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

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

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

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

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

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

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

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

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

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

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubts over the durability of the ceasefire in the Gaza war, a diplomatic triumph for President Donald Trump, have prompted a parade of senior officials to rush to Israel for what mocking headlines labelled “Bibisitter” duty.The word is a play on Bibi, the widely used nickname of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reluctantly agreed to Trump’s plan to end the devastating war in Gaza but is under intense pressure from key members of his coalition cabinet who disagree on the future of Israel and the Middle East.Justly proud of having ended the fighting between the Israeli military and Hamas and engineered the return of Israeli hostages held for two years, Trump told the Israeli Knesset on October 15: “It’s the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what soon will be a truly magnificent region. I believe that so strongly. This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.”Two weeks earlier, Trump made an unambiguous statement on the issue at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the future of territory the Palestinians consider a vital part of a future state. “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it.”Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-i-m-watching-trump-sets-48-hour-deadline-for-hamas-to-return-remains-of-israeli-hostages-1761457274377">'I'm watching': Trump sets 48-hour deadline for Hamas to return remains of Israeli hostages</a>But a day after Vice President JD Vance arrived in Israel, lawmakers in the 120-seat parliament voted 25-24 to advance a bill to make the West Bank “an inseparable part of the sovereign State of Israel.” It was the first of four votes to pass the bill into law, which is unlikely to happen.But the vote infuriated Vance, who called the vote by hard-right members of the Knesset “a very stupid political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it.” &nbsp;The day after Vance left, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived and voiced similar criticism, calling the move “counter-productive.”The Knesset vote and American criticism came in what one might call a “Bibisitter week.” &nbsp;US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner were already in Israel when the Washington heavyweights arrived. They were all there to make sure that the Trump plan stays intact in its early days.Washington’s heavy hitters have impressed on Netanyahu that for paving the way to peace, Israel should react “proportionally” to breaches from Hamas, an organisation the Israeli leader had vowed to wipe out completely. &nbsp;Such concerns were captured by a cartoon in the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz showing Netanyahu, dressed like a child and playing with a toy tank and combat aircraft, with Witkoff, Vance and Kushner standing over him to say it's bedtime. &nbsp; &nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/netanyahu-losing-support-majority-of-israelis-say-it-s-time-for-him-to-step-aside-finds-poll-1761371447623">Netanyahu losing support? Majority of Israelis say it’s time for him to step aside, finds poll</a>A good deal of optimism is required to think Trump’s 20-point plan will ever meet its promise: &nbsp;“It’s the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what soon will be a truly magnificent region. I believe that so strongly. This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.”How to get there is another matter. One of the trickiest early obstacles is to persuade Hamas to lay down their arms, and if that happens, establish an alternative security force in Gaza. There has been no rush from Arab and Muslim nations to provide troops or funding for a peacekeeping force.It is worth keeping in mind that while Hamas started the war two years ago by storming across the border and killing 1,200 Israelis in an orgy of violence, it did not act alone. The October 7 atrocity also involved members of other extremist groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad.Like dozens of ceasefires in Middle East conflicts, the one brokered by Trump did not take effect immediately. On day one, two Israeli soldiers and 47 Palestinians died. A question of proportionality, one could argue. But since then, the truce has largely held. &nbsp;As part of the Trump plan, 200 American troops and military and intelligence officers from various countries are in the process of building what is called a Civil-Military Coordination Center to monitor ceasefire violations and supervise the flow of aid and security assistance. The centre is in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel.Peace in the Middle East is a phrase that has echoed through decades of US diplomacy and involved five presidents in the search for stability in a volatile and strategically important region. Some of the projects came close. Some even yielded Nobel Peace Prizes for the leaders involved.In 1978, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin shared the prize for making peace between their countries. In 1994, Palestine Liberation Organisation chief Yasser Arafat and the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared the award for their efforts to bring peace to the region through the Oslo accords, a series of agreements between Israel and the PLO. &nbsp;The Oslo Accords were formally signed in Washington, and the photo of then-President Bill Clinton standing between Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands became an icon of hope.Sadly, all the agreements had one thing in common: they failed.Predicting whether the latest efforts will have the desired result is a fool’s errand in a region as volatile and complex as the Middle East. &nbsp;But here is a relatively safe bet: no matter what, Israel will never be short of American-supplied weapons. As White House aides began pondering the peace plan, the administration began the process of approving the sale of around $6 billion of additional weapons.That came after Israel bombed a building in Qatar, a close ally, where it believed Hamas leaders were meeting. That came against the background of international condemnation of an unceasing bombing campaign, which laid waste to most of Gaza and killed 68,000 Palestinians.The special US-Israeli relationship remains intact. It began when President Harry Truman became the first leader to recognise the new state in 1948. US officials relating the history of the tight relations rarely fail to mention that Truman called just 11 minutes after Israel’s declaration of independence.

The Knesset vote and American criticism came in what one might call a “Bibisitter week.”  Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were already in Israel when the Washington heavyweights arrived. They were all there to make sure that the Trump plan stays intact in its early days.

Doubts over the durability of the ceasefire in the Gaza war, a diplomatic triumph for President Donald Trump, have prompted a parade of senior officials to rush to Israel for what mocking headlines labelled “Bibisitter” duty. The word is a play on Bibi, the widely used nickname of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reluctantly agreed to Trump’s plan to end the devastating war in Gaza but is under intense pressure from key members of his coalition cabinet who disagree on the future of Israel and the Middle East. Justly proud of having ended the fighting between the Israeli military and Hamas and engineered the return of Israeli hostages held for two years, Trump told the Israeli Knesset on October 15: “It’s the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what soon will be a truly magnificent region. I believe that so strongly. This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.” Two weeks earlier, Trump made an unambiguous statement on the issue at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the future of territory the Palestinians consider a vital part of a future state. “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it.” Also read | 'I'm watching': Trump sets 48-hour deadline for Hamas to return remains of Israeli hostages But a day after Vice President JD Vance arrived in Israel, lawmakers in the 120-seat parliament voted 25-24 to advance a bill to make the West Bank “an inseparable part of the sovereign State of Israel.” It was the first of four votes to pass the bill into law, which is unlikely to happen. But the vote infuriated Vance, who called the vote by hard-right members of the Knesset “a very stupid political stunt, and I personally take some insult to it.” The day after Vance left, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived and voiced similar criticism, calling the move “counter-productive.” The Knesset vote and American criticism came in what one might call a “Bibisitter week.” US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner were already in Israel when the Washington heavyweights arrived. They were all there to make sure that the Trump plan stays intact in its early days. Washington’s heavy hitters have impressed on Netanyahu that for paving the way to peace, Israel should react “proportionally” to breaches from Hamas, an organisation the Israeli leader had vowed to wipe out completely. Such concerns were captured by a cartoon in the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz showing Netanyahu, dressed like a child and playing with a toy tank and combat aircraft, with Witkoff, Vance and Kushner standing over him to say it's bedtime. Also read | Netanyahu losing support? Majority of Israelis say it’s time for him to step aside, finds poll A good deal of optimism is required to think Trump’s 20-point plan will ever meet its promise: “It’s the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what soon will be a truly magnificent region. I believe that so strongly. This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.” How to get there is another matter. One of the trickiest early obstacles is to persuade Hamas to lay down their arms, and if that happens, establish an alternative security force in Gaza. There has been no rush from Arab and Muslim nations to provide troops or funding for a peacekeeping force. It is worth keeping in mind that while Hamas started the war two years ago by storming across the border and killing 1,200 Israelis in an orgy of violence, it did not act alone. The October 7 atrocity also involved members of other extremist groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Like dozens of ceasefires in Middle East conflicts, the one brokered by Trump did not take effect immediately. On day one, two Israeli soldiers and 47 Palestinians died. A question of proportionality, one could argue. But since then, the truce has largely held. As part of the Trump plan, 200 American troops and military and intelligence officers from various countries are in the process of building what is called a Civil-Military Coordination Center to monitor ceasefire violations and supervise the flow of aid and security assistance. The centre is in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel. Peace in the Middle East is a phrase that has echoed through decades of US diplomacy and involved five presidents in the search for stability in a volatile and strategically important region. Some of the projects came close. Some even yielded Nobel Peace Prizes for the leaders involved. In 1978, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin shared the prize for making peace between their countries. In 1994, Palestine Liberation Organisation chief Yasser Arafat and the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared the award for their efforts to bring peace to the region through the Oslo accords, a series of agreements between Israel and the PLO. The Oslo Accords were formally signed in Washington, and the photo of then-President Bill Clinton standing between Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands became an icon of hope. Sadly, all the agreements had one thing in common: they failed. Predicting whether the latest efforts will have the desired result is a fool’s errand in a region as volatile and complex as the Middle East. But here is a relatively safe bet: no matter what, Israel will never be short of American-supplied weapons. As White House aides began pondering the peace plan, the administration began the process of approving the sale of around $6 billion of additional weapons. That came after Israel bombed a building in Qatar, a close ally, where it believed Hamas leaders were meeting. That came against the background of international condemnation of an unceasing bombing campaign, which laid waste to most of Gaza and killed 68,000 Palestinians. The special US-Israeli relationship remains intact. It began when President Harry Truman became the first leader to recognise the new state in 1948. US officials relating the history of the tight relations rarely fail to mention that Truman called just 11 minutes after Israel’s declaration of independence.

The Knesset vote and American criticism came in what one might call a “Bibisitter week.” &nbsp;Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were already in Israel when the Washington heavyweights arrived. They were all there to make sure that the Trump plan stays intact in its early days.

US President Donald Trump’s new Middle East requires ‘Bibisitters’

The Horn of Africa has become the western anchor of China’s maritime strategy. At its northern edge stands Djibouti, hosting the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s first overseas base since 2017. Farther south, along the same arc of sea, Pakistan’s newly minted defence partnership with Somalia signals the quiet expansion of that architecture. Between the logistics hub in Djibouti and the training corridor proposed for Mogadishu lies a developing continuum of Chinese influence, mediated through partners and layered across commercial, military, and developmental channels.This corridor, if mapped on maritime traffic and defence cooperation data, outlines a single integrated network along the western rim of the Indian Ocean. The partnership between Pakistan and Somalia is therefore not a bilateral curiosity but the southern flank of an evolving strategic chain that ties Chinese naval logistics, shipbuilding finance, and training diplomacy into one continuous system.From Djibouti’s Quays to Karachi’s ShipyardsChina’s base in Djibouti, adjacent to the Doraleh Multipurpose Port, has grown into a self-contained complex with dry docks, ammunition depots, and replenishment facilities for surface combatants and submarines. Satellite imagery published by independent maritime monitors between 2021 and 2024 shows significant infrastructure expansion, including hardened shelters and new berthing capacity for large hulls.At the other end of the Arabian Sea, Pakistan’s ports of Karachi and Gwadar form the supply and shipbuilding nexus. The Type-054A/P frigates and Hangor-class submarines built under Chinese licences sustain not only Pakistan’s own navy but also its emerging role as an intermediary in maritime cooperation with African partners. The MoU with Somalia, signed in August 2025, introduces the next logical step: transferring training and logistical templates derived from Chinese platforms to an African navy seeking reconstitution after years of instability.When viewed together, these nodes form a continuous geographic line of influence: Djibouti–Gwadar–Karachi–Mogadishu. Each location performs a distinct function within the same strategic logic – support, production, and diffusion.Somalia’s Place in the ChainSomalia’s coastline, spanning over 3,300 kilometres, dominates the western Indian Ocean’s lower littoral. Its location between the Bab el-Mandeb and the Mozambique Channel grants it proximity to the sea lanes that sustain much of Asia–Europe commerce. By embedding itself within Somalia’s naval training architecture, Pakistan introduces a link that extends China’s operational reach beyond the Gulf of Aden.The arrangement appears benign. It speaks of cooperation, technical expertise, and South–South partnership. Yet its underlying logic follows the precedent of other Chinese maritime ventures: infrastructure coupled with defence cooperation, offered at concessional terms that bring long-term strategic influence. Somalia, with limited fiscal space and a fragile maritime bureaucracy, becomes an ideal candidate for such external assistance.The practical result is a diffusion of standards and dependencies. Somali naval personnel will learn on Pakistani systems configured to Chinese specifications; their logistics will rely on imported spares; their command frameworks may emulate doctrines designed far from Mogadishu. Over time, this creates interoperability not primarily with African or Western navies but with an ecosystem aligned to Beijing through Karachi.Regional ImplicationsThe Djibouti–Mogadishu continuum alters the geometry of the western Indian Ocean. Where once the maritime order was anchored by multilateral coalitions such as the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) and the EU’s Operation Atalanta, the emerging pattern is bilateral and opaque. Pakistan’s naval training mission in Somalia, Turkey’s ongoing ten-year pact, and China’s permanent logistics base each represent separate lines of authority that converge without coordination.For regional stakeholders, this raises both operational and governance questions. The multiplicity of unaligned bilateral arrangements risks duplicating tasks and fragmenting accountability. It also deepens the competitive dynamic between the India–EU maritime partnership on one side and the China–Pakistan alignment on the other. The Horn of Africa, once a laboratory for multilateral maritime governance, now risks becoming a patchwork of competing corridors.The economic dimension reinforces this trend. China’s financing of African port infrastructure, i.e. Lamu, Bagamoyo, and Doraleh, creates logistical redundancy that strengthens its supply resilience. The Pakistan–Somalia link, though framed as a training partnership, complements this pattern by extending influence into the human capital and doctrinal space of African maritime forces.Policy ReflectionsTo interpret this chain merely as a naval expansion would be to miss its institutional character. China’s influence operates through modular partnerships that link infrastructure, finance, and training into an interlocking system of dependency. Pakistan, a long-standing defence client, functions as an intermediary node rather than a fully autonomous actor.Somalia’s leadership, while seeking capability and legitimacy, must therefore weigh the hidden costs of imported competence. The promise of rapid capacity-building may conceal a slower erosion of independent planning. If training curricula, maintenance regimes, and advisory oversight all originate abroad, the resulting navy may serve not as a sovereign institution but as an extension of someone else’s design.For regional and international observers, the challenge lies in offering credible alternatives. Multilateral frameworks such as the African Union Mission’s maritime initiatives or the EUCAP Somalia programme can still provide transparent, verifiable models of partnership. These, unlike bilateral defence deals, are structured to ensure local ownership and open auditing.The continuum from Djibouti to Mogadishu represents the new geography of influence in the western Indian Ocean. It is neither overtly militarised nor openly declared, yet its architecture is deliberate and cumulative. Djibouti supplies the logistics, Pakistan the training, China the financing, and Somalia the access. Together, they form a maritime ecosystem where cooperation blends seamlessly with control.For Somalia, the strategic question is not whether it should receive assistance, but from whom, and under what terms. For others watching the Horn, the answer will define not just the balance of power but the very meaning of sovereignty at sea.(Commander Rahul Verma (Retd) is an Emerging Technology and Prioritisation Scout for a leading Indian Multi-National Corporation, focusing on advancing force modernisation.through innovative technological applications and operational concepts. With 21 years as a Naval Aviator, including a distinguished role in the Indian Navy’s Technology Development Acceleration Cell, he brings diverse aviation experiences, from Seaking Pilot to RPAS Mission Commander and Flying Instructor.)

Between the logistics hub in Djibouti and the training corridor proposed for Mogadishu lies a developing continuum of Chinese influence, mediated through partners and layered across commercial, military, and developmental channels.

The Horn of Africa has become the western anchor of China’s maritime strategy. At its northern edge stands Djibouti, hosting the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s first overseas base since 2017. Farther south, along the same arc of sea, Pakistan’s newly minted defence partnership with Somalia signals the quiet expansion of that architecture. Between the logistics hub in Djibouti and the training corridor proposed for Mogadishu lies a developing continuum of Chinese influence, mediated through partners and layered across commercial, military, and developmental channels. This corridor, if mapped on maritime traffic and defence cooperation data, outlines a single integrated network along the western rim of the Indian Ocean. The partnership between Pakistan and Somalia is therefore not a bilateral curiosity but the southern flank of an evolving strategic chain that ties Chinese naval logistics, shipbuilding finance, and training diplomacy into one continuous system. From Djibouti’s Quays to Karachi’s Shipyards China’s base in Djibouti, adjacent to the Doraleh Multipurpose Port, has grown into a self-contained complex with dry docks, ammunition depots, and replenishment facilities for surface combatants and submarines. Satellite imagery published by independent maritime monitors between 2021 and 2024 shows significant infrastructure expansion, including hardened shelters and new berthing capacity for large hulls. At the other end of the Arabian Sea, Pakistan’s ports of Karachi and Gwadar form the supply and shipbuilding nexus. The Type-054A/P frigates and Hangor-class submarines built under Chinese licences sustain not only Pakistan’s own navy but also its emerging role as an intermediary in maritime cooperation with African partners. The MoU with Somalia, signed in August 2025, introduces the next logical step: transferring training and logistical templates derived from Chinese platforms to an African navy seeking reconstitution after years of instability. When viewed together, these nodes form a continuous geographic line of influence: Djibouti–Gwadar–Karachi–Mogadishu. Each location performs a distinct function within the same strategic logic – support, production, and diffusion. Somalia’s Place in the Chain Somalia’s coastline, spanning over 3,300 kilometres, dominates the western Indian Ocean’s lower littoral. Its location between the Bab el-Mandeb and the Mozambique Channel grants it proximity to the sea lanes that sustain much of Asia–Europe commerce. By embedding itself within Somalia’s naval training architecture, Pakistan introduces a link that extends China’s operational reach beyond the Gulf of Aden. The arrangement appears benign. It speaks of cooperation, technical expertise, and South–South partnership. Yet its underlying logic follows the precedent of other Chinese maritime ventures: infrastructure coupled with defence cooperation, offered at concessional terms that bring long-term strategic influence. Somalia, with limited fiscal space and a fragile maritime bureaucracy, becomes an ideal candidate for such external assistance. The practical result is a diffusion of standards and dependencies. Somali naval personnel will learn on Pakistani systems configured to Chinese specifications; their logistics will rely on imported spares; their command frameworks may emulate doctrines designed far from Mogadishu. Over time, this creates interoperability not primarily with African or Western navies but with an ecosystem aligned to Beijing through Karachi. Regional Implications The Djibouti–Mogadishu continuum alters the geometry of the western Indian Ocean. Where once the maritime order was anchored by multilateral coalitions such as the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) and the EU’s Operation Atalanta, the emerging pattern is bilateral and opaque. Pakistan’s naval training mission in Somalia, Turkey’s ongoing ten-year pact, and China’s permanent logistics base each represent separate lines of authority that converge without coordination. For regional stakeholders, this raises both operational and governance questions. The multiplicity of unaligned bilateral arrangements risks duplicating tasks and fragmenting accountability. It also deepens the competitive dynamic between the India–EU maritime partnership on one side and the China–Pakistan alignment on the other. The Horn of Africa, once a laboratory for multilateral maritime governance, now risks becoming a patchwork of competing corridors. The economic dimension reinforces this trend. China’s financing of African port infrastructure, i.e. Lamu, Bagamoyo, and Doraleh, creates logistical redundancy that strengthens its supply resilience. The Pakistan–Somalia link, though framed as a training partnership, complements this pattern by extending influence into the human capital and doctrinal space of African maritime forces. Policy Reflections To interpret this chain merely as a naval expansion would be to miss its institutional character. China’s influence operates through modular partnerships that link infrastructure, finance, and training into an interlocking system of dependency. Pakistan, a long-standing defence client, functions as an intermediary node rather than a fully autonomous actor. Somalia’s leadership, while seeking capability and legitimacy, must therefore weigh the hidden costs of imported competence. The promise of rapid capacity-building may conceal a slower erosion of independent planning. If training curricula, maintenance regimes, and advisory oversight all originate abroad, the resulting navy may serve not as a sovereign institution but as an extension of someone else’s design. For regional and international observers, the challenge lies in offering credible alternatives. Multilateral frameworks such as the African Union Mission’s maritime initiatives or the EUCAP Somalia programme can still provide transparent, verifiable models of partnership. These, unlike bilateral defence deals, are structured to ensure local ownership and open auditing. The continuum from Djibouti to Mogadishu represents the new geography of influence in the western Indian Ocean. It is neither overtly militarised nor openly declared, yet its architecture is deliberate and cumulative. Djibouti supplies the logistics, Pakistan the training, China the financing, and Somalia the access. Together, they form a maritime ecosystem where cooperation blends seamlessly with control. For Somalia, the strategic question is not whether it should receive assistance, but from whom, and under what terms. For others watching the Horn, the answer will define not just the balance of power but the very meaning of sovereignty at sea. (Commander Rahul Verma (Retd) is an Emerging Technology and Prioritisation Scout for a leading Indian Multi-National Corporation, focusing on advancing force modernisation. through innovative technological applications and operational concepts. With 21 years as a Naval Aviator, including a distinguished role in the Indian Navy’s Technology Development Acceleration Cell, he brings diverse aviation experiences, from Seaking Pilot to RPAS Mission Commander and Flying Instructor.)

