism, with social media memes showing him with superpowers and placing him inside the usual South Indian stereotypes. As his films got dubbed in Hindi, some of them performed even better than Bollywood releases. Particularly since Sivaji: The Boss and Enthiran, his films began releasing pan-India. That growth only accelerated when OTT releases became available in multiple languages, which partly explains the success of his recent major hit, Jailer (2023).<h2>Rajini’s attractive off-screen persona: Down to earth, no wig, no make-up, speaking from the heart</h2>Though there was a tinge of bravado, and even arrogance, during public appearances during earlier parts of his stardom, Rajinikanth maintained a down-to-earth persona in later years. He never hid his poor origins. I have watched more Rajinikanth speeches than his films. At these public events, he often narrated his story of going from a bus conductor of Bangalore Transport Service, to friends collecting funds to send him to Madras Film Institute in 1973, to wanting to achieve growth and responding to slights in real life.&nbsp; At his peak, Rajini started going partially bald in the 1990s. That would have been devastating for an actor known for stylishly flicking his mane in every film. But he embraced his reality and appeared in public without a wig, or much make-up. His interactions with both his fan base who call him 'Thalaivar' or leader, as well as the media, have almost always been polite, bordering on shy, as opposed to many of his peers and juniors in indian cinema, south or north.<h2>Rajinikanth’s time-tested appeal comes from his willingness to change and adapt</h2>Even in the 1990s, Rajini played roles of people much older than his own age at the time. In Annamalai, Pedarayudu, Valli, and Padayappa, he transitioned from young to middle-aged or elderly characters. He was always willing to collaborate with projects in other languages, from Hindi to Telugu to Kannada, even doing smaller or side roles (though interestingly, he never acted in a Malayalam film).&nbsp; That's probably because he started small, playing a rake in Apoorva Raagangal (1975), having been introduced to cinema by the legendary director K Balachander. And in an industry known for star rivalries, he maintained a long friendship with the star of his first film, Kamal Hassan, the other superstar of Tamil cinema.Rajini has also been willing to work with young directors of each era, from Shankar (Enthiran, Sivaji the Boss) to Nelson (Jailer). And in Nelson’s telling, he always addresses the director as "sir".<h2>An 'addict' who still has a clean image: Rajini has been open about his vices</h2>Rajinikanth has openly talked about his bad habits – cigarettes (though flipping them stylishly is his hallmark in many films) - and alcohol. Rajini has a spiritual side, often talking about his gurus and inspirations like Raghavendra Swamy, Ramana Maharshi, and Mahavatar Babaji, and paying homage in the 2002 film Baba. He has engaged in self-reflection and self-reform as much as he addressed social and political issues, from the Kaveri water row, to the famous clashes with the late Jayalalithaa, a fellow actress, AIADMK leader and former Tamil Nadu chief minister.<h2>Rajini clicks because he keeps it real, off-screen</h2>Rajinikanth, as I mentioned, has not always been a success story. &nbsp;Some of his films bombed at the box office even recently. He attempted to wade into politics twice, trying to mobilise his massive fan clubs. But both times, Rajinikanth failed. He was open about it and accepted his failures. His health has not always been perfect, and he has never hidden that from the people.Balachander saw something intense in Rajini's eyes. To this day, his fans - like me - see something too, in spite of his advancing age. These are among the reasons why I like Rajinikanth. What about you?

Rajinikanth fans are celebrating his 75th birthday. Here is a personal reflection on why the Tamil superstar inspires different fans differently, from masses to classes, from south to north of India.

If you are not a Rajinikanth fan, close this page now. Or maybe not; after reading this, you might also become a fan of the South Indian superstar. As someone who learned the Tamil language only to be able to better understand Rajinikanth films, my reasons for loving him are probably different from yours. On his 75th birthday, I am asking the same question that both friends and family asked me over three decades: Why do I love Rajinikanth? I became a Rajinikanth fan from Thalapathi For me, the start of watching Rajini films was not from one of the typical "Tamil padam" drivel that milked his stardom from the late 1970s onwards. It was from Thalapathi, the 1991 thriller directed by veteran Mani Ratnam, a retelling of the Karna story from the Indian epic Mahabharata. I was 15. Rajinikanth was 41, already in the middle phase of his career and at the peak of his stardom, even as his hairline was receding. Thalapathi went on to become a classic of Tamil cinema, proven again by the fact that Gen Z audiences were dancing in theatres when the film re-released a few months ago. From 1991 onwards, I became interested not only in Rajinikanth’s filmography, but also in the Rajinikanth story, while catching up on his older movies and lining up for the new ones. Also read: Happy birthday Rajinikanth: From a bus conductor to superstar - journey of Thalaiva | In pics The unlikely superstar: How Rajinikanth represented the dark-skinned masses Rajinikanth has been candid that his stardom as an unlikely occurrence, often cracking self-deprecating jokes about his dark skin, face, and looks, even admitting that he had only a fixed set of mannerisms and styles that he repeated in most films. But if you look at how he appears on screen, he was above the average Tamil or south Indian: Dressing like no Tamil would, from leather vests to boots to stylish suits. To the average Tamil and South Indian, Rajinikanth became what was possible: He was their aspirational superstar. Skin colour, scars, and marks on the face didn’t matter as long as he exuded confidence and screen presence. To fans like me, he taught us to dream beyond our circumstances, without knowing he was doing so. Also read: 75 years of a remarkable life! PM Modi, Kamal Haasan and others wish Rajinikanth on his birthday Rajinikanth was always the class warrior Most of the films of Rajinikanth, irrespective of the specific storyline, had an underlying subtext: a hero who is rejected by the system, fights back, and becomes victorious, through strategy and street fights. The Rajini character always stayed with the people who were seated in the front rows of his theatres. He was a mass hero, even though the classes liked him too. His was a masculinity and heroism both overstated and down to earth, with at least one song in most of his films referring to the Tamil people as 'Gods' who made him rule as their matinee demigod. Also read: Rajnikanth announces sequel to 1999 blockbuster Padayappa; original film to re-release on his 75th birthday Rajinikanth, the Muhammad Ali of Tamil cinema: It was not always a bed of roses Many of Rajinikanth’s films flopped, even forcing him to spend money from his own pocket to recoup losses for producers and distributors. He was written off several times after failures, which include Baba (2002), Kuselan (2008), Lingaa (2014), Darbar (2020), and Annaatthe (2021). But he was like boxing’s Muhammad Ali, willing to take the punches and still stand up for another round. While Rajini continues to get the "initial" – the first few days of run ensured by his fan following – the rest of a film’s success depends on whether it appeals to a wider audience. And Rajini was always accepting of the people's verdict. https://www.wionews.com/videos/thalaivar-marks-50-years-in-cinema-with-padayappa-re-release-1765521255319/embed Rajinikanth’s legacy is a truly pan-India story Rajinikanth’s is a truly pan-Indian story and a true testament to what he said in his Dadasaheb Phalke Award acceptance speech in 2021: "Miracles do happen." He was born Shivaji Rao Gaikwad on 12 December 1950 in Bangalore (now Bengaluru) to a Marathi family. Who would have thought that a boy with roots in the western Maharastra state, raised in the state of Karnataka, would rule as the longstanding superstar of another southern state Tamil Nadu, for nearly 50 years? Contrast that with the North vs South debate raging in Indian cinema in the past few years. Tamils first embraced M. G. Ramachandran, who had roots in Kerala, as their mass star, and continued that with Rajinikanth. Recently, politically motivated rhetoric has tried to argue that Rajinikanth is not "Tamil enough", but that hasn’t dissuaded anyone who knows his legacy. In the mid-2010s, Rajinikanth suddenly became more famous in the north, though he had acted in Hindi films, including major hits like Hum in the past. But this fame was also tinged with north-south racism, with social media memes showing him with superpowers and placing him inside the usual South Indian stereotypes. As his films got dubbed in Hindi, some of them performed even better than Bollywood releases. Particularly since Sivaji: The Boss and Enthiran, his films began releasing pan-India. That growth only accelerated when OTT releases became available in multiple languages, which partly explains the success of his recent major hit, Jailer (2023). Rajini’s attractive off-screen persona: Down to earth, no wig, no make-up, speaking from the heart Though there was a tinge of bravado, and even arrogance, during public appearances during earlier parts of his stardom, Rajinikanth maintained a down-to-earth persona in later years. He never hid his poor origins. I have watched more Rajinikanth speeches than his films. At these public events, he often narrated his story of going from a bus conductor of Bangalore Transport Service, to friends collecting funds to send him to Madras Film Institute in 1973, to wanting to achieve growth and responding to slights in real life. At his peak, Rajini started going partially bald in the 1990s. That would have been devastating for an actor known for stylishly flicking his mane in every film. But he embraced his reality and appeared in public without a wig, or much make-up. His interactions with both his fan base who call him 'Thalaivar' or leader, as well as the media, have almost always been polite, bordering on shy, as opposed to many of his peers and juniors in indian cinema, south or north. Rajinikanth’s time-tested appeal comes from his willingness to change and adapt Even in the 1990s, Rajini played roles of people much older than his own age at the time. In Annamalai, Pedarayudu, Valli, and Padayappa, he transitioned from young to middle-aged or elderly characters. He was always willing to collaborate with projects in other languages, from Hindi to Telugu to Kannada, even doing smaller or side roles (though interestingly, he never acted in a Malayalam film). That's probably because he started small, playing a rake in Apoorva Raagangal (1975), having been introduced to cinema by the legendary director K Balachander. And in an industry known for star rivalries, he maintained a long friendship with the star of his first film, Kamal Hassan, the other superstar of Tamil cinema. Rajini has also been willing to work with young directors of each era, from Shankar (Enthiran, Sivaji the Boss) to Nelson (Jailer). And in Nelson’s telling, he always addresses the director as "sir". An 'addict' who still has a clean image: Rajini has been open about his vices Rajinikanth has openly talked about his bad habits – cigarettes (though flipping them stylishly is his hallmark in many films) - and alcohol. Rajini has a spiritual side, often talking about his gurus and inspirations like Raghavendra Swamy, Ramana Maharshi, and Mahavatar Babaji, and paying homage in the 2002 film Baba. He has engaged in self-reflection and self-reform as much as he addressed social and political issues, from the Kaveri water row, to the famous clashes with the late Jayalalithaa, a fellow actress, AIADMK leader and former Tamil Nadu chief minister. Rajini clicks because he keeps it real, off-screen Rajinikanth, as I mentioned, has not always been a success story. Some of his films bombed at the box office even recently. He attempted to wade into politics twice, trying to mobilise his massive fan clubs. But both times, Rajinikanth failed. He was open about it and accepted his failures. His health has not always been perfect, and he has never hidden that from the people. Balachander saw something intense in Rajini's eyes. To this day, his fans - like me - see something too, in spite of his advancing age. These are among the reasons why I like Rajinikanth. What about you?