Between the logistics hub in Djibouti and the training corridor proposed for Mogadishu lies a developing continuum of Chinese influence, mediated through partners and layered across commercial, military, and developmental channels.

Djibouti–Mogadishu Continuum: Mapping a China-friendly maritime chain

In the complex dance of international diplomacy, few positions are as uncomfortable as the one India finds itself in today. US President Donald Trump's recent claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to stop buying Russian oil has put New Delhi in a diplomatic corner, caught between American pressure and its own strategic interests. The Indian government's swift denial the very next day was not just a correction of facts—it was a declaration of sovereignty.This is not the first time Trump has made statements that don't quite match reality, but this particular claim strikes at the heart of India's ongoing trade negotiations with Washington. The timing couldn't be more sensitive. Indian trade teams are working to finalize a new agreement with the US, even as they navigate the fallout from a 25 percent American tariff imposed on Russian oil purchases back in August. Trump's public remarks have effectively painted India into a corner where any reduction in Russian oil imports now risks looking like capitulation rather than choice.The numbers tell a story that contradicts any notion of India bending to pressure. In September, India imported roughly 1.60 million barrels of Russian oil daily, barely five percent less than August. By October, that figure had actually climbed to 1.81 million barrels per day. These are not the statistics of a country preparing to abandon its largest oil supplier. They reveal instead a nation making calculated decisions based on economic reality rather than political theater.India's Ministry of External Affairs has been admirably clear and consistent. The country will continue purchasing Russian oil based purely on its own requirements. Indian state-owned refineries have echoed this stance, emphasizing that their procurement decisions rest entirely on business fundamentals and cost considerations, not geopolitical maneuvering. This is not defiance for its own sake—it is pragmatism born of necessity.Consider India's energy landscape. The country imports roughly 88 percent of its crude oil needs, making it the world's third-largest oil importer. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil accounted for less than two percent of India's imports. Today, Russia supplies approximately one-third of India's total oil requirements. This dramatic shift didn't happen because of ideology or alliance—it happened because Western sanctions pushed Russian crude prices down, and Indian buyers recognized an opportunity too significant to ignore.The transformation was swift and sensible. As European nations cut ties with Russian energy, Moscow began offering steep discounts to Asian buyers willing to maintain trade. Indian oil companies responded rationally to market signals, turning Russia from a marginal supplier into the country's single largest source of crude. This wasn't a political statement—it was elementary economics.Now Trump and his administration want India to reverse this course, viewing Russian oil revenues as leverage to end the Ukraine conflict. The logic is straightforward: starve Russia of energy income and force Moscow to negotiate. But this strategy overlooks a fundamental reality—India cannot simply flip a switch and redirect its entire oil import infrastructure overnight.The technical challenges alone are formidable. India's refineries have adapted their operations to process Russian Urals crude. While West Asian oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE is chemically similar and could theoretically replace Russian supplies, the transition would be neither quick nor cheap. Transportation costs are higher, supply availability is less certain, and freight charges add substantial expense. Private refineries in India continue purchasing massive volumes of Russian crude precisely because the economics remain favorable despite smaller discounts than in the past.As Sumit Ritolia, Lead Research Analyst at Kpler, rightly observes in an Indian Express report, abandoning Russian oil entirely would require navigating enormous logistical, political, and financial obstacles. Even if India decided to gradually reduce its Russian imports under sustained pressure, such a shift would unfold over months or years, not weeks. Oil trade operates on long-term contracts, established supply chains, and carefully calibrated market relationships. These systems cannot be dismantled and rebuilt at diplomatic convenience.The broader implications deserve serious consideration. If India were forced to abandon Russian oil without a comprehensive global ban, it would intensify competition for non-Russian supplies. Middle Eastern, African, and American crude would face increased demand, likely driving up global prices. This would hurt not just India but oil-importing nations worldwide, potentially destabilizing markets and reducing refining profitability across the board.For India, the costs would be immediate and severe. Russian oil remains cheaper than most alternatives, meaning its loss would inflate India's already substantial import bill. Higher costs would inevitably translate to increased fuel prices domestically, adding inflationary pressure to an economy still managing post-pandemic recovery. The impact would ripple through every sector dependent on transportation and energy, from agriculture to manufacturing to services.Beyond economics lies a matter of principle that New Delhi takes seriously. India has consistently maintained that it will not sacrifice strategic autonomy or allow any nation to dictate its trade relationships. Russia is not merely an oil supplier—it is a decades-long defense partner, a counterweight in regional geopolitics, and a crucial relationship that transcends any single commodity. Abandoning this partnership at American insistence would set a precedent India cannot afford to establish.The uncomfortable truth is that Trump's public statement, whether factually accurate or not, has made India's position more difficult. Any reduction in Russian oil imports now carries the appearance of yielding to external pressure, even if driven by purely commercial considerations. This complicates New Delhi's diplomatic calculations as it simultaneously pursues deeper trade engagement with Washington and preserves its valued relationship with Moscow.India's response has been measured and mature. The government has neither escalated tensions nor made promises it cannot keep. Instead, it has restated its position with clarity: oil purchases will be determined by national interest, economic advantage, and business logic. State-owned refineries continue operating without political directives regarding Russian crude, while gradually diversifying sources to reduce dependence on any single supplier.This approach reflects strategic wisdom. India understands that energy security demands diversification, but it also recognizes that abrupt shifts serve no one's interests. The slight reduction in Russian oil imports observed in recent months stems from narrowing price advantages and rising transport costs, not American pressure. If and when India chooses to further adjust its energy mix, it will do so according to its own timeline and priorities.The United States must understand that pressing India too hard on Russian oil risks undermining the very partnership it seeks to strengthen. India is not a client state that takes orders—it is a rising power making independent choices in its national interest. Treating New Delhi as a subordinate rather than a sovereign equal will only push it toward the diversified, multi-aligned foreign policy it increasingly favors.As India's trade delegation continues negotiations with their American counterparts, both sides would benefit from recognizing reality. India will not and cannot simply stop buying Russian oil on command. The economic, logistical, and strategic barriers are too substantial. What India can do—and is already doing—is gradually diversifying its energy sources to reduce vulnerability to any single supplier, whether that supplier is Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the United States itself.This is not about choosing sides in someone else's conflict. It is about a nation of 1.4 billion people making rational decisions to secure affordable energy for its economy and population. If the United States truly values its partnership with India, it will respect this reality rather than demanding impossible concessions that serve neither country's long-term interests.The path forward requires nuance, patience, and mutual respect. India has proven itself a reliable partner across multiple domains, from defense cooperation to technology collaboration to shared democratic values. But partnership means accepting differences, not demanding conformity. On Russian oil, India's position is clear, consistent, and unlikely to change at America's insistence. The sooner Washington accepts this, the sooner both nations can focus on the substantial areas where their interests genuinely align. &nbsp;

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil accounted for less than two percent of Indias imports. Today, Russia supplies approximately one-third of Indias total oil requirements. 

In the complex dance of international diplomacy, few positions are as uncomfortable as the one India finds itself in today. US President Donald Trump's recent claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to stop buying Russian oil has put New Delhi in a diplomatic corner, caught between American pressure and its own strategic interests. The Indian government's swift denial the very next day was not just a correction of facts—it was a declaration of sovereignty. This is not the first time Trump has made statements that don't quite match reality, but this particular claim strikes at the heart of India's ongoing trade negotiations with Washington. The timing couldn't be more sensitive. Indian trade teams are working to finalize a new agreement with the US, even as they navigate the fallout from a 25 percent American tariff imposed on Russian oil purchases back in August. Trump's public remarks have effectively painted India into a corner where any reduction in Russian oil imports now risks looking like capitulation rather than choice. The numbers tell a story that contradicts any notion of India bending to pressure. In September, India imported roughly 1.60 million barrels of Russian oil daily, barely five percent less than August. By October, that figure had actually climbed to 1.81 million barrels per day. These are not the statistics of a country preparing to abandon its largest oil supplier. They reveal instead a nation making calculated decisions based on economic reality rather than political theater. India's Ministry of External Affairs has been admirably clear and consistent. The country will continue purchasing Russian oil based purely on its own requirements. Indian state-owned refineries have echoed this stance, emphasizing that their procurement decisions rest entirely on business fundamentals and cost considerations, not geopolitical maneuvering. This is not defiance for its own sake—it is pragmatism born of necessity. Consider India's energy landscape. The country imports roughly 88 percent of its crude oil needs, making it the world's third-largest oil importer. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil accounted for less than two percent of India's imports. Today, Russia supplies approximately one-third of India's total oil requirements. This dramatic shift didn't happen because of ideology or alliance—it happened because Western sanctions pushed Russian crude prices down, and Indian buyers recognized an opportunity too significant to ignore. The transformation was swift and sensible. As European nations cut ties with Russian energy, Moscow began offering steep discounts to Asian buyers willing to maintain trade. Indian oil companies responded rationally to market signals, turning Russia from a marginal supplier into the country's single largest source of crude. This wasn't a political statement—it was elementary economics. Now Trump and his administration want India to reverse this course, viewing Russian oil revenues as leverage to end the Ukraine conflict. The logic is straightforward: starve Russia of energy income and force Moscow to negotiate. But this strategy overlooks a fundamental reality—India cannot simply flip a switch and redirect its entire oil import infrastructure overnight. The technical challenges alone are formidable. India's refineries have adapted their operations to process Russian Urals crude. While West Asian oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE is chemically similar and could theoretically replace Russian supplies, the transition would be neither quick nor cheap. Transportation costs are higher, supply availability is less certain, and freight charges add substantial expense. Private refineries in India continue purchasing massive volumes of Russian crude precisely because the economics remain favorable despite smaller discounts than in the past. As Sumit Ritolia, Lead Research Analyst at Kpler, rightly observes in an Indian Express report, abandoning Russian oil entirely would require navigating enormous logistical, political, and financial obstacles. Even if India decided to gradually reduce its Russian imports under sustained pressure, such a shift would unfold over months or years, not weeks. Oil trade operates on long-term contracts, established supply chains, and carefully calibrated market relationships. These systems cannot be dismantled and rebuilt at diplomatic convenience. The broader implications deserve serious consideration. If India were forced to abandon Russian oil without a comprehensive global ban, it would intensify competition for non-Russian supplies. Middle Eastern, African, and American crude would face increased demand, likely driving up global prices. This would hurt not just India but oil-importing nations worldwide, potentially destabilizing markets and reducing refining profitability across the board. For India, the costs would be immediate and severe. Russian oil remains cheaper than most alternatives, meaning its loss would inflate India's already substantial import bill. Higher costs would inevitably translate to increased fuel prices domestically, adding inflationary pressure to an economy still managing post-pandemic recovery. The impact would ripple through every sector dependent on transportation and energy, from agriculture to manufacturing to services. Beyond economics lies a matter of principle that New Delhi takes seriously. India has consistently maintained that it will not sacrifice strategic autonomy or allow any nation to dictate its trade relationships. Russia is not merely an oil supplier—it is a decades-long defense partner, a counterweight in regional geopolitics, and a crucial relationship that transcends any single commodity. Abandoning this partnership at American insistence would set a precedent India cannot afford to establish. The uncomfortable truth is that Trump's public statement, whether factually accurate or not, has made India's position more difficult. Any reduction in Russian oil imports now carries the appearance of yielding to external pressure, even if driven by purely commercial considerations. This complicates New Delhi's diplomatic calculations as it simultaneously pursues deeper trade engagement with Washington and preserves its valued relationship with Moscow. India's response has been measured and mature. The government has neither escalated tensions nor made promises it cannot keep. Instead, it has restated its position with clarity: oil purchases will be determined by national interest, economic advantage, and business logic. State-owned refineries continue operating without political directives regarding Russian crude, while gradually diversifying sources to reduce dependence on any single supplier. This approach reflects strategic wisdom. India understands that energy security demands diversification, but it also recognizes that abrupt shifts serve no one's interests. The slight reduction in Russian oil imports observed in recent months stems from narrowing price advantages and rising transport costs, not American pressure. If and when India chooses to further adjust its energy mix, it will do so according to its own timeline and priorities. The United States must understand that pressing India too hard on Russian oil risks undermining the very partnership it seeks to strengthen. India is not a client state that takes orders—it is a rising power making independent choices in its national interest. Treating New Delhi as a subordinate rather than a sovereign equal will only push it toward the diversified, multi-aligned foreign policy it increasingly favors. As India's trade delegation continues negotiations with their American counterparts, both sides would benefit from recognizing reality. India will not and cannot simply stop buying Russian oil on command. The economic, logistical, and strategic barriers are too substantial. What India can do—and is already doing—is gradually diversifying its energy sources to reduce vulnerability to any single supplier, whether that supplier is Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the United States itself. This is not about choosing sides in someone else's conflict. It is about a nation of 1.4 billion people making rational decisions to secure affordable energy for its economy and population. If the United States truly values its partnership with India, it will respect this reality rather than demanding impossible concessions that serve neither country's long-term interests. The path forward requires nuance, patience, and mutual respect. India has proven itself a reliable partner across multiple domains, from defense cooperation to technology collaboration to shared democratic values. But partnership means accepting differences, not demanding conformity. On Russian oil, India's position is clear, consistent, and unlikely to change at America's insistence. The sooner Washington accepts this, the sooner both nations can focus on the substantial areas where their interests genuinely align.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Russian oil accounted for less than two percent of India's imports. Today, Russia supplies approximately one-third of India's total oil requirements.&nbsp;

Not for Sale: India Rejects Trump's Command on Russian Oil

With campaigns hitting fever pitch across Bihar, the 2025 Assembly elections promise another nail-biter in the state's long history of tight contests. Old slogans like “Jab Tak Rahega Samosa Mein Aalu, Tab Tak Rahega Bihar Mein Lalu” (As long as there’s potato in a samosa, there will be Lalu in Bihar) or "Upar Aasman, Neeche Paswan" (Sky above, Paswan below) are still imprinted on the poll pitch of Bihar, but the real drama lies in the numbers. Muslims, who make up about 17 per cent of Bihar's electorate, women at roughly 47 per cent, and the Gen Z crowd—especially first-time voters numbering around 14 lakh—hold the key to who grabs the gaddi in Patna. In a state where alliances shift like monsoon winds, these groups could swing the outcome in a multi-cornered fight between the ruling NDA, the opposition Mahagathbandhan, and wild cards like Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM and Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj.&nbsp;The stakes are sky-high in Bihar's 243 constituencies, where the total voter count stands at 7.43 crore after the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision pruned the rolls by over 47 lakh names since June. Women voters, at 3.5 crore, outnumber men in sheer clout, thanks to schemes like the NDA's Rs 1,000 monthly aid under the Mukhyamantri Nari Shakti Yojana, which has boosted female turnout in past polls. Pollsters point out that in 2020, women edged out men in voting percentages in north Bihar, handing Nitish Kumar's JD(U) a lifeline. This time, with Tejashwi Yadav pushing job guarantees for households, the Mahagathbandhan hopes to counter that pull. Muslims, concentrated in Seemanchal and north Bihar pockets, have stuck largely with the RJD-led alliance, but Owaisi's AIMIM—fresh off five seats in 2020—could nibble at edges by fielding candidates in Muslim-heavy areas like Kishanganj and Katihar.<h2>X-Factor Sparks Bihar Battle</h2>Then there's the youth bulge: Bihar's electorate skews young, with nearly 58 per cent under 25, and those first-time voters—averaging 5,765 per constituency this year—could be the X-factor. That's up from 4,597 in 2020 but down sharply from 9,930 in 2015, per Election Commission data. Back then, the surge helped fuel anti-incumbency waves; now, with migration and joblessness dominating chai-shop talk, Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj is pitching itself as a fresh voice. Kishor, who masterminded NDA wins in the past, has criss-crossed the state on foot for over 5,000 km, promising clean governance and 90 per cent fresh faces. His party contests all 243 seats, potentially splitting votes in Yadav and Muslim belts that once fed the RJD.&nbsp;The NDA enters the fray with a iron-clad seat pact: BJP and JD(U) split 101 seats each, Chirag Paswan's LJP (Ram Vilas) bags 29, Upendra Kushwaha's Rashtriya Lok Morcha takes six, and Jitan Ram Manjhi's HAM gets another six. This setup, hammered out after weeks of haggling, aims to lock in upper castes for BJP, EBCs for JD(U), and Dalits for the smaller allies. Nitish Kumar's camp banks on incumbency perks like expanded school meals and women's reservations, while BJP pushes Modi's national schemes. But cracks show: smaller partners grumbled over slim pickings, and Chirag Paswan's aggressive push for more has irked the big two.&nbsp;Over in the Mahagathbandhan, seat-sharing drags on, with whispers of RJD yielding 134 to allies, Congress grabbing 60, and CPI(ML) settling for 21. Congress, eyeing a breakout from RJD's shadow, has already floated early candidate lists, irking partners. The Left eyes 15-20 seats in strongholds like Jehanabad, while Owaisi's entry threatens to fragment the Muslim vote that propelled RJD to 75 seats last time. Jan Suraaj adds chaos, as Kishor's anti-corruption barbs hit both camps. Pollsters like those at CVoter see NDA edging ahead on women's schemes, but a united opposition could flip the script if youth anger boils over.<h2>Thriller of 52 Seats</h2>What makes this poll a potential thriller are the 52 razor-thin seats from 2020, where margins under 5,000 votes turned the tide. Back then, NDA scraped 125 seats to the Mahagathbandhan's 110, with RJD topping at 75 ahead of BJP's 74. RJD pocketed 15 of those cliffhangers, JD(U) 13, Congress nine, BJP nine, and scraps for Left, VIP, and HAM. This year, both fronts have zeroed in, deploying booth-level workers and star campaigners. In 49 such seats, first-timers outnumbered the 2020 gap—think JD(U) and RJD splitting 13 each—hinting at upsets if young votes tilt left or right.&nbsp;Take Hilsa in Nalanda, a see-saw classic: JD(U)'s Krishnamurari Sharan alias Prem Mukhiya edged RJD's Atri Muni alias Shakti Singh Yadav by a mere 12 votes in 2020, the tightest in Bihar's history. Recount pleas flew, but the win stuck, underscoring how one booth can rewrite fates. Barbigha nearby saw JD(U)'s Sudarshan Kumar pip Congress's Gajanan Shahi by 113 votes, a upper-caste tussle that could heat up with BJP's push. Ramgarh in Kaimur went to RJD's Sudhakar Singh over BJP's Anand Bhushan Pandey by 189 votes, Yadav muscle clashing with saffron surge.&nbsp;The pattern repeats: Matihani in Begusarai fell to RJD's Jitendra Kumar over JD(U)'s Amarendra Prakash by 372 votes; Bhorey in Gopalganj to JD(U)'s Sunil Kumar against CPI(ML)'s Jitendra Paswan by 462; Dehri in Rohtas to RJD's Fateh Bahadur Singh over BJP's Satya Narayan Singh by 464. Bachhwara in Begusarai stayed with RJD's Shyam Rajak beating JD(U)'s Ram Ratan Singh by 484; Chakai in Jamui with JD(U)'s Shyam Bihari Prasad defeating RJD's Vijay Krishna Chaudhary by 581; Kudhani in Muzaffarpur with JD(U)'s Ramesh Jaiswal topping RJD's Abdhesh Kumar by 712; Bakhri in Begusarai with RJD's Ajay Kumar Chaudhary over JD(U)'s Sanjeev Kumar by 777; and Prabhata (now Purnea's Pirpainti) with independent Vijay Kumar Singh (backed by RJD) nosing out JD(U)'s Bima Bharti by 951.&nbsp;These weren't flukes—2020's chemistry brewed from caste cocktails, with Tejashwi's youth pitch denting NDA's hold, but Nitish's welfare net and BJP's Hindu consolidation clawed back ground. LJP's solo run hurt NDA in 40 seats, yet Chirag's Dalit pull helped rebound. Voter turnout hit 57.05 per cent, women at 59 per cent outpacing men, and urban pockets swung saffron.&nbsp;Notably, the air feels different. No LJP wildcard inside NDA, but Jan Suraaj could siphon anti-establishment anger, especially among the 1.63 crore under-30s eyeing jobs over caste. SIR's deletions—steepest in Muslim districts like Kishanganj (9.69 per cent drop)—sparked cries of foul play from opposition, though ECI insists it's cleanup. Women, buoyed by NDA cash transfers, might stick, but Mahagathbandhan's promise of household jobs could lure them back. Muslims, wary of Owaisi's splits, lean RJD but demand action on floods and migration.&nbsp;In these 52 battlegrounds, margins matter more than ever. With first-timers averaging 5,765 per seat—enough to flip half the 2020 close calls—the NDA's machine-like booth ops face Mahagathbandhan's door-to-door grit and Jan Suraaj's outsider appeal. If youth flock to Kishor or Tejashwi, NDA's 125-seat perch wobbles; if Nitish's quiet fixes hold sway, saffron sails smooth. Bihar's throne hangs by a thread—watch the under-25s, the women, and those fateful few hundred votes.