Rajinikanth fans are celebrating his 75th birthday. Here is a personal reflection on why the Tamil superstar inspires different fans differently, from the masses to the classes, from south to north of India.

Why I love Rajinikanth is different from why you love Rajinikanth: A lifelong fan dissects his star craze for ‘Thalaivar'

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

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

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

Ajit Pawar: The Chief Minister Maharashtra never got

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

Budget 2026: Will India finally arm itself for tomorrow's wars?

Linkin Park in Bengaluru: Why it felt less like a concert and more like healing

Davos 2026: India's renewable surge steals the Show, here’s why

Davos 2026: Trump wants to make it about US and himself, but China wins quietly

Under Trump 2.0, US slides back to the 19th century

Freedom At Midnight S2 arrives when India needs its secular memory the most

Is India losing the Gulf? How China, Pakistan fill the strategic space in region

The Trust Deficit: Why PSLV’s Crisis Could Ground Gaganyaan’s Dreams

Australia won, England lost, but Test cricket barely survived

Forget Ukraine progress reports. There’s no end in sight for the war

The year India touched the sky: How ISRO redefined our future in 2025

In the era of 5th-generation warfare, the mind has become the final high ground

Selectors make statement by dropping Gill, but should India drop SKY?

In Trump’s America, fictitious drug numbers and a new definition of war

'Over my dead body': Lt Gen Sagat Singh’s Bold leap that won 1971 war

Why I love Rajinikanth is different from why you love Rajinikanth

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