The stakes are sky-high in Bihars 243 constituencies, where the total voter count stands at 7.43 crore after the Election Commissions Special Intensive Revision pruned the rolls by over 47 lakh names since June.

With campaigns hitting fever pitch across Bihar, the 2025 Assembly elections promise another nail-biter in the state's long history of tight contests. Old slogans like “Jab Tak Rahega Samosa Mein Aalu, Tab Tak Rahega Bihar Mein Lalu” (As long as there’s potato in a samosa, there will be Lalu in Bihar) or "Upar Aasman, Neeche Paswan" (Sky above, Paswan below) are still imprinted on the poll pitch of Bihar, but the real drama lies in the numbers. Muslims, who make up about 17 per cent of Bihar's electorate, women at roughly 47 per cent, and the Gen Z crowd—especially first-time voters numbering around 14 lakh—hold the key to who grabs the gaddi in Patna. In a state where alliances shift like monsoon winds, these groups could swing the outcome in a multi-cornered fight between the ruling NDA, the opposition Mahagathbandhan, and wild cards like Asaduddin Owaisi's AIMIM and Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj. The stakes are sky-high in Bihar's 243 constituencies, where the total voter count stands at 7.43 crore after the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision pruned the rolls by over 47 lakh names since June. Women voters, at 3.5 crore, outnumber men in sheer clout, thanks to schemes like the NDA's Rs 1,000 monthly aid under the Mukhyamantri Nari Shakti Yojana, which has boosted female turnout in past polls. Pollsters point out that in 2020, women edged out men in voting percentages in north Bihar, handing Nitish Kumar's JD(U) a lifeline. This time, with Tejashwi Yadav pushing job guarantees for households, the Mahagathbandhan hopes to counter that pull. Muslims, concentrated in Seemanchal and north Bihar pockets, have stuck largely with the RJD-led alliance, but Owaisi's AIMIM—fresh off five seats in 2020—could nibble at edges by fielding candidates in Muslim-heavy areas like Kishanganj and Katihar. X-Factor Sparks Bihar Battle Then there's the youth bulge: Bihar's electorate skews young, with nearly 58 per cent under 25, and those first-time voters—averaging 5,765 per constituency this year—could be the X-factor. That's up from 4,597 in 2020 but down sharply from 9,930 in 2015, per Election Commission data. Back then, the surge helped fuel anti-incumbency waves; now, with migration and joblessness dominating chai-shop talk, Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj is pitching itself as a fresh voice. Kishor, who masterminded NDA wins in the past, has criss-crossed the state on foot for over 5,000 km, promising clean governance and 90 per cent fresh faces. His party contests all 243 seats, potentially splitting votes in Yadav and Muslim belts that once fed the RJD. The NDA enters the fray with a iron-clad seat pact: BJP and JD(U) split 101 seats each, Chirag Paswan's LJP (Ram Vilas) bags 29, Upendra Kushwaha's Rashtriya Lok Morcha takes six, and Jitan Ram Manjhi's HAM gets another six. This setup, hammered out after weeks of haggling, aims to lock in upper castes for BJP, EBCs for JD(U), and Dalits for the smaller allies. Nitish Kumar's camp banks on incumbency perks like expanded school meals and women's reservations, while BJP pushes Modi's national schemes. But cracks show: smaller partners grumbled over slim pickings, and Chirag Paswan's aggressive push for more has irked the big two. Over in the Mahagathbandhan, seat-sharing drags on, with whispers of RJD yielding 134 to allies, Congress grabbing 60, and CPI(ML) settling for 21. Congress, eyeing a breakout from RJD's shadow, has already floated early candidate lists, irking partners. The Left eyes 15-20 seats in strongholds like Jehanabad, while Owaisi's entry threatens to fragment the Muslim vote that propelled RJD to 75 seats last time. Jan Suraaj adds chaos, as Kishor's anti-corruption barbs hit both camps. Pollsters like those at CVoter see NDA edging ahead on women's schemes, but a united opposition could flip the script if youth anger boils over. Thriller of 52 Seats What makes this poll a potential thriller are the 52 razor-thin seats from 2020, where margins under 5,000 votes turned the tide. Back then, NDA scraped 125 seats to the Mahagathbandhan's 110, with RJD topping at 75 ahead of BJP's 74. RJD pocketed 15 of those cliffhangers, JD(U) 13, Congress nine, BJP nine, and scraps for Left, VIP, and HAM. This year, both fronts have zeroed in, deploying booth-level workers and star campaigners. In 49 such seats, first-timers outnumbered the 2020 gap—think JD(U) and RJD splitting 13 each—hinting at upsets if young votes tilt left or right. Take Hilsa in Nalanda, a see-saw classic: JD(U)'s Krishnamurari Sharan alias Prem Mukhiya edged RJD's Atri Muni alias Shakti Singh Yadav by a mere 12 votes in 2020, the tightest in Bihar's history. Recount pleas flew, but the win stuck, underscoring how one booth can rewrite fates. Barbigha nearby saw JD(U)'s Sudarshan Kumar pip Congress's Gajanan Shahi by 113 votes, a upper-caste tussle that could heat up with BJP's push. Ramgarh in Kaimur went to RJD's Sudhakar Singh over BJP's Anand Bhushan Pandey by 189 votes, Yadav muscle clashing with saffron surge. The pattern repeats: Matihani in Begusarai fell to RJD's Jitendra Kumar over JD(U)'s Amarendra Prakash by 372 votes; Bhorey in Gopalganj to JD(U)'s Sunil Kumar against CPI(ML)'s Jitendra Paswan by 462; Dehri in Rohtas to RJD's Fateh Bahadur Singh over BJP's Satya Narayan Singh by 464. Bachhwara in Begusarai stayed with RJD's Shyam Rajak beating JD(U)'s Ram Ratan Singh by 484; Chakai in Jamui with JD(U)'s Shyam Bihari Prasad defeating RJD's Vijay Krishna Chaudhary by 581; Kudhani in Muzaffarpur with JD(U)'s Ramesh Jaiswal topping RJD's Abdhesh Kumar by 712; Bakhri in Begusarai with RJD's Ajay Kumar Chaudhary over JD(U)'s Sanjeev Kumar by 777; and Prabhata (now Purnea's Pirpainti) with independent Vijay Kumar Singh (backed by RJD) nosing out JD(U)'s Bima Bharti by 951. These weren't flukes—2020's chemistry brewed from caste cocktails, with Tejashwi's youth pitch denting NDA's hold, but Nitish's welfare net and BJP's Hindu consolidation clawed back ground. LJP's solo run hurt NDA in 40 seats, yet Chirag's Dalit pull helped rebound. Voter turnout hit 57.05 per cent, women at 59 per cent outpacing men, and urban pockets swung saffron. Notably, the air feels different. No LJP wildcard inside NDA, but Jan Suraaj could siphon anti-establishment anger, especially among the 1.63 crore under-30s eyeing jobs over caste. SIR's deletions—steepest in Muslim districts like Kishanganj (9.69 per cent drop)—sparked cries of foul play from opposition, though ECI insists it's cleanup. Women, buoyed by NDA cash transfers, might stick, but Mahagathbandhan's promise of household jobs could lure them back. Muslims, wary of Owaisi's splits, lean RJD but demand action on floods and migration. In these 52 battlegrounds, margins matter more than ever. With first-timers averaging 5,765 per seat—enough to flip half the 2020 close calls—the NDA's machine-like booth ops face Mahagathbandhan's door-to-door grit and Jan Suraaj's outsider appeal. If youth flock to Kishor or Tejashwi, NDA's 125-seat perch wobbles; if Nitish's quiet fixes hold sway, saffron sails smooth. Bihar's throne hangs by a thread—watch the under-25s, the women, and those fateful few hundred votes.

The stakes are sky-high in Bihar's 243 constituencies, where the total voter count stands at 7.43 crore after the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision pruned the rolls by over 47 lakh names since June.

Bihar Battle 2025: NDA or Mahagathbandhan? THESE seats Hold Key to Patliputra's Gaddi

US President Donald Trump has done it again. In the spotlight for his historic Israel-Gaza ceasefire, his remarks at the peace summit in Egypt have garnered attention, but for all the wrong reasons. In what is being termed as grossly sexist, Trump called Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a ‘beautiful woman’ and even went on to say that calling a woman beautiful means the end of one’s political career in the US.&nbsp;<h2>What happened?&nbsp;</h2>During the address on the ceasefire, in a cringe-worthy moment that one assumes Trump knew would be slammed, he said, “she's a beautiful young woman. Now, if you used the word 'beautiful' in the United States about a woman, that's the end of your political career. But I'll take my chances. You don't mind being called beautiful, right? Because you are,” while Meloni quietly smiled, flanked by senior world leaders.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">US President Donald Trump calls Italian PM <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GiorgiaMeloni?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GiorgiaMeloni</a> &#39;a beautiful young woman&#39; at the Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt. <a href="https://t.co/RY2nwhg92n">pic.twitter.com/RY2nwhg92n</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/WIONews/status/1977920127720157535?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Now the problem is not just about what Trump said, it is that a man on a global stage can publicly extol another head of state being ‘beautiful’ without any repercussions, but rather emboldened with laughter and smiles. This is a dangerous trend that is rightly being called out.While Trump’s remarks were the most blatant, Meloni also received unsolicited advice from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In a clip that went viral, he is heard saying, "I saw you coming down from the plane. You look great. But I have to make you stop smoking,” to a visibly uncomfortable Meloni.&nbsp;Every woman reading this can relate to those moments when men give them unwarranted advice about their lives without ever realising that it is none of their business. Everyone knows that smoking is harmful, but pointing this out in front of the international media is hardly the right thing to do.<h2>Meloni-Modi and Misogyny</h2>Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Meloni are frequently the butt of memes on the internet as being India’s ‘power couple.’ While some of them are lighthearted, many on the internet now refer to Meloni as India’s ‘bhabhi’ or sister-in-law and even slam her when she interacts with other male leaders for allegedly ‘avoiding Modi.’

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6OBVyMI_LB/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6OBVyMI_LB/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6OBVyMI_LB/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by @daily_over_dose</a></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

This trend to make romantic assumptions reminds one of high school boys scribbling ‘FLAMES’ on the back of notebooks, hoping that their crush notices them. The only difference is that the collective ‘crush’ here is a global leader and not a seventh-grader with pigtails. Sadly, Meloni is not alone.<h2>From ‘Angry’ Hillary Clinton to Partying Marin</h2>Former Finland Prime Minister Sana Marin came under fire in 2022 when a video of her partying and dancing with her friends drew sharp derision about her competence. In a public statement, Marin later condemned these remarks as sexist and claimed that she had a right to enjoy without public scrutiny. But the internet and her critics were quick to deem her unfit for public office, as if having a personal life is somehow not allowed for politicians.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">A new video of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s “party scandal” appeared in Finland today. Seiska writes that Marin, who is married and has been in that relationship for 18 years, was seen in many questionable situations. Iltalehti has a sound expert confirming “flour-gang”. <a href="https://t.co/Nj5A71R8Rd">pic.twitter.com/Nj5A71R8Rd</a>&mdash; Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) <a href="https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1560566152622907392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Even former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has not been spared. The leader faced near constant sexism during her 2016 US Presidential campaign. From looking ‘too angry’ to always ‘wearing dark colours,’ Clinton was frequently reduced to her looks and appearance. A conservative news commentator even went so far as to say that “when Hillary Clinton shows up on TV, I inadvertently cross my legs.”Assumptions about the moral character of women if they party without guilt or smile too little are symptomatic of a mindset that belongs in times when women were seen as property and not people, when they did not have political rights, and men controlled their lives. Luckily, we are not in those times anymore, but some of us seem to be regressing rapidly.<h2>‘Khaki underwear’ to ‘beautiful South Indian bodies’</h2>Indian politics is no different when it comes to crass remarks against women leaders. In 2019, former MP Azam Khan made headlines after he made personal remarks about colleague Jaya Prada. “It took you 17 years to identify her real face, but I got to know in 17 days that she wears khaki underwear,” said Khan while on the campaign trail. In 2015, former MP Sharad Yadav also drew derision for saying that “South Indian women are beautiful and so are their bodies... women in our parts [north India] are not so beautiful.” Discussions about women's lingerie and ‘beautiful bodies’ have no place in civil society and certainly not in a country’s political discourse. It signifies a mind that looks at women as merely sexual objects to be objectified to score cheap political points.<h2>Looking beyond pretty faces</h2>While sexism is bad enough anywhere, it is especially detrimental in the political arena. Consider the Giorgia Meloni case. The Italian PM, referred to as a ‘beautiful woman’ by Trump, is a divisive figure in her home country. Fratelli d’Italia, the party she leads, is often associated with far-right ideologies, and her stance on migration and LGBTQIA+ issues is highly conservative. The country, under her regime, is even considering a complete ban on hijabs and other face coverings. She is also frequently criticised for a stagnant Italian economy, with a 2025 survey by Dire-Tecné institute showing that 50.1% of Italians are disappointed by her administration. But by reducing her to just a pretty face and a beautiful woman, we are missing the larger discourse of holding her accountable for 60 million people.<h2>Woeful Representation of Women in Politics</h2>In 2025, there are only 29 female heads of state, with the lion’s share of key positions like President and Prime Minister going to men. In India, just 14.7% of the upper and lower houses of the parliament are held by women, signalling a wide disparity between the genders. Add sexism to the mix, and the chances of women not opting for politics as a career skyrocket.<h2>Need for restraint and mature discourse</h2>Strangely, if the tables were turned, people wouldn’t be this cavalier about personal remarks. If women publicly reduced men to their ‘orange skin tones’ or balding hairlines, it would lead to uproar about ruining the dignity of the offices they hold and even calls for resignations. Why is the outrage then selective? Are we inherently biased towards men and ignore open sexism as ‘mistakes’ and ‘banter ’? The evidence certainly points to this.Women are not mere figureheads to be paraded in summits for their looks but real leaders to be heard and judged for their actions. It is time that the global polity acknowledges its big sexism problem and strives to do better.

From Donald Trump calling Italian PM Meloni a ‘beautiful woman’ to former Finnish PM Marin being slammed for partying, global politics has a long history of casual sexism. WION’s Akul Baiju examines this ecosystem of misogyny.

US President Donald Trump has done it again. In the spotlight for his historic Israel-Gaza ceasefire, his remarks at the peace summit in Egypt have garnered attention, but for all the wrong reasons. In what is being termed as grossly sexist, Trump called Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a ‘beautiful woman’ and even went on to say that calling a woman beautiful means the end of one’s political career in the US. What happened? During the address on the ceasefire, in a cringe-worthy moment that one assumes Trump knew would be slammed, he said, “she's a beautiful young woman. Now, if you used the word 'beautiful' in the United States about a woman, that's the end of your political career. But I'll take my chances. You don't mind being called beautiful, right? Because you are,” while Meloni quietly smiled, flanked by senior world leaders.

From Donald Trump calling Italian PM Meloni a ‘beautiful woman’ to former Finnish PM Marin being slammed for partying, global politics has a long history of casual sexism. WION’s Akul Baiju examines this ecosystem of casual misogyny.

Not just a ‘beautiful’ face: Global polity has a big sexism problem

As the world awaits the announcement of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (October 10), US President Donald J. Trump has once again become a focal point of speculation. Multiple nominations have been filed in his name this year, with proponents citing his administration’s role in brokering high-stakes agreements in the Middle East and the Caucasus. While Trump has long coveted the global recognition the prize confers, the Nobel Committee’s history of cautious selections raises questions about how realistic his chances truly are.<h2>Trump's role in peace deals and ceasefires</h2>Trump’s most cited diplomatic achievement remains the Abraham Accords of 2020, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab countries— a landmark moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. But more recent developments under his current term have revived the conversation. Besides this, his administration also helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas after weeks of intense fighting in Gaza. The deal, which included a large-scale prisoner exchange and international monitoring, drew praise from European diplomats and global leaders for preventing a prolonged war.&nbsp;Trump also played a behind-the-scenes role in ending the Armenia–Azerbaijan border conflict, with US envoys mediating a peace framework in tandem with the European Union. In both cases, the White House framed these agreements as evidence of Trump’s unconventional but effective diplomacy — the kind of decisive, transactional approach that supporters argue has produced results where prolonged negotiations failed.&nbsp;Several foreign lawmakers and political figures, including Malta’s foreign minister and a Norwegian parliamentarian, publicly announced they had submitted Trump’s name for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. Though the Nobel Committee does not publish its nomination list for 50 years, nominators often go public to build political momentum and shape the narrative around a candidate’s achievements. For Trump, who has repeatedly expressed frustration that he did not win the prize during his previous term, these announcements serve both a symbolic and strategic purpose.<h2>What the Nobel Committee looks for?</h2>Yet nominations are only the first step in a lengthy and highly confidential selection process. The Nobel Peace Prize is guided by Alfred Nobel’s will, which calls for honouring those who have done “the most or the best work for fraternity between countries, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Over the years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has interpreted these criteria with caution, often favouring diplomats, activists, or organisations that have fostered sustained peace or humanitarian progress over time.&nbsp;Trump’s polarising global image and his deeply divisive domestic standing complicate the picture. While his supporters highlight his role in reshaping alliances and reducing direct US military entanglements, critics argue that his diplomatic moves are transactional, short-term, and lacking multilateral backing — elements the Nobel Committee traditionally values. Historically, the Committee has avoided awarding sitting leaders embroiled in intense political controversies, preferring to wait until their legacies can be judged in full.&nbsp;Another hurdle is timing. Nobel nominations must be submitted by January 31 each year. Some of Trump’s recent nominations came after that deadline, which means they might only count for the 2026 prize cycle. Even if his achievements are considered this year, he faces stiff competition. With 338 candidates nominated for the 2025 prize, Trump’s path is narrow. Nonetheless, the possibility cannot be dismissed entirely. If the Nobel Committee chooses to make a bold statement recognising unconventional diplomacy and concrete ceasefire deals, Trump could be a surprise pick. But if past patterns are any indication, the Committee is more likely to favour long-term peace builders over polarising political figures still in office.&nbsp;For now, Trump’s Nobel ambitions remain a blend of diplomatic milestones and political theater. The answer will come from Oslo on Friday (October 10) — but the debate over whether Donald Trump deserves the world’s most symbolic peace prize is already raging far beyond Norway’s borders.&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.

From ceasefires to Accords: Can US President Donald Trump really win the Nobel Peace Prize?

As the world awaits the announcement of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday (October 10), US President Donald J. Trump has once again become a focal point of speculation. Multiple nominations have been filed in his name this year, with proponents citing his administration’s role in brokering high-stakes agreements in the Middle East and the Caucasus. While Trump has long coveted the global recognition the prize confers, the Nobel Committee’s history of cautious selections raises questions about how realistic his chances truly are. Trump's role in peace deals and ceasefires Trump’s most cited diplomatic achievement remains the Abraham Accords of 2020, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab countries— a landmark moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. But more recent developments under his current term have revived the conversation. Besides this, his administration also helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas after weeks of intense fighting in Gaza. The deal, which included a large-scale prisoner exchange and international monitoring, drew praise from European diplomats and global leaders for preventing a prolonged war. Trump also played a behind-the-scenes role in ending the Armenia–Azerbaijan border conflict, with US envoys mediating a peace framework in tandem with the European Union. In both cases, the White House framed these agreements as evidence of Trump’s unconventional but effective diplomacy — the kind of decisive, transactional approach that supporters argue has produced results where prolonged negotiations failed. Several foreign lawmakers and political figures, including Malta’s foreign minister and a Norwegian parliamentarian, publicly announced they had submitted Trump’s name for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. Though the Nobel Committee does not publish its nomination list for 50 years, nominators often go public to build political momentum and shape the narrative around a candidate’s achievements. For Trump, who has repeatedly expressed frustration that he did not win the prize during his previous term, these announcements serve both a symbolic and strategic purpose. What the Nobel Committee looks for? Yet nominations are only the first step in a lengthy and highly confidential selection process. The Nobel Peace Prize is guided by Alfred Nobel’s will, which calls for honouring those who have done “the most or the best work for fraternity between countries, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Over the years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has interpreted these criteria with caution, often favouring diplomats, activists, or organisations that have fostered sustained peace or humanitarian progress over time. Trump’s polarising global image and his deeply divisive domestic standing complicate the picture. While his supporters highlight his role in reshaping alliances and reducing direct US military entanglements, critics argue that his diplomatic moves are transactional, short-term, and lacking multilateral backing — elements the Nobel Committee traditionally values. Historically, the Committee has avoided awarding sitting leaders embroiled in intense political controversies, preferring to wait until their legacies can be judged in full. Another hurdle is timing. Nobel nominations must be submitted by January 31 each year. Some of Trump’s recent nominations came after that deadline, which means they might only count for the 2026 prize cycle. Even if his achievements are considered this year, he faces stiff competition. With 338 candidates nominated for the 2025 prize, Trump’s path is narrow. Nonetheless, the possibility cannot be dismissed entirely. If the Nobel Committee chooses to make a bold statement recognising unconventional diplomacy and concrete ceasefire deals, Trump could be a surprise pick. But if past patterns are any indication, the Committee is more likely to favour long-term peace builders over polarising political figures still in office. For now, Trump’s Nobel ambitions remain a blend of diplomatic milestones and political theater. The answer will come from Oslo on Friday (October 10) — but the debate over whether Donald Trump deserves the world’s most symbolic peace prize is already raging far beyond Norway’s borders. 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 diplomatic moves have revived Nobel Peace Prize talk recently, but history and politics may temper expectations

As always, Bihar's elections are interesting and keenly watched. This is the land of Chanakya, where people are not politically incorrect. They love to chew politics like betel paan. Here, pollsters often trip over their speculations. Political experts deem the Bihar poll the mother of all elections in India. So, with all calculations and weighing every layer of the supercharged political atmosphere, the Election Commission announces Bihar's poll schedule—two phases on November 6 and 11, as opposed to three in 2020, after Chhath Puja—the stage is set for a landmark state election. The focus of each party is on swing voters, whose allegiance oscillates according to the political hawa before an election. As two rival coalitions—the JD(U)-led NDA and the RJD-led Opposition—coalesce around compelling narratives, each vote matters a lot to win the battle of Bihar. Voters who switch loyalties and tiny parties that cut votes may decide the outcome. All eyes are on such voters to woo them for favour. The only two-phase election could not give much time for political hawa to influence voters. Given that the 2020 election was decided by a razor-thin margin of just 12,000 votes, even a small dent could change the discourse of poll results.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/election-commission-announces-dates-for-bihar-assembly-elections-1759765842749/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/election-commission-announces-dates-for-bihar-assembly-elections-1759765842749/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Does Nitish Kumar have the stomach for one last chance at the Kurshi of power? Can Yadav scion Tejashwi Yadav hold off Prime Minister Modi? Or can Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj upset the political apple cart with the narrative of the change Bihar needs? These questions hang heavy over the campaign trail. Nitish, who has flipped alliances more times than a dosa on a tawa, eyes a ninth term as chief minister. At 74, whispers in Patna's corridors suggest this could be his final roll of the dice, banking on his development pitch and the NDA's caste arithmetic. Tejashwi, the young turk who nearly toppled the government in 2020 with promises of jobs and justice, now leads the Mahagathbandhan with renewed fire, targeting Nitish's flip-flops and Modi's unfulfilled vows. Meanwhile, the NDA machine, oiled by BJP's organisational muscle, paints the Opposition as a bunch of dynasts and has-beens.&nbsp;The entry of political strategist Prashant Kishor adds a wildcard twist. While his high-visibility campaign has grabbed eyeballs, the real test is converting that buzz into votes. If his Jan Suraaj party can secure over 10 percent of the vote, the race could become wide open. Kishor, who once masterminded Modi's 2014 blitz and then turned foe, now pitches himself as Bihar's saviour from the rot of old guards. His door-to-door padyatras and anti-corruption jabs have stirred youth in urban pockets, but rural strongholds remain skeptical. Analysts say even a modest haul from Jan Suraaj could splinter votes from both sides, turning safe seats into knife-edge fights.&nbsp;The political Hawa is charged up with numerous controversies—from 'Vote Chori' allegations to the infamous Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi have cried foul over the SIR exercise, claiming it led to the deletion of over 20 lakh names from voter lists, disproportionately hitting minorities and the poor in Opposition-leaning areas. The Election Commission defends it as a housekeeping drive to weed out ghosts and duplicates ahead of the polls, but the timing—months before voting—has fuelled suspicions of foul play. 'Vote chori', a term now echoing from rally podiums, points to claims of manipulated rolls and bogus entries favouring the ruling side. BJP counters that these are desperate smears from a losing camp, but the din has already muddied the waters, with petitions piling up in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;Now, a speculative take: this short-duration, two-phased election will likely tilt the scales in favour of the ruling NDA. Why? The compressed timeline—from announcement to the last vote in just five days—leaves little room for the Opposition to mount a full-throated counter-offensive. In past multi-phase polls, stretched over weeks, Rajanitik Hawa could shift with viral gaffes or scandals; here, the NDA's deep pockets and district-level cadre can flood constituencies with last-minute sops and rallies, while Tejashwi's team scrambles to match the blitz. Generally fewer phase elections could cut poll costs and disruptions, but the realpolitik edge goes to incumbents who control the levers of state machinery. For the Opposition, it's a sprint they might not train for, especially with SIR shadows lingering. If swing voters stay put, Nitish's arithmetic could hold; else, a quick backlash might still upend the board game.A total of 7.42 crore voters will be eligible to exercise their franchise across 90,712 polling stations, all of which have webcast facilities to ensure transparent elections. Bihar has 3.92 crore male voters and 3.5 crore female voters. Nearly 14,000 voters are more than 100 years old, while 14 lakh will exercise their right to vote for the first time. In the current House, the BJP holds the largest share with 80 MLAs, followed by its ally JD(U) with 45 MLAs. Backed by four MLAs from Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), led by Union minister Jitan Ram Manjhi, the NDA’s tally stands at 129, comfortably above the 122-member majority mark. On the opposition side, the RJD, Congress, and Left parties together have 112 MLAs, falling short but eyeing alliances to bridge the gap.&nbsp;In the end, only Bihari Babus (voters) could know which direction the political Hawa is blowing and which party is being carried along. From the bustling ghats of Patna to the dusty fields of Darbhanga, it is the everyday voter—paan in hand, cynicism in heart—who will tip the balance. As November dawns, Bihar braces for another chapter in its endless poll saga, where promises clash with realities and underdogs dream big. The mother of all elections? You bet— and the verdict will echo far beyond the state's borders.&nbsp;

Does Nitish Kumar have the stomach for one last chance at the Kurshi of power? Can Yadav scion Tejashwi Yadav hold off Prime Minister Modi? 

As always, Bihar's elections are interesting and keenly watched. This is the land of Chanakya, where people are not politically incorrect. They love to chew politics like betel paan. Here, pollsters often trip over their speculations. Political experts deem the Bihar poll the mother of all elections in India. So, with all calculations and weighing every layer of the supercharged political atmosphere, the Election Commission announces Bihar's poll schedule—two phases on November 6 and 11, as opposed to three in 2020, after Chhath Puja—the stage is set for a landmark state election. The focus of each party is on swing voters, whose allegiance oscillates according to the political hawa before an election. As two rival coalitions—the JD(U)-led NDA and the RJD-led Opposition—coalesce around compelling narratives, each vote matters a lot to win the battle of Bihar. Voters who switch loyalties and tiny parties that cut votes may decide the outcome. All eyes are on such voters to woo them for favour. The only two-phase election could not give much time for political hawa to influence voters. Given that the 2020 election was decided by a razor-thin margin of just 12,000 votes, even a small dent could change the discourse of poll results. https://www.wionews.com/videos/election-commission-announces-dates-for-bihar-assembly-elections-1759765842749/embed Does Nitish Kumar have the stomach for one last chance at the Kurshi of power? Can Yadav scion Tejashwi Yadav hold off Prime Minister Modi? Or can Prashant Kishor's Jan Suraaj upset the political apple cart with the narrative of the change Bihar needs? These questions hang heavy over the campaign trail. Nitish, who has flipped alliances more times than a dosa on a tawa, eyes a ninth term as chief minister. At 74, whispers in Patna's corridors suggest this could be his final roll of the dice, banking on his development pitch and the NDA's caste arithmetic. Tejashwi, the young turk who nearly toppled the government in 2020 with promises of jobs and justice, now leads the Mahagathbandhan with renewed fire, targeting Nitish's flip-flops and Modi's unfulfilled vows. Meanwhile, the NDA machine, oiled by BJP's organisational muscle, paints the Opposition as a bunch of dynasts and has-beens. The entry of political strategist Prashant Kishor adds a wildcard twist. While his high-visibility campaign has grabbed eyeballs, the real test is converting that buzz into votes. If his Jan Suraaj party can secure over 10 percent of the vote, the race could become wide open. Kishor, who once masterminded Modi's 2014 blitz and then turned foe, now pitches himself as Bihar's saviour from the rot of old guards. His door-to-door padyatras and anti-corruption jabs have stirred youth in urban pockets, but rural strongholds remain skeptical. Analysts say even a modest haul from Jan Suraaj could splinter votes from both sides, turning safe seats into knife-edge fights. The political Hawa is charged up with numerous controversies—from 'Vote Chori' allegations to the infamous Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi have cried foul over the SIR exercise, claiming it led to the deletion of over 20 lakh names from voter lists, disproportionately hitting minorities and the poor in Opposition-leaning areas. The Election Commission defends it as a housekeeping drive to weed out ghosts and duplicates ahead of the polls, but the timing—months before voting—has fuelled suspicions of foul play. 'Vote chori', a term now echoing from rally podiums, points to claims of manipulated rolls and bogus entries favouring the ruling side. BJP counters that these are desperate smears from a losing camp, but the din has already muddied the waters, with petitions piling up in the Supreme Court. Now, a speculative take: this short-duration, two-phased election will likely tilt the scales in favour of the ruling NDA. Why? The compressed timeline—from announcement to the last vote in just five days—leaves little room for the Opposition to mount a full-throated counter-offensive. In past multi-phase polls, stretched over weeks, Rajanitik Hawa could shift with viral gaffes or scandals; here, the NDA's deep pockets and district-level cadre can flood constituencies with last-minute sops and rallies, while Tejashwi's team scrambles to match the blitz. Generally fewer phase elections could cut poll costs and disruptions, but the realpolitik edge goes to incumbents who control the levers of state machinery. For the Opposition, it's a sprint they might not train for, especially with SIR shadows lingering. If swing voters stay put, Nitish's arithmetic could hold; else, a quick backlash might still upend the board game. A total of 7.42 crore voters will be eligible to exercise their franchise across 90,712 polling stations, all of which have webcast facilities to ensure transparent elections. Bihar has 3.92 crore male voters and 3.5 crore female voters. Nearly 14,000 voters are more than 100 years old, while 14 lakh will exercise their right to vote for the first time. In the current House, the BJP holds the largest share with 80 MLAs, followed by its ally JD(U) with 45 MLAs. Backed by four MLAs from Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), led by Union minister Jitan Ram Manjhi, the NDA’s tally stands at 129, comfortably above the 122-member majority mark. On the opposition side, the RJD, Congress, and Left parties together have 112 MLAs, falling short but eyeing alliances to bridge the gap. In the end, only Bihari Babus (voters) could know which direction the political Hawa is blowing and which party is being carried along. From the bustling ghats of Patna to the dusty fields of Darbhanga, it is the everyday voter—paan in hand, cynicism in heart—who will tip the balance. As November dawns, Bihar braces for another chapter in its endless poll saga, where promises clash with realities and underdogs dream big. The mother of all elections? You bet— and the verdict will echo far beyond the state's borders.

Does Nitish Kumar have the stomach for one last chance at the Kurshi of power? Can Yadav scion Tejashwi Yadav hold off Prime Minister Modi?&nbsp;

Bihar Polls in just two phases & five days: Here's the real reasons behind the rush?

When can we expect the US to have a military base in Balochistan or the Khyber region? &nbsp;That's the cynical question I asked myself as news poured from and on Pakistan over the past month about various aspects of diplomacy and defence that sent mixed signals. I was a bit confused for a while, but then a famous subcontinental proverb came to mind, and things fell into place -- almost.I was reminded of that proverb used by Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's celebrity journalist-turned-diplomat, in a magazine article in the 1980s. As I recall, she was mocking her country's then-military ruler, General Zia Ul Haq. The elephant has different teeth to show and different ones to eat, wrote the London School of Economics-educated feminist who has had the distinction of being appointed as high commissioner to the UK and ambassador to the US by otherwise warring Pakistan parties and military ruler General Parvez Musharraf.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/pakistan-army-chief-or-shopkeeper-asim-munir-ridiculed-for-rare-earth-minerals-photo-op-with-trump-watch-1759380620882">Pakistan Army chief or shopkeeper? Asim Munir ridiculed for rare earth minerals photo-op with Trump. Watch</a>Her words ring true across the border, as the proverb is a shared one, though a lot else might be at odds between India and Pakistan. Haathi ke daanth khane ke aur, dikhane ke aur.It seems to me that some words and actions of the Islamabad establishment are meant to please the White House and its incumbent, Donald Trump, while others involve pacifying a domestic audience upset over Israel's attacks on Palestinians. There could also be some long-term hedging by Islamabad to prove to no one in particular that Pakistan is a sovereign state with no pronounced tilt.Conflicting images do send mixed signals, as do diplomatic tightrope walks.Field Marshal Asim Munir, a rare example of a Hafiz-e-Quran who also doubles as an extraordinary friend of Uncle Sam, was recently seen displaying some hard rock classics (not the musical variety) to President Donald Trump at the White House in the company of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who seemed to be playing second fiddle to the army strongman. &nbsp;Now, a Hafiz-e-Quran (Guardian of the Quran) is a title given to a Muslim who has memorised the entire Holy Quran by heart, understanding its teachings and acting upon them. In the backdrop of an outrage in the Muslim world about what Israel is doing in Gaza, Munir's rock show was more than tricky.The rocks were ostensibly proof of rare earth minerals found in Balochistan, and a signal that the place was for Washington to use. Given Islamabad's strongly denied accusations that India has a role to play in Balochistan's insurgency, and given that the Chinese already have a presence in the region through the Gwadar port they are building, the displayed rocks were a likely suggestion for third-party intervention by the US in the region.Coincidentally, both Rolling Stones and Rare Earth are names of classic rock bands, and one may be forgiven for using digressive puns to illustrate a point, but it is clear that Pakistan's rulers were out to gather some moss by inviting US investors to Balochistan as they showcased rare earth minerals, in which China has an edge in a cutting-edge technology race in which the minerals are vital in areas like electronics and green energy. Not just Balochistan, even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, an equally troubled province rocked by local militants inspired by Afghanistan's Taliban, is said to be rich in rare earths.Such heavy metal diplomacy is what made me think of whether and when the US will get access to Balochistan (or KP) -- first as a country with investment interests and later, possibly, as one that must protect its interests with military support. &nbsp;Look at the location. Both KP and Balochistan are close to Iran as well as Afghanistan, with a missile range that is comfortably proximate to China. It doesn't get more strategic than this.Consider the fact that days before the White House rock show, Taliban officials rejected the idea that the US may retake Afghanistan's Bagram air base after Trump hinted at that. US officials have since denied the idea, but you never know in geopolitics. Options may involve future engagement -- or alternatives in the same region.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-location-syndrome-as-trump-woos-munir-pakistan-s-diplomatic-geography-matters-more-than-its-political-history-1750337854563">As I have argued before</a>, Pakistan's location is so strategic for the US that it is often forced to make peace, if not friendship, with its generals. &nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-location-syndrome-as-trump-woos-munir-pakistan-s-diplomatic-geography-matters-more-than-its-political-history-1750337854563">The Location Syndrome: As Trump woos Munir, Pakistan’s diplomatic geography matters more than its political history</a>The generals in a failing economy know their position well, but they have to show they are smartly neutral and that Pakistan is sovereign as a country. That probably explains the recent defence pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that talks of mutual help in the face of any aggression. A gentle reminder that might be of help here is that there is a Shia-Sunni conflict playing out in which Iran, Balochistan, and Yemen fall in the Shia zone, and fit well into the US scheme of disciplining Iran and Yemen's Houthi rebels who get Tehran's support.But what do Pakistan's rulers tell their ordinary Muslim citizens and assorted humanists upset over the US and Israel joining forces in the attacks on Palestinian territories? Here's where I believe Islamabad's recent rhetoric about Pakistan being a nuclear power that might help generate a Muslim version of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) fits in. This might also help Pakistan's intelligence apparatus psychologically "manage" jihadist groups that work with an Islamist narrative with help from the generals.Last month, at a summit of over 40 Muslim countries in Doha after Israel's strikes in Qatar, Pakistan proposed an "Arab-Islamic task force", hinting at a NATO-style military alliance. &nbsp;How does that tally with Trump's Palestine policy or the West's concerns over Islamist extremists in general?A lot would depend on how you look at it. One can see Pakistan's posturing as a short-term attempt to balance a clear pro-US stance with some fluffy ideas to address a domestic constituency weaned on the greatness of Islam. Or one can see it as an effort to somehow "play" the Trump administration by telling White House's narcissistic incumbent exactly what he wants to hear while building its geopolitical strengths for an indefinite future.While the proverb on the elephant having different teeth to eat and different ones to show fits in rather well, the question that we cannot easily answer is whether Pakistan's generals are trying to hoodwink their own countrymen and women or vulnerable officials at the White House and the State Department. Watch this space.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In the backdrop of an outrage in the Muslim world about what Israel is doing in Gaza, Munir's rock show was more than tricky.

When can we expect the US to have a military base in Balochistan or the Khyber region? That's the cynical question I asked myself as news poured from and on Pakistan over the past month about various aspects of diplomacy and defence that sent mixed signals. I was a bit confused for a while, but then a famous subcontinental proverb came to mind, and things fell into place -- almost. I was reminded of that proverb used by Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's celebrity journalist-turned-diplomat, in a magazine article in the 1980s. As I recall, she was mocking her country's then-military ruler, General Zia Ul Haq. The elephant has different teeth to show and different ones to eat, wrote the London School of Economics-educated feminist who has had the distinction of being appointed as high commissioner to the UK and ambassador to the US by otherwise warring Pakistan parties and military ruler General Parvez Musharraf. Also read | Pakistan Army chief or shopkeeper? Asim Munir ridiculed for rare earth minerals photo-op with Trump. Watch Her words ring true across the border, as the proverb is a shared one, though a lot else might be at odds between India and Pakistan. Haathi ke daanth khane ke aur, dikhane ke aur. It seems to me that some words and actions of the Islamabad establishment are meant to please the White House and its incumbent, Donald Trump, while others involve pacifying a domestic audience upset over Israel's attacks on Palestinians. There could also be some long-term hedging by Islamabad to prove to no one in particular that Pakistan is a sovereign state with no pronounced tilt. Conflicting images do send mixed signals, as do diplomatic tightrope walks. Field Marshal Asim Munir, a rare example of a Hafiz-e-Quran who also doubles as an extraordinary friend of Uncle Sam, was recently seen displaying some hard rock classics (not the musical variety) to President Donald Trump at the White House in the company of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who seemed to be playing second fiddle to the army strongman. Now, a Hafiz-e-Quran (Guardian of the Quran) is a title given to a Muslim who has memorised the entire Holy Quran by heart, understanding its teachings and acting upon them. In the backdrop of an outrage in the Muslim world about what Israel is doing in Gaza, Munir's rock show was more than tricky. The rocks were ostensibly proof of rare earth minerals found in Balochistan, and a signal that the place was for Washington to use. Given Islamabad's strongly denied accusations that India has a role to play in Balochistan's insurgency, and given that the Chinese already have a presence in the region through the Gwadar port they are building, the displayed rocks were a likely suggestion for third-party intervention by the US in the region. Coincidentally, both Rolling Stones and Rare Earth are names of classic rock bands, and one may be forgiven for using digressive puns to illustrate a point, but it is clear that Pakistan's rulers were out to gather some moss by inviting US investors to Balochistan as they showcased rare earth minerals, in which China has an edge in a cutting-edge technology race in which the minerals are vital in areas like electronics and green energy. Not just Balochistan, even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, an equally troubled province rocked by local militants inspired by Afghanistan's Taliban, is said to be rich in rare earths. Such heavy metal diplomacy is what made me think of whether and when the US will get access to Balochistan (or KP) -- first as a country with investment interests and later, possibly, as one that must protect its interests with military support. Look at the location. Both KP and Balochistan are close to Iran as well as Afghanistan, with a missile range that is comfortably proximate to China. It doesn't get more strategic than this. Consider the fact that days before the White House rock show, Taliban officials rejected the idea that the US may retake Afghanistan's Bagram air base after Trump hinted at that. US officials have since denied the idea, but you never know in geopolitics. Options may involve future engagement -- or alternatives in the same region. As I have argued before, Pakistan's location is so strategic for the US that it is often forced to make peace, if not friendship, with its generals. Also read | The Location Syndrome: As Trump woos Munir, Pakistan’s diplomatic geography matters more than its political history The generals in a failing economy know their position well, but they have to show they are smartly neutral and that Pakistan is sovereign as a country. That probably explains the recent defence pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that talks of mutual help in the face of any aggression. A gentle reminder that might be of help here is that there is a Shia-Sunni conflict playing out in which Iran, Balochistan, and Yemen fall in the Shia zone, and fit well into the US scheme of disciplining Iran and Yemen's Houthi rebels who get Tehran's support. But what do Pakistan's rulers tell their ordinary Muslim citizens and assorted humanists upset over the US and Israel joining forces in the attacks on Palestinian territories? Here's where I believe Islamabad's recent rhetoric about Pakistan being a nuclear power that might help generate a Muslim version of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) fits in. This might also help Pakistan's intelligence apparatus psychologically "manage" jihadist groups that work with an Islamist narrative with help from the generals. Last month, at a summit of over 40 Muslim countries in Doha after Israel's strikes in Qatar, Pakistan proposed an "Arab-Islamic task force", hinting at a NATO-style military alliance. How does that tally with Trump's Palestine policy or the West's concerns over Islamist extremists in general? A lot would depend on how you look at it. One can see Pakistan's posturing as a short-term attempt to balance a clear pro-US stance with some fluffy ideas to address a domestic constituency weaned on the greatness of Islam. Or one can see it as an effort to somehow "play" the Trump administration by telling White House's narcissistic incumbent exactly what he wants to hear while building its geopolitical strengths for an indefinite future. While the proverb on the elephant having different teeth to eat and different ones to show fits in rather well, the question that we cannot easily answer is whether Pakistan's generals are trying to hoodwink their own countrymen and women or vulnerable officials at the White House and the State Department. Watch this space.

In the backdrop of an outrage in the Muslim world about what Israel is doing in Gaza, Munir's rock show was more than tricky.

Hard ball or soft state? Pakistan's White House rock show reveals double-faced diplomacy

Since September 29, after presenting his 20-point plan to end the Gaza war, Donald Trump has been giving Hamas a series of ultimatums. At first, he said he wanted a reply within 3–4 days. Later, on social media, he set a final deadline — if Hamas didn’t reach an agreement with Israel by October 5, 6:00 p.m. (US time) — that is October 6, 3:30 a.m. (IST, Monday) — then “all HELL would break loose.”Hamas tried to act quickly to avoid missing Trump’s deadline, but its October 3rd response was far from what Trump wanted. However, the group did make one important new concession.The group made one key concession — it has agreed in principle to release all 48 hostages, including the 20 believed to be alive, before Israel completely withdraws its forces from the Gaza Strip.It repeated its earlier stand that a technocratic government — meaning a government run by experts and professionals instead of politicians — could later manage Gaza’s administration. However, it has not agreed to give up weapons or to stay away from controlling Gaza.Its reply had many conditions. It said it would need to “discuss the details” before releasing the hostages and ignored most parts of Trump’s 20-point plan.The statement was cleverly written — it sounded like a “yes,” but actually meant “yes, but…”. This was enough to calm Trump’s ultimatum, at least for now, reports The Economist.The main question now is whether Hamas will make more compromises in the coming talks. It may not, as the group is internally divided and its leaders do not trust Trump’s promise that the war will truly end.Trump took Hamas’s reply as a “yes.” He posted on social media that “Hamas is ready for lasting PEACE” and told Israel to stop bombing Gaza to help reach a hostage deal. But Israeli officials said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was caught off guard — meaning he was surprised and not informed in advance — by Trump’s announcement.Still, the prime minister had no real choice but to agree. He said Israel is getting ready to start the “first phase” of Trump’s plan.The army reduced its weeks-long attack aimed at taking over Gaza City. Qatar and Egypt said they are ready to begin talks on the hostage release plan. Israel is already preparing a team to join the talks in Cairo, which are expected to start soon. However, many remain doubtful about the outcome.Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator and close ally of Trump, disagreed with the president’s view. He said Hamas’s reply was basically a rejection of Trump’s “take it or leave it” offer — meaning Hamas did not fully accept the proposal and wanted to negotiate further instead of agreeing completely. He added that even though Netanyahu was surprised, he would soon call Washington to give the same message.Optimists now hope the war may finally end, as it nears its third year. Trump has put strong U.S. pressure on Israel. The Israeli air strike on Qatar on September 9, which failed to kill Hamas leaders, seems to have made Trump believe that he must control Netanyahu’s actions.At the same time, regional leaders increased pressure on Hamas. When spy chiefs from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey met Hamas leaders in Doha last month, they told them that Trump’s plan was the last chance to end the war.Netanyahu and his aides were happy earlier in the week when Trump’s plan was released, as it included many of Israel’s demands. In Jerusalem, the common belief was that these demands were too hard for Hamas to accept — like poison pills — which would then give Israel a reason to keep fighting if Hamas refused them.But Hamas managed to avoid that trap, and now Netanyahu is stuck — caught between a U.S. president eager for a peace deal and an Israeli public tired of two years of war and desperate to see the hostages return home.Trump’s full 20-point plan has wide support — both in Israel, where 72% of people approve it, and in Gaza, where 2 million people are desperate for the war to end. Celebrations broke out in Gaza after Trump received Hamas’s reply.Even with the recent hope, big challenges remain — even for a quick hostage release deal. The sides still disagree sharply on weapons control and on who will officially or practically rule Gaza in the future.Hamas appears to have divided Trump’s plan into two parts. The first part includes a ceasefire, a hostage deal, and a large flow of humanitarian aid, all to happen within days after an agreement. The second part focuses on how Gaza will be rebuilt and governed after the war.In a way, Hamas is copying Israel’s earlier approach from January, when Israel agreed only to the first phase of a three-step ceasefire—a temporary truce, aid supply, and limited hostage release—but refused to discuss the next two phases, which involved full troop withdrawal, all hostages’ release, and Gaza’s reconstruction.Trump became angry after seeing the weak and starved condition of Israeli hostages and how Hamas displayed them publicly before releasing them. He later agreed with Israel’s decision to resume the war.This time, Hamas acted before Israel by talking to Trump through Qatar. Its leaders in Doha are mostly ready to accept the first part of Trump’s plan, but they still have two major concerns.Hamas fears that a deal could collapse after it releases the hostages, as they are its only bargaining power over Israel. It wants strong guarantees that Netanyahu will not restart the war, like he did in March.“They don’t want just a three-day ceasefire,” said one Arab official involved in the talks. The Hamas commanders inside Gaza, who hold the hostages, are more worried about this risk than their leaders in Doha, showing a division within the group.Hamas also raised doubts about Israel’s pullout from Gaza. In its message to Trump, the group said it would release the hostages only if it led to a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.But Trump’s plan does not promise a full withdrawal. It says Israel will give up only part of Gaza’s land after the hostages are freed — though the exact area is unclear, as the map in the plan looks roughly drawn.Future withdrawals are tied to unclear conditions, and Israel would be allowed to keep a “buffer zone” along the Gaza border.There is even less agreement on the second part of the plan, which talks about Gaza’s future in a broad but unclear way. Trump would lead a “board of peace” to rebuild Gaza, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be part of it.Arab countries would send troops for a peacekeeping force to maintain security. Hamas would have to completely surrender its weapons and disband its military wing, meaning it could no longer fight or control any part of Gaza. It would also be barred from joining Gaza’s new government, and its members would have to choose between amnesty (forgiveness) or exile (leaving Gaza).Hamas refused almost all parts of this plan. It said it would allow a group of independent Palestinians — not foreign leaders like Tony Blair — to run Gaza after the war. It also avoided talking about disarmament, meaning it does not plan to give up its weapons.An Arab mediator believes Hamas might agree to surrender its heavy weapons, like rockets, since its stock is already low. However, it would keep small arms and wants to be part of any talks about Gaza’s future.Supporters of Trump’s plan say these disagreements are not major obstacles. What matters most, they argue, is to start the first phase quickly — stop the war and free the hostages. This will give more time later to discuss the tougher issues.But this assumes both sides will ignore major issues for now. Will Israel agree to a deal without a clear plan to disarm Hamas? Will Hamas accept it without firm promises on Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza? Much depends on Trump’s pressure and assurances to both sides — but if talks take too long, his interest may fade.The Trump plan lacks clear details and will need days or weeks of talks before it can be carried out. Hamas has shown readiness to join these talks, but no one knows yet whether they will succeed or fail.&nbsp;

The main question now is whether Hamas will make more compromises in the coming talks. It may not, as the group is internally divided and its leaders do not trust Trump’s promise that the war will truly end.

Since September 29, after presenting his 20-point plan to end the Gaza war, Donald Trump has been giving Hamas a series of ultimatums. At first, he said he wanted a reply within 3–4 days. Later, on social media, he set a final deadline — if Hamas didn’t reach an agreement with Israel by October 5, 6:00 p.m. (US time) — that is October 6, 3:30 a.m. (IST, Monday) — then “all HELL would break loose.” Hamas tried to act quickly to avoid missing Trump’s deadline, but its October 3rd response was far from what Trump wanted. However, the group did make one important new concession. The group made one key concession — it has agreed in principle to release all 48 hostages, including the 20 believed to be alive, before Israel completely withdraws its forces from the Gaza Strip. It repeated its earlier stand that a technocratic government — meaning a government run by experts and professionals instead of politicians — could later manage Gaza’s administration. However, it has not agreed to give up weapons or to stay away from controlling Gaza. Its reply had many conditions. It said it would need to “discuss the details” before releasing the hostages and ignored most parts of Trump’s 20-point plan. The statement was cleverly written — it sounded like a “yes,” but actually meant “yes, but…”. This was enough to calm Trump’s ultimatum, at least for now, reports The Economist. The main question now is whether Hamas will make more compromises in the coming talks. It may not, as the group is internally divided and its leaders do not trust Trump’s promise that the war will truly end. Trump took Hamas’s reply as a “yes.” He posted on social media that “Hamas is ready for lasting PEACE” and told Israel to stop bombing Gaza to help reach a hostage deal. But Israeli officials said Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was caught off guard — meaning he was surprised and not informed in advance — by Trump’s announcement. Still, the prime minister had no real choice but to agree. He said Israel is getting ready to start the “first phase” of Trump’s plan. The army reduced its weeks-long attack aimed at taking over Gaza City. Qatar and Egypt said they are ready to begin talks on the hostage release plan. Israel is already preparing a team to join the talks in Cairo, which are expected to start soon. However, many remain doubtful about the outcome. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator and close ally of Trump, disagreed with the president’s view. He said Hamas’s reply was basically a rejection of Trump’s “take it or leave it” offer — meaning Hamas did not fully accept the proposal and wanted to negotiate further instead of agreeing completely. He added that even though Netanyahu was surprised, he would soon call Washington to give the same message. Optimists now hope the war may finally end, as it nears its third year. Trump has put strong U.S. pressure on Israel. The Israeli air strike on Qatar on September 9, which failed to kill Hamas leaders, seems to have made Trump believe that he must control Netanyahu’s actions. At the same time, regional leaders increased pressure on Hamas. When spy chiefs from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey met Hamas leaders in Doha last month, they told them that Trump’s plan was the last chance to end the war. Netanyahu and his aides were happy earlier in the week when Trump’s plan was released, as it included many of Israel’s demands. In Jerusalem, the common belief was that these demands were too hard for Hamas to accept — like poison pills — which would then give Israel a reason to keep fighting if Hamas refused them. But Hamas managed to avoid that trap, and now Netanyahu is stuck — caught between a U.S. president eager for a peace deal and an Israeli public tired of two years of war and desperate to see the hostages return home. Trump’s full 20-point plan has wide support — both in Israel, where 72% of people approve it, and in Gaza, where 2 million people are desperate for the war to end. Celebrations broke out in Gaza after Trump received Hamas’s reply. Even with the recent hope, big challenges remain — even for a quick hostage release deal. The sides still disagree sharply on weapons control and on who will officially or practically rule Gaza in the future. Hamas appears to have divided Trump’s plan into two parts. The first part includes a ceasefire, a hostage deal, and a large flow of humanitarian aid, all to happen within days after an agreement. The second part focuses on how Gaza will be rebuilt and governed after the war. In a way, Hamas is copying Israel’s earlier approach from January, when Israel agreed only to the first phase of a three-step ceasefire—a temporary truce, aid supply, and limited hostage release—but refused to discuss the next two phases, which involved full troop withdrawal, all hostages’ release, and Gaza’s reconstruction. Trump became angry after seeing the weak and starved condition of Israeli hostages and how Hamas displayed them publicly before releasing them. He later agreed with Israel’s decision to resume the war. This time, Hamas acted before Israel by talking to Trump through Qatar. Its leaders in Doha are mostly ready to accept the first part of Trump’s plan, but they still have two major concerns. Hamas fears that a deal could collapse after it releases the hostages, as they are its only bargaining power over Israel. It wants strong guarantees that Netanyahu will not restart the war, like he did in March. “They don’t want just a three-day ceasefire,” said one Arab official involved in the talks. The Hamas commanders inside Gaza, who hold the hostages, are more worried about this risk than their leaders in Doha, showing a division within the group. Hamas also raised doubts about Israel’s pullout from Gaza. In its message to Trump, the group said it would release the hostages only if it led to a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. But Trump’s plan does not promise a full withdrawal. It says Israel will give up only part of Gaza’s land after the hostages are freed — though the exact area is unclear, as the map in the plan looks roughly drawn. Future withdrawals are tied to unclear conditions, and Israel would be allowed to keep a “buffer zone” along the Gaza border. There is even less agreement on the second part of the plan, which talks about Gaza’s future in a broad but unclear way. Trump would lead a “board of peace” to rebuild Gaza, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be part of it. Arab countries would send troops for a peacekeeping force to maintain security. Hamas would have to completely surrender its weapons and disband its military wing, meaning it could no longer fight or control any part of Gaza. It would also be barred from joining Gaza’s new government, and its members would have to choose between amnesty (forgiveness) or exile (leaving Gaza). Hamas refused almost all parts of this plan. It said it would allow a group of independent Palestinians — not foreign leaders like Tony Blair — to run Gaza after the war. It also avoided talking about disarmament, meaning it does not plan to give up its weapons. An Arab mediator believes Hamas might agree to surrender its heavy weapons, like rockets, since its stock is already low. However, it would keep small arms and wants to be part of any talks about Gaza’s future. Supporters of Trump’s plan say these disagreements are not major obstacles. What matters most, they argue, is to start the first phase quickly — stop the war and free the hostages. This will give more time later to discuss the tougher issues. But this assumes both sides will ignore major issues for now. Will Israel agree to a deal without a clear plan to disarm Hamas? Will Hamas accept it without firm promises on Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza? Much depends on Trump’s pressure and assurances to both sides — but if talks take too long, his interest may fade. The Trump plan lacks clear details and will need days or weeks of talks before it can be carried out. Hamas has shown readiness to join these talks, but no one knows yet whether they will succeed or fail.

The main question now is whether Hamas will make more compromises in the coming talks. It may not, as the group is internally divided and its leaders do not trust Trump’s promise that the war will truly end.

Trump's Ultimatum: Did Hamas Just Say "Yes" to Peace or "Yes" to More War?

India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is on the verge of a historic breakthrough with the upcoming test of Dhvani, a cutting-edge hypersonic missile that promises to catapult the nation into an elite club of military superpowers. This weapon, designed to fly faster than Mach 5 — over 7,400 km/h — represents not just technological prowess, but a strategic deterrent that will fundamentally alter the security landscape in South Asia and beyond.The Dhvani is being developed as a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), a revolutionary weapon system that combines blistering speed with unprecedented maneuverability. Unlike conventional cruise missiles that follow predictable flight paths, the Dhvani will be launched to extreme altitudes before gliding toward its target at hypersonic speeds. This unique capability makes it nearly impossible to detect and even harder to intercept, rendering most existing missile defense systems obsolete.What sets Dhvani apart is its sophisticated design. The missile features a blended wing-body configuration measuring approximately 9 meters in length and 2.5 meters in width. Its advanced heat protection system, utilizing ultra-high-temperature ceramic composites, can withstand temperatures between 2,000-3,000°C generated during atmospheric reentry. The stealth-optimized geometry, including angled surfaces and smooth contours, dramatically reduces its radar cross-section, making it virtually invisible to enemy tracking systems.DRDO's journey to this milestone began with the successful testing of the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV), which laid the groundwork for scramjet propulsion and thermal shielding technologies. Now, with Dhvani, India is poised to join the United States, Russia, and China in the exclusive hypersonic weapons club. If the planned test before year-end succeeds, operational deployment is expected by 2029-30, with estimated ranges between 6,000 to 10,000 kilometers — potentially doubling the reach of India's current Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile.The strategic implications for the region are profound. While Pakistan continues to rely on conventional ballistic missiles and older generation weapons, India's hypersonic capabilities will create an unbridgeable technological gap. The Dhvani's ability to execute sharp, unpredictable maneuvers during its terminal phase means that even the most advanced Pakistani air defense systems would be rendered ineffective. This isn't just about military superiority; it's about establishing an unassailable strategic deterrent that ensures regional stability through unmatched strength.When compared to similar systems globally, Dhvani stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the best. China's DF-ZF and Russia's Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles have already demonstrated the devastating potential of such weapons. The United States is playing catch-up with its Dark Eagle and HACM programs, facing repeated delays despite massive budgets. India's achievement is even more remarkable considering it has developed this capability with indigenous technology, showcasing the nation's self-reliance in critical defense sectors.The Dhvani program is part of India's broader hypersonic portfolio, which includes multiple HGV configurations designed for different strategic roles — from long-range anti-ship missions to intercontinental nuclear deterrence. This multi-pronged approach ensures that India will have the right tool for every strategic scenario, from regional conflicts to global power projection.As the test date approaches, the message to adversaries is clear: India's military technological leap isn't just incremental; it's transformational. The Dhvani hypersonic missile represents the future of warfare, where speed, stealth, and precision converge to create an unstoppable force. For India, this isn't merely about keeping pace with global powers — it's about setting the pace and ensuring that the nation's sovereignty remains unchallenged in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.&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;

The Dhvani is being developed as a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), a revolutionary weapon system that combines blistering speed with unprecedented maneuverability.

India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is on the verge of a historic breakthrough with the upcoming test of Dhvani, a cutting-edge hypersonic missile that promises to catapult the nation into an elite club of military superpowers. This weapon, designed to fly faster than Mach 5 — over 7,400 km/h — represents not just technological prowess, but a strategic deterrent that will fundamentally alter the security landscape in South Asia and beyond. The Dhvani is being developed as a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), a revolutionary weapon system that combines blistering speed with unprecedented maneuverability. Unlike conventional cruise missiles that follow predictable flight paths, the Dhvani will be launched to extreme altitudes before gliding toward its target at hypersonic speeds. This unique capability makes it nearly impossible to detect and even harder to intercept, rendering most existing missile defense systems obsolete. What sets Dhvani apart is its sophisticated design. The missile features a blended wing-body configuration measuring approximately 9 meters in length and 2.5 meters in width. Its advanced heat protection system, utilizing ultra-high-temperature ceramic composites, can withstand temperatures between 2,000-3,000°C generated during atmospheric reentry. The stealth-optimized geometry, including angled surfaces and smooth contours, dramatically reduces its radar cross-section, making it virtually invisible to enemy tracking systems. DRDO's journey to this milestone began with the successful testing of the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV), which laid the groundwork for scramjet propulsion and thermal shielding technologies. Now, with Dhvani, India is poised to join the United States, Russia, and China in the exclusive hypersonic weapons club. If the planned test before year-end succeeds, operational deployment is expected by 2029-30, with estimated ranges between 6,000 to 10,000 kilometers — potentially doubling the reach of India's current Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile. The strategic implications for the region are profound. While Pakistan continues to rely on conventional ballistic missiles and older generation weapons, India's hypersonic capabilities will create an unbridgeable technological gap. The Dhvani's ability to execute sharp, unpredictable maneuvers during its terminal phase means that even the most advanced Pakistani air defense systems would be rendered ineffective. This isn't just about military superiority; it's about establishing an unassailable strategic deterrent that ensures regional stability through unmatched strength. When compared to similar systems globally, Dhvani stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the best. China's DF-ZF and Russia's Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles have already demonstrated the devastating potential of such weapons. The United States is playing catch-up with its Dark Eagle and HACM programs, facing repeated delays despite massive budgets. India's achievement is even more remarkable considering it has developed this capability with indigenous technology, showcasing the nation's self-reliance in critical defense sectors. The Dhvani program is part of India's broader hypersonic portfolio, which includes multiple HGV configurations designed for different strategic roles — from long-range anti-ship missions to intercontinental nuclear deterrence. This multi-pronged approach ensures that India will have the right tool for every strategic scenario, from regional conflicts to global power projection. As the test date approaches, the message to adversaries is clear: India's military technological leap isn't just incremental; it's transformational. The Dhvani hypersonic missile represents the future of warfare, where speed, stealth, and precision converge to create an unstoppable force. For India, this isn't merely about keeping pace with global powers — it's about setting the pace and ensuring that the nation's sovereignty remains unchallenged in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment. 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 Dhvani is being developed as a Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV), a revolutionary weapon system that combines blistering speed with unprecedented maneuverability.

Dhvani: The Indian hypersonic beast that Pakistan can't stop and China can't ignore

On September 25, four days before announcing a peace plan for Gaza, U.S. President Donald Trump made a categorical statement on the issue at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the future of territory the Palestinians see as a key part of a future state.&nbsp;“I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it. It’s not going to happen.”&nbsp;Trump’s confident assertion implies that he thinks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unfailingly follows the wishes of Israel’s most important ally. Particularly where the West Bank is concerned, This is not the case.&nbsp;For decades, the Israeli leader has defied U.S. policy, international law and even U.N. Security Council resolutions opposing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.&nbsp;From the beginning of the peace process that led to the 1993 Oslo accord, the number of Jewish settlers grew from 110,000 to more than half a million.&nbsp;Right-wing members of Netanyahu’s cabinet have been clamouring for the annexation of the West Bank or, as they call it by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria.&nbsp;For decades, Israeli leaders shrugged of criticism of the relentless expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank from the United States, which had acted as a facilitator in the Oslo agreement, and most of its allies.&nbsp;The expansion continues. New construction of bypass roads linking Jewish settlements and isolating Palestinian villages began the day after Netanyahu returned from Washington after announcing, standing alongside Trump, the Gaza peace plan.&nbsp;Worked out by American and Israeli negotiators, it originally had 21 points. One was removed at the insistence of Netanyahu. It offered amnesty to Hamas members who pledged peaceful coexistence and agreed to lay down their arms. The Israelis argued it would reward terrorism.&nbsp;Of the remaining 20 points of the plan, number 19 is the most sensitive. It highlighted that Trump and Netanyahu are not on the same page despite the appearance of unanimity conveyed by their joint announcement.&nbsp;Point 19: “ While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA (Palestinian Authority) reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”&nbsp;Back home, Netanyahu poured ice-cold water on the phrase “Palestinian self-determination and statehood” which in effect means a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel. He asserted that he would “forcibly resist a Palestinian state” and insisted it was not implied in the 20-point plan.&nbsp;There has been no response so far from Hamas, the militant group which started the war in Gaza two years ago by storming across the border, killing more than 1,200 Israelis in an orgy of butchery, and taking 250 hostages.&nbsp;Israel responded with devastating force. More than 66,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in bombing raids and artillery strikes that laid waste to much of Gaza and prompted one of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, complete with famine, lack of medical services and tens of thousands driven from their homes and forced to live in tents.&nbsp;Stomach-turning images of dying children operated without anesthesia in the ruins of bombed hospitals have prompted a swing of American attitudes towards Palestinians in a country once solidly pro-Israeli. That appears to have prompted Trump to get involved in efforts to stop the war.&nbsp;On September 30, Trump set a deadline of ‘three or four days” for a Hamas decision, which would mean this Saturday. But the White House has since said the timeline could be flexible.&nbsp;Meanwhile, Israel has pressed on with a devastating offensive on Gaza City to eliminate pockets of resistance from Hamas, many of whose leaders have already been killed. Even on the day of the announcement of the 20-point plan, 59 Palestinians died, according to the Health Ministry.&nbsp;Since then, until October 1, another 429 died. The offensive continues.&nbsp;The complicated 20-point plan includes an immediate ceasefire and a new international body to manage the administration and reconstruction of Gaza. Trump has said he would be chairman of the “Board of Peace” to oversee a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” charged with reconstructing public services.&nbsp;Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been mentioned as the board’s co-chair. Blair has extensive experience in the Middle East and worked as a peace envoy after leaving office.&nbsp;No timeline for establishing the New Gaza has been fixed. It is still unclear whether Hamas will agree to the plan but even if it does, don’t expect swift results. Optimists who do might remember that it took more than a decade to end “the troubles,” Ireland’s sectarian conflict which had none of the complex geopolitical dimensions of the war in Gaza.&nbsp;Also worth remembering: It took two years from then Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s ground-breaking visit to Israel to the 1978 Camp David accords – the first peace pact between an Arab country in Israel.&nbsp;For the emaciated, exhausted Palestinians in the ruins of Gaza, time is short.

Trump announced a 20-point Gaza peace plan, opposing Israel's West Bank annexation and supporting eventual Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. As fighting in Gaza continues, with rising casualties, it's unclear if Hamas will accept the plan

On September 25, four days before announcing a peace plan for Gaza, U.S. President Donald Trump made a categorical statement on the issue at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the future of territory the Palestinians see as a key part of a future state. “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it. It’s not going to happen.” Trump’s confident assertion implies that he thinks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unfailingly follows the wishes of Israel’s most important ally. Particularly where the West Bank is concerned, This is not the case. For decades, the Israeli leader has defied U.S. policy, international law and even U.N. Security Council resolutions opposing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. From the beginning of the peace process that led to the 1993 Oslo accord, the number of Jewish settlers grew from 110,000 to more than half a million. Right-wing members of Netanyahu’s cabinet have been clamouring for the annexation of the West Bank or, as they call it by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria. For decades, Israeli leaders shrugged of criticism of the relentless expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank from the United States, which had acted as a facilitator in the Oslo agreement, and most of its allies. The expansion continues. New construction of bypass roads linking Jewish settlements and isolating Palestinian villages began the day after Netanyahu returned from Washington after announcing, standing alongside Trump, the Gaza peace plan. Worked out by American and Israeli negotiators, it originally had 21 points. One was removed at the insistence of Netanyahu. It offered amnesty to Hamas members who pledged peaceful coexistence and agreed to lay down their arms. The Israelis argued it would reward terrorism. Of the remaining 20 points of the plan, number 19 is the most sensitive. It highlighted that Trump and Netanyahu are not on the same page despite the appearance of unanimity conveyed by their joint announcement. Point 19: “ While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA (Palestinian Authority) reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.” Back home, Netanyahu poured ice-cold water on the phrase “Palestinian self-determination and statehood” which in effect means a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel. He asserted that he would “forcibly resist a Palestinian state” and insisted it was not implied in the 20-point plan. There has been no response so far from Hamas, the militant group which started the war in Gaza two years ago by storming across the border, killing more than 1,200 Israelis in an orgy of butchery, and taking 250 hostages. Israel responded with devastating force. More than 66,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in bombing raids and artillery strikes that laid waste to much of Gaza and prompted one of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, complete with famine, lack of medical services and tens of thousands driven from their homes and forced to live in tents. Stomach-turning images of dying children operated without anesthesia in the ruins of bombed hospitals have prompted a swing of American attitudes towards Palestinians in a country once solidly pro-Israeli. That appears to have prompted Trump to get involved in efforts to stop the war. On September 30, Trump set a deadline of ‘three or four days” for a Hamas decision, which would mean this Saturday. But the White House has since said the timeline could be flexible. Meanwhile, Israel has pressed on with a devastating offensive on Gaza City to eliminate pockets of resistance from Hamas, many of whose leaders have already been killed. Even on the day of the announcement of the 20-point plan, 59 Palestinians died, according to the Health Ministry. Since then, until October 1, another 429 died. The offensive continues. The complicated 20-point plan includes an immediate ceasefire and a new international body to manage the administration and reconstruction of Gaza. Trump has said he would be chairman of the “Board of Peace” to oversee a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” charged with reconstructing public services. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been mentioned as the board’s co- chair. Blair has extensive experience in the Middle East and worked as a peace envoy after leaving office. No timeline for establishing the New Gaza has been fixed. It is still unclear whether Hamas will agree to the plan but even if it does, don’t expect swift results. Optimists who do might remember that it took more than a decade to end “the troubles,” Ireland’s sectarian conflict which had none of the complex geopolitical dimensions of the war in Gaza. Also worth remembering: It took two years from then Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s ground-breaking visit to Israel to the 1978 Camp David accords – the first peace pact between an Arab country in Israel. For the emaciated, exhausted Palestinians in the ruins of Gaza, time is short.

Trump announced a 20-point Gaza peace plan, opposing Israel's West Bank annexation and supporting eventual Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. As fighting in Gaza continues, with rising casualties, it's unclear if Hamas will accept the plan

Gaza plan shows limits of Trump’s influence on Netanyahu

In a sharp escalation that has gripped the nation, Ladakh's long-simmering agitation for statehood boiled over into tragedy, leaving four protesters dead and over 30 injured in clashes with security forces in Leh. A curfew was swiftly imposed across Leh and Kargil districts, with assembly of more than five people banned and over 50 individuals detained to restore order. At the heart of this unrest is a surging wave of Gen Z activism, with young voices from Leh's streets drawing uncomfortable parallels to Nepal's youth-led uprisings, where social media-fueled demonstrations toppled entrenched power structures and forced policy U-turns.&nbsp;Ladakh's Lieutenant Governor Kavinder Gupta has pointed fingers at such cross-border comparisons, alleging they stirred the crowds into frenzy, while activists like Sonam Wangchuk decry the violence as a desperate cry against Delhi's indifference. This deadly turn has heightened political anxieties in New Delhi, underscoring how a digitally savvy generation, once seen as passive, has now rolled up their sleeves to fix the regional fault lines with their demands that have been echoing for the past few years.&nbsp;The core of Ladakh's grievances traces back to the 2019 scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, which carved the region into two Union Territories and stripped away layers of autonomy. Protesters, spearheaded by groups like the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance, are pushing for full statehood to regain legislative powers and self-governance, alongside inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution—a provision that grants tribal areas in states like Assam and Meghalaya autonomous councils to safeguard land rights, customs, and resources from external encroachments.&nbsp;Ladakhi people also seek a second seat in the Lok Sabha to amplify their voice in Parliament, given the region's sparse population of just 2.74 lakh as per the 2011 Census, and the creation of a dedicated Ladakh Public Service Commission to streamline recruitment and curb perceived favoritism from Jammu and Kashmir's cadre. Beneath these structural asks lies a deeper malaise: the erosion of cultural identity and economic despair. New domicile rules demand a continuous 15-year stay in Ladakh from 1989 for eligibility, but post-2019 migrants face a steeper climb, eligible only after 2034, fueling fears of demographic influxes diluting local Bhoti and Purgi languages, now listed alongside English, Hindi, and Urdu as official tongues.&nbsp;Notably, job scarcity hits hardest among the youth, with unemployment rates hovering above 20 percent in this high-altitude desert, where tourism and horticulture offer slim pickings. Promises of 85 percent reservation for indigenous people in government posts—mirroring high quotas in Mizoram (92 percent) and Arunachal Pradesh (80 percent)—remain mired in rule-making delays, leaving graduates from local colleges sidelined. Hill development councils, revamped with one-third seats for women, are viewed as token gestures without real teeth, prompting five years of rallies that peaked in this week's fury.&nbsp;What began as a disciplined sit-in snowballed into chaos when frustration over unmet deadlines met a raw nerve. The immediate flashpoint was the hospitalization of two elderly hunger strikers, Tsering Angchuk (72) and another local leader, after they joined Sonam Wangchuk's indefinite fast demanding tripartite talks with the Centre. By dawn on Wednesday, thousands converged on Leh's Polo Ground, waving black flags and chanting for autonomy, but tensions spiked as police barricades held firm against marchers heading toward the administration complex. Eyewitness accounts describe youths hurling stones after security personnel resorted to tear gas and lathi charges to disperse the crowd. In the melee, protesters torched a Bharatiya Janata Party office, symbolizing betrayal over unkept electoral pledges from 2019, when the party had championed the bifurcation as a path to development.&nbsp;Sad enough, matters jumped from the frying pan to the fire when reports emerged of armed groups—possibly fringe elements—firing in the air, prompting paramilitary forces to open live rounds in self-defense, claiming four lives, including two teenagers, and wounding dozens more, some critically with pellet injuries. Over 70 remain unaccounted for amid the smoke and debris, with Wangchuk himself alleging that some young protesters have lost limbs in the crackdown. The swift imposition of Section 144 and internet blackouts has only deepened the rift, turning a quest for dialogue into a standoff.&nbsp;Gen Z's right to raise its voice is the bedrock of any democracy, a principle India has upheld through countless movements from independence to the present. Yet, as blood stains Leh's ancient lanes, it is clear that violence solves nothing—it only hardens positions and buries hopes. Ladakh, cradle of Buddhism where the Dalai Lama's teachings of compassion echo from Thiksey Monastery to Hemis, has no room for such spilled blood; its valleys, etched by non-violent sages, demand a higher path.&nbsp;Peaceful satyagraha, backed by smart mobilization on platforms like X and Instagram, holds far greater sway. History bears this out: the 2020-21 Ladakh marches drew global eyes to their constitutional and developmental concerns without a single casualty, pressuring the Centre into promises of safeguards. A calibrated strategy—petitions to the Supreme Court, alliances with sympathetic MPs, and economic boycotts—could amplify demands without alienating allies.&nbsp;India's democratic machinery, battle-tested over decades, flourishes on such measured dissent. This Gen Z cohort, armed with smartphones and startup dreams, is the engine propelling the nation toward Viksit Bharat by 2047, innovating in renewables and eco-tourism to green the frontier. But outbursts like this risk derailing progress, inviting meddlesome foreign hands to exploit cracks in border harmony.&nbsp;The Narendra Modi-led Central government must vet every aspect of the matter earnestly. Grievances over land protections, job quotas, and cultural erosion must be aired in transparent tripartite forums, not dismissed as political propaganda. Whether it is Expedite Sixth Schedule rules, fast-tracking the public service panel, or revisiting domicile timelines, the 2019 assurances by the PM Modi government must be addressed.&nbsp;Essentially, there is a need to closely examine the geographical location of Ladakh, which borders China. The ongoing border tensions with China require the Central government to have full and unrestricted access to Ladakh at all times, especially to build roads for troop movements and to counter Beijing's incursions. Granting statehood to Ladakh could complicate this, particularly if a party other than the BJP or a trusted ally wins a potential election. Ladakh's youth are urged to think deeply and strategically and trade placards for blueprints, weaving their aspirations into the republic's vibrant mosaic. In a land where Lamas chant for universal peace, dialogue remains the surest bridge over troubled passes.

The core of Ladakh's grievances traces back to the 2019 scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, which carved the region into two Union Territories and stripped away layers of autonomy

In a sharp escalation that has gripped the nation, Ladakh's long-simmering agitation for statehood boiled over into tragedy, leaving four protesters dead and over 30 injured in clashes with security forces in Leh. A curfew was swiftly imposed across Leh and Kargil districts, with assembly of more than five people banned and over 50 individuals detained to restore order. At the heart of this unrest is a surging wave of Gen Z activism, with young voices from Leh's streets drawing uncomfortable parallels to Nepal's youth-led uprisings, where social media-fueled demonstrations toppled entrenched power structures and forced policy U-turns. Ladakh's Lieutenant Governor Kavinder Gupta has pointed fingers at such cross-border comparisons, alleging they stirred the crowds into frenzy, while activists like Sonam Wangchuk decry the violence as a desperate cry against Delhi's indifference. This deadly turn has heightened political anxieties in New Delhi, underscoring how a digitally savvy generation, once seen as passive, has now rolled up their sleeves to fix the regional fault lines with their demands that have been echoing for the past few years. The core of Ladakh's grievances traces back to the 2019 scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, which carved the region into two Union Territories and stripped away layers of autonomy. Protesters, spearheaded by groups like the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance, are pushing for full statehood to regain legislative powers and self-governance, alongside inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution—a provision that grants tribal areas in states like Assam and Meghalaya autonomous councils to safeguard land rights, customs, and resources from external encroachments. Ladakhi people also seek a second seat in the Lok Sabha to amplify their voice in Parliament, given the region's sparse population of just 2.74 lakh as per the 2011 Census, and the creation of a dedicated Ladakh Public Service Commission to streamline recruitment and curb perceived favoritism from Jammu and Kashmir's cadre. Beneath these structural asks lies a deeper malaise: the erosion of cultural identity and economic despair. New domicile rules demand a continuous 15-year stay in Ladakh from 1989 for eligibility, but post-2019 migrants face a steeper climb, eligible only after 2034, fueling fears of demographic influxes diluting local Bhoti and Purgi languages, now listed alongside English, Hindi, and Urdu as official tongues. Notably, job scarcity hits hardest among the youth, with unemployment rates hovering above 20 percent in this high-altitude desert, where tourism and horticulture offer slim pickings. Promises of 85 percent reservation for indigenous people in government posts—mirroring high quotas in Mizoram (92 percent) and Arunachal Pradesh (80 percent)—remain mired in rule-making delays, leaving graduates from local colleges sidelined. Hill development councils, revamped with one-third seats for women, are viewed as token gestures without real teeth, prompting five years of rallies that peaked in this week's fury. What began as a disciplined sit-in snowballed into chaos when frustration over unmet deadlines met a raw nerve. The immediate flashpoint was the hospitalization of two elderly hunger strikers, Tsering Angchuk (72) and another local leader, after they joined Sonam Wangchuk's indefinite fast demanding tripartite talks with the Centre. By dawn on Wednesday, thousands converged on Leh's Polo Ground, waving black flags and chanting for autonomy, but tensions spiked as police barricades held firm against marchers heading toward the administration complex. Eyewitness accounts describe youths hurling stones after security personnel resorted to tear gas and lathi charges to disperse the crowd. In the melee, protesters torched a Bharatiya Janata Party office, symbolizing betrayal over unkept electoral pledges from 2019, when the party had championed the bifurcation as a path to development. Sad enough, matters jumped from the frying pan to the fire when reports emerged of armed groups—possibly fringe elements—firing in the air, prompting paramilitary forces to open live rounds in self-defense, claiming four lives, including two teenagers, and wounding dozens more, some critically with pellet injuries. Over 70 remain unaccounted for amid the smoke and debris, with Wangchuk himself alleging that some young protesters have lost limbs in the crackdown. The swift imposition of Section 144 and internet blackouts has only deepened the rift, turning a quest for dialogue into a standoff. Gen Z's right to raise its voice is the bedrock of any democracy, a principle India has upheld through countless movements from independence to the present. Yet, as blood stains Leh's ancient lanes, it is clear that violence solves nothing—it only hardens positions and buries hopes. Ladakh, cradle of Buddhism where the Dalai Lama's teachings of compassion echo from Thiksey Monastery to Hemis, has no room for such spilled blood; its valleys, etched by non-violent sages, demand a higher path. Peaceful satyagraha, backed by smart mobilization on platforms like X and Instagram, holds far greater sway. History bears this out: the 2020-21 Ladakh marches drew global eyes to their constitutional and developmental concerns without a single casualty, pressuring the Centre into promises of safeguards. A calibrated strategy—petitions to the Supreme Court, alliances with sympathetic MPs, and economic boycotts—could amplify demands without alienating allies. India's democratic machinery, battle-tested over decades, flourishes on such measured dissent. This Gen Z cohort, armed with smartphones and startup dreams, is the engine propelling the nation toward Viksit Bharat by 2047, innovating in renewables and eco-tourism to green the frontier. But outbursts like this risk derailing progress, inviting meddlesome foreign hands to exploit cracks in border harmony. The Narendra Modi-led Central government must vet every aspect of the matter earnestly. Grievances over land protections, job quotas, and cultural erosion must be aired in transparent tripartite forums, not dismissed as political propaganda. Whether it is Expedite Sixth Schedule rules, fast-tracking the public service panel, or revisiting domicile timelines, the 2019 assurances by the PM Modi government must be addressed. Essentially, there is a need to closely examine the geographical location of Ladakh, which borders China. The ongoing border tensions with China require the Central government to have full and unrestricted access to Ladakh at all times, especially to build roads for troop movements and to counter Beijing's incursions. Granting statehood to Ladakh could complicate this, particularly if a party other than the BJP or a trusted ally wins a potential election. Ladakh's youth are urged to think deeply and strategically and trade placards for blueprints, weaving their aspirations into the republic's vibrant mosaic. In a land where Lamas chant for universal peace, dialogue remains the surest bridge over troubled passes.

The core of Ladakh's grievances traces back to the 2019 scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, which carved the region into two Union Territories and stripped away layers of autonomy

Ladakh’s Gen Z protesters urged to choose dialogue over discord in Land of Lamas’ peace chants

When Donald Trump named Kash Patel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it was framed by allies as a triumph of “reform". In reality, it has been a disaster. Patel is not a guardian of law enforcement independence. He is a partisan soldier, a conspiracy theorist in a suit, and a man whose contempt for democratic norms makes him uniquely unfit to oversee the FBI. Even in Washington’s long history of controversial appointments, Patel stands out as a catastrophic choice — one who threatens to corrode an institution already straining under decades of scandal and politicisation.<h2>A Director With a Grievance, Not a Mission</h2>The FBI demands neutrality. Its director must embody restraint, even-handedness, and fidelity to the Constitution above personal or partisan loyalty. Patel offers the opposite. His career has been built not on investigative integrity but on weaponising grievances. His book Government Gangsters — a feverish screed against what he calls the “deep state” — lists dozens of public servants as enemies of America. Critics were right to call it an “enemies list".&nbsp;&nbsp;That book alone should have disqualified him from ever serving as head of a nonpartisan law enforcement body. To name such a man at the FBI’s helm is like giving J Edgar Hoover’s paranoia a second life, but without Hoover’s instinct for institutional preservation. Patel entered office not as a servant of the law, but as a man determined to settle scores.<h2>The Epstein Files Betrayal</h2>Patel’s unfitness has been most glaring in his handling of the Epstein files. Before his appointment, he tantalised the public with promises of sweeping disclosures, hinting that the FBI would finally expose the powerful figures tied to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Those words electrified his base, who saw Patel as a truth-teller poised to pierce decades of elite cover-ups.&nbsp;Yet once he assumed power, Patel reversed course. In a five-hour House Judiciary Committee hearing this month, he invoked legal restrictions to justify withholding crucial materials, from alleged client lists to suspicious bank transfers flagged by regulators. When pressed by Democrats, Patel sneered: “Should I break the law to satisfy your curiosity?”This line is emblematic of his hypocrisy. For years, Patel treated the Epstein files as a cudgel — proof, he suggested, of corruption at the highest levels. Now that he controls them, he hides behind technicalities. The bait-and-switch reeks not of fidelity to the law but of calculated evasion.&nbsp;Worse, Patel has left survivors and victims’ families in limbo. They were promised accountability, yet under his watch, the Epstein investigation looks more like a burial than a reckoning.<h2>Retaliation Disguised as 'Reform'</h2>Patel has also overseen a wave of firings that reek of political retaliation. Veteran agents allege they were dismissed for pursuing politically inconvenient investigations — the very kind of independence the FBI was designed to protect. Lawsuits are already mounting, and whistleblower complaints suggest a culture of fear has taken root. Patel defends these purges as “reform.” In truth, they hollow out the FBI’s professional core, replacing seasoned investigators with loyalists more concerned with ideology than evidence. The Bureau is weaker, less independent, and more beholden to partisan winds than at any point since Hoover’s reign. This is not reform. It is sabotage.<h2>The Director of Conspiracies</h2>Patel’s credibility was never rooted in fact. He has long trafficked in conspiracy theories that should automatically disqualify any candidate for high office. He has promoted QAnon-adjacent rhetoric. He has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He has indulged in anti-vaccine misinformation during a global pandemic. These are not minor lapses in judgment. They are proof of a worldview unmoored from evidence — precisely the opposite of what the FBI requires from its leader.&nbsp;In congressional hearings, Patel has doubled down on this recklessness. His confrontations with lawmakers reveal a man more interested in grandstanding than answering questions. When Senator Cory Booker accused him of endangering democratic accountability, Patel smirked. When Representative Adam Schiff pressed him on partisan bias, Patel lashed back with insults. Such swagger may thrill his supporters, but it corrodes the dignity of the office he holds.The FBI Director cannot behave like a talk-radio provocateur. Yet that is exactly what Patel has become.<h2>The Charlie Kirk Debacle</h2>Patel’s recklessness is not just rhetorical; it has concrete consequences. When conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed earlier this year, Patel rushed to announce that the suspect was in custody. That claim proved misleading at best and false at worst. The FBI under his command mishandled communications so badly that lawmakers demanded immediate clarification. A Director who cannot manage the basic responsibility of accurate public information cannot be trusted with the far weightier matters of counterterrorism, organised crime, or foreign espionage. The Kirk case is not a minor embarrassment. It is a symptom of deeper rot — a leadership style defined by haste, arrogance, and disregard for facts.<h2>The danger to the Institution</h2>The FBI is not sacred. It has a long, troubling history of overreach, from Hoover’s files on civil rights leaders to the botched handling of the 2020 election. But even in its worst moments, the Bureau retained some veneer of professionalism, some recognition that its legitimacy depended on restraint. Patel is shredding even that. His leadership has already driven public trust in the FBI to historic lows. Gallup and Pew surveys show confidence collapsing across the political spectrum. Each time Patel leans into grievance politics, he confirms the worst fears of his critics: that the Bureau is no longer a guardian of justice but a partisan weapon.&nbsp;This matters. The FBI controls extraordinary powers — surveillance, subpoenas, counterintelligence operations, prosecutions. In the wrong hands, those powers can tilt elections, crush dissent, and undermine democracy itself. To entrust them to Patel is to hand a loaded weapon to a man who has shown again and again that he cannot be trusted.&nbsp;America has endured controversial FBI Directors before. Hoover abused his office for half a century. James Comey became a lightning rod for his handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations. But neither man entered the job with Patel’s combination of paranoia, grievance, and open disdain for institutional independence. Patel is not merely a bad fit. He is a mortal threat to the Bureau’s credibility — and by extension, to the rule of law itself. If the FBI becomes a tool of partisan vengeance, no American is safe from its abuses.<h2>Congress Must Act</h2>The time for patience has passed. Congressional oversight must be relentless. Subpoenas should fly. Depositions must be compelled. Lawsuits from wrongfully terminated agents should be expedited. Patel’s every action should be scrutinised not as the ordinary mistakes of a new director, but as evidence of a man unfit for the role he holds. If Patel cannot — or will not — restore the FBI’s neutrality, then Congress must move toward the most drastic remedies available: demanding his resignation or initiating the process for removal.&nbsp;Kash Patel is not suited to lead the FBI. His enemies list, his betrayals on the Epstein files, his retaliatory purges, his indulgence of conspiracy theories, and his reckless public missteps have already damaged the Bureau’s credibility beyond repair. Every day he remains in office, the FBI drifts further from the impartial guardian it was meant to be and closer to a partisan weapon wielded against political opponents.&nbsp;America deserves better. If Patel will not step aside, Congress must force the issue. The survival of democratic accountability depends on it.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Why Kash Patel must go: The FBI’s integrity is at stake

When Donald Trump named Kash Patel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it was framed by allies as a triumph of “reform". In reality, it has been a disaster. Patel is not a guardian of law enforcement independence. He is a partisan soldier, a conspiracy theorist in a suit, and a man whose contempt for democratic norms makes him uniquely unfit to oversee the FBI. Even in Washington’s long history of controversial appointments, Patel stands out as a catastrophic choice — one who threatens to corrode an institution already straining under decades of scandal and politicisation. A Director With a Grievance, Not a Mission The FBI demands neutrality. Its director must embody restraint, even-handedness, and fidelity to the Constitution above personal or partisan loyalty. Patel offers the opposite. His career has been built not on investigative integrity but on weaponising grievances. His book Government Gangsters — a feverish screed against what he calls the “deep state” — lists dozens of public servants as enemies of America. Critics were right to call it an “enemies list". That book alone should have disqualified him from ever serving as head of a nonpartisan law enforcement body. To name such a man at the FBI’s helm is like giving J Edgar Hoover’s paranoia a second life, but without Hoover’s instinct for institutional preservation. Patel entered office not as a servant of the law, but as a man determined to settle scores. The Epstein Files Betrayal Patel’s unfitness has been most glaring in his handling of the Epstein files. Before his appointment, he tantalised the public with promises of sweeping disclosures, hinting that the FBI would finally expose the powerful figures tied to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Those words electrified his base, who saw Patel as a truth-teller poised to pierce decades of elite cover-ups. Yet once he assumed power, Patel reversed course. In a five-hour House Judiciary Committee hearing this month, he invoked legal restrictions to justify withholding crucial materials, from alleged client lists to suspicious bank transfers flagged by regulators. When pressed by Democrats, Patel sneered: “Should I break the law to satisfy your curiosity?” This line is emblematic of his hypocrisy. For years, Patel treated the Epstein files as a cudgel — proof, he suggested, of corruption at the highest levels. Now that he controls them, he hides behind technicalities. The bait-and-switch reeks not of fidelity to the law but of calculated evasion. Worse, Patel has left survivors and victims’ families in limbo. They were promised accountability, yet under his watch, the Epstein investigation looks more like a burial than a reckoning. Retaliation Disguised as 'Reform' Patel has also overseen a wave of firings that reek of political retaliation. Veteran agents allege they were dismissed for pursuing politically inconvenient investigations — the very kind of independence the FBI was designed to protect. Lawsuits are already mounting, and whistleblower complaints suggest a culture of fear has taken root. Patel defends these purges as “reform.” In truth, they hollow out the FBI’s professional core, replacing seasoned investigators with loyalists more concerned with ideology than evidence. The Bureau is weaker, less independent, and more beholden to partisan winds than at any point since Hoover’s reign. This is not reform. It is sabotage. The Director of Conspiracies Patel’s credibility was never rooted in fact. He has long trafficked in conspiracy theories that should automatically disqualify any candidate for high office. He has promoted QAnon-adjacent rhetoric. He has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He has indulged in anti-vaccine misinformation during a global pandemic. These are not minor lapses in judgment. They are proof of a worldview unmoored from evidence — precisely the opposite of what the FBI requires from its leader. In congressional hearings, Patel has doubled down on this recklessness. His confrontations with lawmakers reveal a man more interested in grandstanding than answering questions. When Senator Cory Booker accused him of endangering democratic accountability, Patel smirked. When Representative Adam Schiff pressed him on partisan bias, Patel lashed back with insults. Such swagger may thrill his supporters, but it corrodes the dignity of the office he holds. The FBI Director cannot behave like a talk-radio provocateur. Yet that is exactly what Patel has become. The Charlie Kirk Debacle Patel’s recklessness is not just rhetorical; it has concrete consequences. When conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed earlier this year, Patel rushed to announce that the suspect was in custody. That claim proved misleading at best and false at worst. The FBI under his command mishandled communications so badly that lawmakers demanded immediate clarification. A Director who cannot manage the basic responsibility of accurate public information cannot be trusted with the far weightier matters of counterterrorism, organised crime, or foreign espionage. The Kirk case is not a minor embarrassment. It is a symptom of deeper rot — a leadership style defined by haste, arrogance, and disregard for facts. The danger to the Institution The FBI is not sacred. It has a long, troubling history of overreach, from Hoover’s files on civil rights leaders to the botched handling of the 2020 election. But even in its worst moments, the Bureau retained some veneer of professionalism, some recognition that its legitimacy depended on restraint. Patel is shredding even that. His leadership has already driven public trust in the FBI to historic lows. Gallup and Pew surveys show confidence collapsing across the political spectrum. Each time Patel leans into grievance politics, he confirms the worst fears of his critics: that the Bureau is no longer a guardian of justice but a partisan weapon. This matters. The FBI controls extraordinary powers — surveillance, subpoenas, counterintelligence operations, prosecutions. In the wrong hands, those powers can tilt elections, crush dissent, and undermine democracy itself. To entrust them to Patel is to hand a loaded weapon to a man who has shown again and again that he cannot be trusted. America has endured controversial FBI Directors before. Hoover abused his office for half a century. James Comey became a lightning rod for his handling of the Clinton and Trump investigations. But neither man entered the job with Patel’s combination of paranoia, grievance, and open disdain for institutional independence. Patel is not merely a bad fit. He is a mortal threat to the Bureau’s credibility — and by extension, to the rule of law itself. If the FBI becomes a tool of partisan vengeance, no American is safe from its abuses. Congress Must Act The time for patience has passed. Congressional oversight must be relentless. Subpoenas should fly. Depositions must be compelled. Lawsuits from wrongfully terminated agents should be expedited. Patel’s every action should be scrutinised not as the ordinary mistakes of a new director, but as evidence of a man unfit for the role he holds. If Patel cannot — or will not — restore the FBI’s neutrality, then Congress must move toward the most drastic remedies available: demanding his resignation or initiating the process for removal. Kash Patel is not suited to lead the FBI. His enemies list, his betrayals on the Epstein files, his retaliatory purges, his indulgence of conspiracy theories, and his reckless public missteps have already damaged the Bureau’s credibility beyond repair. Every day he remains in office, the FBI drifts further from the impartial guardian it was meant to be and closer to a partisan weapon wielded against political opponents. America deserves better. If Patel will not step aside, Congress must force the issue. The survival of democratic accountability depends on it. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The FBI demands neutrality. Its director must embody restraint, even-handedness, and fidelity to the Constitution above personal or partisan loyalty. Patel offers the opposite

Cacophonies echoed across the emirates following the Indian cricket team’s refusal to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts after the Men in Blue crushed the Green Army in Dubai during their Group A fixture of the Asia Cup a week ago. &nbsp;What ensued was controversy, brewed, stirred and implanted by the Pakistan cricket team and its governing body, the PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) , which is now called the ‘Handshakegate’.&nbsp;Moments after the Indian team slammed the doors of their dressing room following their colossal victory, a hapless and perplexed Pakistan team resorted to their usual tactics of giving empty threats of boycotting the Asia Cup, while also pressing the ICC to take punitive action against match referee Andy Pycroft.&nbsp;Hours before their do-or-die group game against the home side UAE, the Pakistan Cricket team decided to boycott the Asia Cup over the Indian team’s refusal to do the customary handshake and Pycroft’s inaction over the same.&nbsp;However, negotiations between the PCB and the ICC saw Pakistan retract their statement and eventually show up for their final group game against the UAE, which they would go on to win comfortably.&nbsp;Though the confusion has been reined in, Pakistan appear to be mentally defeated. This is evident from Sunday’s Super Four clash against the same Indian team that embarrassed them at the ring of fire in Dubai.&nbsp;Just when a twist in the tale with a sweet Pakistan redemption was on the cards for fans and critics alike, Abhishek Sharma’s long handle took the likes of Shaheen Shah Afridi to the cleaners. The thrashing also came with a lot of bickering between players of both sides, with umpires stepping in to cool down the flaring tensions. Though tense moments filled parts of the game, it was indeed a royal drubbing dished out by the Indian team.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-rohit-sharma-to-virat-kohli-here-is-a-look-at-five-indian-batters-with-most-runs-in-asia-cup-odis-t20is-sachin-tendulkar-ms-dhoni-dhawan-1754123070628">From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is)</a>&nbsp;In fact, Indian Captain Suryakumar Yadav said it right at the post-match presser, “India-Pakistan rivalry is no longer a rivalry”.&nbsp;&nbsp;This single statement imploded all the controversies, chaos and complaints implanted by Pakistan. Be it in terms of talent or skill, Pakistan is no match for India.&nbsp;Moreover, Pakistan are also baffled with picking their Playing 11. For example, is Shaheen Afridi in the team for his fast bowling or for his batting? &nbsp;&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cricket-asia-cup-2025-full-squads-complete-fixtures-date-time-venue-and-live-streaming-details-check-all-details-1755585771834">Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details</a>&nbsp;The other puzzling aspect is giving the powerplay overs to part-time spinners instead of handing it to their premier fast bowlers like Harris Rauf, which cost them dearly on Sunday. Furthermore, Pakistan’s captain, Salman Ali Agha, is still dormant and has to come to the party. Adding to this, Saim Ayub has to step up as a batter despite his decent exploits with the ball.&nbsp;With their back against the wall, Pakistan also have to take a call on playing one extra fast or medium-fast bowler in place of a batter ahead of the game against Sri Lanka. This is owing to the slow nature of the wickets in the UAE. But that being said, what will keep everybody on tenterhooks is which Pakistan will turn up against Sri Lanka? Will it be the Pakistan team that played the India game on Sunday, or a bolder and fearless Pakistan?&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.

Pakistan lost to India for the second time in the ongoing Asia Cup 2025 as they were beaten by six wickets in the Super Four clash. Now with back against the wall, it will be testing time for the Pakistan side to bounce back. 

Cacophonies echoed across the emirates following the Indian cricket team’s refusal to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts after the Men in Blue crushed the Green Army in Dubai during their Group A fixture of the Asia Cup a week ago. What ensued was controversy, brewed, stirred and implanted by the Pakistan cricket team and its governing body, the PCB (Pakistan Cricket Board) , which is now called the ‘Handshakegate’. Moments after the Indian team slammed the doors of their dressing room following their colossal victory, a hapless and perplexed Pakistan team resorted to their usual tactics of giving empty threats of boycotting the Asia Cup, while also pressing the ICC to take punitive action against match referee Andy Pycroft. Hours before their do-or-die group game against the home side UAE, the Pakistan Cricket team decided to boycott the Asia Cup over the Indian team’s refusal to do the customary handshake and Pycroft’s inaction over the same. However, negotiations between the PCB and the ICC saw Pakistan retract their statement and eventually show up for their final group game against the UAE, which they would go on to win comfortably. Though the confusion has been reined in, Pakistan appear to be mentally defeated. This is evident from Sunday’s Super Four clash against the same Indian team that embarrassed them at the ring of fire in Dubai. Just when a twist in the tale with a sweet Pakistan redemption was on the cards for fans and critics alike, Abhishek Sharma’s long handle took the likes of Shaheen Shah Afridi to the cleaners. The thrashing also came with a lot of bickering between players of both sides, with umpires stepping in to cool down the flaring tensions. Though tense moments filled parts of the game, it was indeed a royal drubbing dished out by the Indian team. ALSO READ | From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is) In fact, Indian Captain Suryakumar Yadav said it right at the post-match presser, “India-Pakistan rivalry is no longer a rivalry”. This single statement imploded all the controversies, chaos and complaints implanted by Pakistan. Be it in terms of talent or skill, Pakistan is no match for India. Moreover, Pakistan are also baffled with picking their Playing 11. For example, is Shaheen Afridi in the team for his fast bowling or for his batting? ALSO READ | Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details The other puzzling aspect is giving the powerplay overs to part-time spinners instead of handing it to their premier fast bowlers like Harris Rauf, which cost them dearly on Sunday. Furthermore, Pakistan’s captain, Salman Ali Agha, is still dormant and has to come to the party. Adding to this, Saim Ayub has to step up as a batter despite his decent exploits with the ball. With their back against the wall, Pakistan also have to take a call on playing one extra fast or medium-fast bowler in place of a batter ahead of the game against Sri Lanka. This is owing to the slow nature of the wickets in the UAE. But that being said, what will keep everybody on tenterhooks is which Pakistan will turn up against Sri Lanka? Will it be the Pakistan team that played the India game on Sunday, or a bolder and fearless Pakistan? Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Pakistan lost to India for the second time in the ongoing Asia Cup 2025 as they were beaten by six wickets in the Super Four clash. Now with back against the wall, it will be testing time for the Pakistan side to bounce back.&nbsp;

Asia Cup 2025: Pakistan crumble under the weight of its ‘self-implanted’ controversies

India and Pakistan are all set to lock horns in the Asia Cup 2025 for the second time on Sunday (Sep 21) as the two arch-rivals face each other at the Dubai International Stadium in Dubai. While the rivalry was back on the calendar last week with a group stage meeting, calls for a boycott are in full volume as diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan soured after the Pahalgam terror attack in April. However, despite that, both nations were drawn in the same group of the Asia Cup 2025, leading to calls for a boycott.<h2>Can ICC, ACC avoid drawing India-Pakistan?</h2>Like other major events, cricket does not involve any draw process to determine the fate of teams. It is the broadcasters who determine the selection of fixtures and the draws. This means the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) favour draws that attract huge revenue. Since India is a significant market for digital consumption, broadcasters, in collaboration with the ICC and ACC, have opted to stage the India vs Pakistan match at every major event, despite the poor diplomatic relations.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cricket-asia-cup-2025-full-squads-complete-fixtures-date-time-venue-and-live-streaming-details-check-all-details-1755585771834">Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details</a>&nbsp;Both ICC and ACC, in the hot topic, can take a page out of UEFA’s (European football’s governing body), which had avoided teaming up Russia-Ukraine and Azerbaijan-Armenia in major qualifiers and tournaments.&nbsp;For ACC, it was easily possible to keep both India and Pakistan in different groups as there was no draw in the process. ACC also influenced the draw for the Super 4 stage, where India and Pakistan meet again, having finished in the top two of Group A.While the backlash is at its peak, the clash between India and Pakistan could have been avoided for monetary reasons had ACC paired India in a different group.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-rohit-sharma-to-virat-kohli-here-is-a-look-at-five-indian-batters-with-most-runs-in-asia-cup-odis-t20is-sachin-tendulkar-ms-dhoni-dhawan-1754123070628">From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is)</a><h2>Are ICC, ACC to be blamed for India vs Pakistan?</h2>All the necessary approvals for holding India vs Pakistan or for that matter, other matches are given by ICC and ACC. However, the bodies are influenced by broadcasters, who mainly decide the fixtures. This means the onus for arranging these fixtures falls on the broadcasters. The fixture could have been avoided easily had India and Pakistan been paired differently in the Asia Cup by the broadcasters.&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.

Like other major events, cricket does not involve any draw process to determine the fate of teams. It is the broadcasters who determine the selection of fixtures and the draws. This means the ICC and the ACC favour draws that attract huge revenue. 

India and Pakistan are all set to lock horns in the Asia Cup 2025 for the second time on Sunday (Sep 21) as the two arch-rivals face each other at the Dubai International Stadium in Dubai. While the rivalry was back on the calendar last week with a group stage meeting, calls for a boycott are in full volume as diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan soured after the Pahalgam terror attack in April. However, despite that, both nations were drawn in the same group of the Asia Cup 2025, leading to calls for a boycott. Can ICC, ACC avoid drawing India-Pakistan? Like other major events, cricket does not involve any draw process to determine the fate of teams. It is the broadcasters who determine the selection of fixtures and the draws. This means the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) favour draws that attract huge revenue. Since India is a significant market for digital consumption, broadcasters, in collaboration with the ICC and ACC, have opted to stage the India vs Pakistan match at every major event, despite the poor diplomatic relations. ALSO READ | Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details Both ICC and ACC, in the hot topic, can take a page out of UEFA’s (European football’s governing body), which had avoided teaming up Russia-Ukraine and Azerbaijan-Armenia in major qualifiers and tournaments. For ACC, it was easily possible to keep both India and Pakistan in different groups as there was no draw in the process. ACC also influenced the draw for the Super 4 stage, where India and Pakistan meet again, having finished in the top two of Group A. While the backlash is at its peak, the clash between India and Pakistan could have been avoided for monetary reasons had ACC paired India in a different group. ALSO READ | From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is) Are ICC, ACC to be blamed for India vs Pakistan? All the necessary approvals for holding India vs Pakistan or for that matter, other matches are given by ICC and ACC. However, the bodies are influenced by broadcasters, who mainly decide the fixtures. This means the onus for arranging these fixtures falls on the broadcasters. The fixture could have been avoided easily had India and Pakistan been paired differently in the Asia Cup by the broadcasters. 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.

Like other major events, cricket does not involve any draw process to determine the fate of teams. It is the broadcasters who determine the selection of fixtures and the draws. This means the ICC and the ACC favour draws that attract huge revenue.&nbsp;

Who is to be blamed for India vs Pakistan fixtures in Asia Cup 2025?

The United States has delivered a significant blow to India's strategic ambitions by announcing the cancellation of the special sanctions waiver for Iran's Chabahar Port, effective September 29, 2025. This decision, part of Washington's renewed "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, places New Delhi in an uncomfortable position between its economic interests and diplomatic relationships.&nbsp;The Strategic Importance of Chabahar&nbsp;For India, Chabahar Port represents far more than a commercial venture—it is a gateway to geopolitical influence in Central Asia. Located on Iran's southeastern coast along the Gulf of Oman, this port offers India a crucial alternative trade route to Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, completely bypassing Pakistan.&nbsp;The port's significance becomes even more apparent when viewed through the lens of India's broader connectivity ambitions. Chabahar serves as a vital link in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multi-modal transportation network designed to connect India with Russia and Europe through Iran. This corridor promises to reduce shipping time and costs significantly compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal.&nbsp;Since 2003, when India first conceived the Chabahar development plan, the project has evolved from a trade facilitation initiative to a cornerstone of India's regional strategy. The port has already proven its worth by enabling the delivery of wheat aid to Afghanistan and other essential supplies, demonstrating its humanitarian importance alongside commercial benefits.&nbsp;India's Investment at Stake&nbsp;The timing of the US decision is particularly challenging for India. Just last year, on May 13, 2024, New Delhi signed its first long-term overseas port management agreement—a 10-year deal with Iran's Port and Maritime Organisation to operate Chabahar Port. Indian Ports Global Limited (IPGL) committed to investing approximately $120 million (₹10,560 crore) directly, with additional plans to arrange $250 million (₹22,000 crore) in credit for surrounding infrastructure development.&nbsp;This substantial financial commitment reflects India's confidence in Chabahar's long-term potential. The investment was expected to modernize port facilities, enhance cargo handling capabilities, and establish India as a key player in regional trade networks. Now, with the sanctions waiver's cancellation, these investments face uncertainty.&nbsp;The Trump Factor and Maximum Pressure&nbsp;The US State Department's September 16 announcement explicitly linked the decision to President Trump's maximum pressure policy aimed at isolating Iran. This approach seeks to cut off financial networks that allegedly fund Iran's government and military operations. The warning is clear: any entity engaging in activities at Chabahar Port after the waiver expires could face US sanctions.&nbsp;This development marks a significant shift from the previous understanding between Washington and New Delhi. During Trump's first presidency in 2018, the US had recognized Chabahar's importance to Afghanistan and granted India an exemption from certain sanctions. The port and its associated railway were considered strategically important for humanitarian aid and legitimate trade.&nbsp;Navigating Complex Geopolitics&nbsp;India now faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, abandoning Chabahar would mean losing a strategically vital asset and potentially ceding influence in Central Asia to competitors like China. On the other hand, risking US sanctions could jeopardize India's broader relationship with Washington, including defense partnerships, technology transfers, and economic cooperation.The situation is further complicated by regional dynamics. With Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and an increasingly assertive China expanding its Belt and Road Initiative influence, India cannot afford to lose its foothold in the region. Chabahar represents one of the few remaining avenues for India to maintain meaningful engagement with Central Asian markets and energy resources.&nbsp;The Road Ahead&nbsp;As the September 29 deadline approaches, India must explore diplomatic solutions while preparing contingency plans. The government may need to negotiate with Washington for alternative arrangements or find creative ways to maintain Chabahar's operations without violating US sanctions.&nbsp;The Chabahar challenge ultimately reflects the broader complexities of India's multi-aligned foreign policy in an increasingly polarized world. How New Delhi navigates this crisis will significantly impact its regional influence and future strategic partnerships. &nbsp;

Chabahar serves as a vital link in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multi-modal transportation network designed to connect India with Russia and Europe through Iran. 

The United States has delivered a significant blow to India's strategic ambitions by announcing the cancellation of the special sanctions waiver for Iran's Chabahar Port, effective September 29, 2025. This decision, part of Washington's renewed "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, places New Delhi in an uncomfortable position between its economic interests and diplomatic relationships. The Strategic Importance of Chabahar For India, Chabahar Port represents far more than a commercial venture—it is a gateway to geopolitical influence in Central Asia. Located on Iran's southeastern coast along the Gulf of Oman, this port offers India a crucial alternative trade route to Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, completely bypassing Pakistan. The port's significance becomes even more apparent when viewed through the lens of India's broader connectivity ambitions. Chabahar serves as a vital link in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multi-modal transportation network designed to connect India with Russia and Europe through Iran. This corridor promises to reduce shipping time and costs significantly compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal. Since 2003, when India first conceived the Chabahar development plan, the project has evolved from a trade facilitation initiative to a cornerstone of India's regional strategy. The port has already proven its worth by enabling the delivery of wheat aid to Afghanistan and other essential supplies, demonstrating its humanitarian importance alongside commercial benefits. India's Investment at Stake The timing of the US decision is particularly challenging for India. Just last year, on May 13, 2024, New Delhi signed its first long-term overseas port management agreement—a 10-year deal with Iran's Port and Maritime Organisation to operate Chabahar Port. Indian Ports Global Limited (IPGL) committed to investing approximately $120 million (₹10,560 crore) directly, with additional plans to arrange $250 million (₹22,000 crore) in credit for surrounding infrastructure development. This substantial financial commitment reflects India's confidence in Chabahar's long-term potential. The investment was expected to modernize port facilities, enhance cargo handling capabilities, and establish India as a key player in regional trade networks. Now, with the sanctions waiver's cancellation, these investments face uncertainty. The Trump Factor and Maximum Pressure The US State Department's September 16 announcement explicitly linked the decision to President Trump's maximum pressure policy aimed at isolating Iran. This approach seeks to cut off financial networks that allegedly fund Iran's government and military operations. The warning is clear: any entity engaging in activities at Chabahar Port after the waiver expires could face US sanctions. This development marks a significant shift from the previous understanding between Washington and New Delhi. During Trump's first presidency in 2018, the US had recognized Chabahar's importance to Afghanistan and granted India an exemption from certain sanctions. The port and its associated railway were considered strategically important for humanitarian aid and legitimate trade. Navigating Complex Geopolitics India now faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, abandoning Chabahar would mean losing a strategically vital asset and potentially ceding influence in Central Asia to competitors like China. On the other hand, risking US sanctions could jeopardize India's broader relationship with Washington, including defense partnerships, technology transfers, and economic cooperation. The situation is further complicated by regional dynamics. With Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and an increasingly assertive China expanding its Belt and Road Initiative influence, India cannot afford to lose its foothold in the region. Chabahar represents one of the few remaining avenues for India to maintain meaningful engagement with Central Asian markets and energy resources. The Road Ahead As the September 29 deadline approaches, India must explore diplomatic solutions while preparing contingency plans. The government may need to negotiate with Washington for alternative arrangements or find creative ways to maintain Chabahar's operations without violating US sanctions. The Chabahar challenge ultimately reflects the broader complexities of India's multi-aligned foreign policy in an increasingly polarized world. How New Delhi navigates this crisis will significantly impact its regional influence and future strategic partnerships.

Chabahar serves as a vital link in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multi-modal transportation network designed to connect India with Russia and Europe through Iran.&nbsp;

India's Chabahar dilemma: Navigating between strategic interests and US sanctions

The wheel of time turns and age is just a number that changes every year. But what lies permanently is his experience, wisdom and good memories that become legends going across geographical boundaries. When passion drives someone to achieve something for human values and common respect globally, a person becomes a global leader whose vision and statesmanship become the need of the hour to steer the world towards peace and prosperity. This unmistakably carves the indelible imprints of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has turned 75 today and is stepping into another year to serve humanity across the world with sustainable growth. From the by-lanes of Vadnagar in Gujarat to becoming chief minister of the state, then Prime Minister of India, and now a dynamic, decisive and development-oriented reputed global leader, PM Modi's inspiring journey is not only vital for India but for the world as he has emerged as a ray of hope for humans across the borders of the continents.&nbsp;Global Icon, Unmatched PopularityPrime Minister Narendra Modi stands out as one of the world's most popular democratic leaders, with a recent global survey by US-based data analytics firm Morning Consult showing his approval rating at 71 per cent in early September 2025. This high level of support manifests his strong foreign policy, economic reforms and firm governance, which&nbsp;have earned him praise beyond India's shores. Leaders from countries like the United States, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Israel, Russia and those in the Gulf have often highlighted his vision for global peace, prosperity and sustainability. On the eve of his birthday, US President Donald Trump called PM Modi to extend greetings and express thanks for his support in peace efforts related to the Russia-Ukraine war, signalling the close ties between the two nations. Over the past 11 years, PM Modi has guided India with confidence on both national and international platforms, building bridges that were once strained.&nbsp;Russian President Vladimir Putin, during the 15th VTB Russia Calling Investment Forum, commended PM Modi's "India-first" policy and the "Make in India" initiative, noting how the Indian government under his leadership has created stable conditions for growth. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese once referred to him as the 'boss' while addressing the Indian community in Sydney, underlining the warmth in bilateral relations. At the sidelines of a G7 Summit, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told PM Modi, "You are the best. I am trying to be as you," leading to the trending hashtag "Melodi" that captured public imagination and pointed to his rising global stature. World Bank President Ajay Banga last year praised PM Modi for focusing on a solid relationship with the United States, both directly and through the Quad grouping. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has time and again spoken of Modi's "visionary leadership" and its role in boosting cooperation in defence and technology. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva acknowledged his work in counter-terrorism, while French President Emmanuel Macron highlighted his diplomatic moves for peace, particularly in resolving the Ukraine conflict. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer shared cordial exchanges during PM Modi's visit to the UK, adding to the list of positive interactions.&nbsp;Championing Peace, Global CooperationFor the first time in India's history, the world sees the country as one that extends an olive branch to nations that once viewed it with suspicion, proving that India seeks no harm to others and aims to make the world a better place for all to live and prosper. This shift owes much to PM Modi's approach, which places India as a partner in progress rather than a rival. His global popularity stems from championing ideas like "One Earth, One Family, One Future," a slogan he promoted at international forums. He has pushed for peace and faster UN reforms amid ongoing crises and conflicts, calling for joint efforts to update global governance. PM Modi stresses a human-centric path to sustainable development and technological advancement, often pointing out India's readiness to share its experiences with poorer nations. Under his rule, India has lifted 250 million people out of poverty, and he offers these methods as models for others. He also advocates using technology for the greater good, stating that India is prepared to share its digital public infrastructure worldwide to aid development and cooperation. Moreover, he has called for worldwide steps to handle emerging conflicts in cyber, maritime and space areas, showing foresight in new security challenges.&nbsp;Balancing Global Power DynamicsPM Modi's foreign policy has played a key role in maintaining world order at a time when geopolitical tensions raise fears of another major war. His recent participation in the SCO Summit in Tianjin, China, where he outlined priorities around security, connectivity and opportunity, helped balance regional dynamics. His strategic stance in forums like the Russia-India-China (RIC) troika, along with BRICS and SCO, has enabled dialogue amid power imbalances. By advocating an early end to the Ukraine conflict during talks with Putin and stressing&nbsp;neutrality to maximise India's interests, he has kept channels open without taking sides. The improvement in India-US relations, from past tensions to a thaw marked by stronger partnerships, highlights India's steady position on the global stage. Even his visit to Ukraine in 2024 opened new avenues, showing India's balanced diplomacy. PM Modi's foreign trips draw huge crowds from the Indian diaspora, revealing a strong personal appeal that goes beyond policy to a kind of personality cult built on his direct connect with people.&nbsp;All things considered, PM Modi is the need of the moment for global power balance and peace. As conflicts simmer and economic uncertainties grow, his leadership offers a steady hand, promoting cooperation over confrontation. With India under him reaching out to all corners, the world finds in him a figure who can guide towards shared prosperity, making his role indispensable in these testing times.

When passion drives someone to achieve something for human values and common respect globally, a person becomes a global leader. This unmistakably carves the indelible imprints of  Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has turned 75 today 

The wheel of time turns and age is just a number that changes every year. But what lies permanently is his experience, wisdom and good memories that become legends going across geographical boundaries. When passion drives someone to achieve something for human values and common respect globally, a person becomes a global leader whose vision and statesmanship become the need of the hour to steer the world towards peace and prosperity. This unmistakably carves the indelible imprints of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has turned 75 today and is stepping into another year to serve humanity across the world with sustainable growth. From the by-lanes of Vadnagar in Gujarat to becoming chief minister of the state, then Prime Minister of India, and now a dynamic, decisive and development-oriented reputed global leader, PM Modi's inspiring journey is not only vital for India but for the world as he has emerged as a ray of hope for humans across the borders of the continents. Global Icon, Unmatched Popularity Prime Minister Narendra Modi stands out as one of the world's most popular democratic leaders, with a recent global survey by US-based data analytics firm Morning Consult showing his approval rating at 71 per cent in early September 2025. This high level of support manifests his strong foreign policy, economic reforms and firm governance, which have earned him praise beyond India's shores. Leaders from countries like the United States, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Israel, Russia and those in the Gulf have often highlighted his vision for global peace, prosperity and sustainability. On the eve of his birthday, US President Donald Trump called PM Modi to extend greetings and express thanks for his support in peace efforts related to the Russia-Ukraine war, signalling the close ties between the two nations. Over the past 11 years, PM Modi has guided India with confidence on both national and international platforms, building bridges that were once strained. Russian President Vladimir Putin, during the 15th VTB Russia Calling Investment Forum, commended PM Modi's "India-first" policy and the "Make in India" initiative, noting how the Indian government under his leadership has created stable conditions for growth. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese once referred to him as the 'boss' while addressing the Indian community in Sydney, underlining the warmth in bilateral relations. At the sidelines of a G7 Summit, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told PM Modi, "You are the best. I am trying to be as you," leading to the trending hashtag "Melodi" that captured public imagination and pointed to his rising global stature. World Bank President Ajay Banga last year praised PM Modi for focusing on a solid relationship with the United States, both directly and through the Quad grouping. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has time and again spoken of Modi's "visionary leadership" and its role in boosting cooperation in defence and technology. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva acknowledged his work in counter-terrorism, while French President Emmanuel Macron highlighted his diplomatic moves for peace, particularly in resolving the Ukraine conflict. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer shared cordial exchanges during PM Modi's visit to the UK, adding to the list of positive interactions. Championing Peace, Global Cooperation For the first time in India's history, the world sees the country as one that extends an olive branch to nations that once viewed it with suspicion, proving that India seeks no harm to others and aims to make the world a better place for all to live and prosper. This shift owes much to PM Modi's approach, which places India as a partner in progress rather than a rival. His global popularity stems from championing ideas like "One Earth, One Family, One Future," a slogan he promoted at international forums. He has pushed for peace and faster UN reforms amid ongoing crises and conflicts, calling for joint efforts to update global governance. PM Modi stresses a human-centric path to sustainable development and technological advancement, often pointing out India's readiness to share its experiences with poorer nations. Under his rule, India has lifted 250 million people out of poverty, and he offers these methods as models for others. He also advocates using technology for the greater good, stating that India is prepared to share its digital public infrastructure worldwide to aid development and cooperation. Moreover, he has called for worldwide steps to handle emerging conflicts in cyber, maritime and space areas, showing foresight in new security challenges. Balancing Global Power Dynamics PM Modi's foreign policy has played a key role in maintaining world order at a time when geopolitical tensions raise fears of another major war. His recent participation in the SCO Summit in Tianjin, China, where he outlined priorities around security, connectivity and opportunity, helped balance regional dynamics. His strategic stance in forums like the Russia-India-China (RIC) troika, along with BRICS and SCO, has enabled dialogue amid power imbalances. By advocating an early end to the Ukraine conflict during talks with Putin and stressing neutrality to maximise India's interests, he has kept channels open without taking sides. The improvement in India-US relations, from past tensions to a thaw marked by stronger partnerships, highlights India's steady position on the global stage. Even his visit to Ukraine in 2024 opened new avenues, showing India's balanced diplomacy. PM Modi's foreign trips draw huge crowds from the Indian diaspora, revealing a strong personal appeal that goes beyond policy to a kind of personality cult built on his direct connect with people. All things considered, PM Modi is the need of the moment for global power balance and peace. As conflicts simmer and economic uncertainties grow, his leadership offers a steady hand, promoting cooperation over confrontation. With India under him reaching out to all corners, the world finds in him a figure who can guide towards shared prosperity, making his role indispensable in these testing times.

When passion drives someone to achieve something for human values and common respect globally, a person becomes a global leader. This unmistakably carves the indelible imprints of &nbsp;Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has turned 75 today&nbsp;

Balancing power, building peace—why PM Modi@75 is indispensable for global prosperity | Explained

Five days at the hallowed halls of the Hofburg Palace, listening to experts transcend all boundaries to engage with each other, the Science and Technology conference turned out to be a convincing one. For me, at least. But as an Indian journalist, there was also a question gnawing away at me. Why isn’t India here? Why aren’t we here?&nbsp;It appears that decades later, the conversation of nuclear test ban and transparency, which in many ways began in New Delhi, has changed course over time. And a lot has contributed to these shifting winds.<h2>Global call-to-action transforms into a national call</h2>In 1954, the U.S. conducted a high-yield thermonuclear test called ‘Castle Bravo’; it’s resulted yield nearly three times the expected amount. Shortly after, thousands of miles away, free India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a thundering address at the Parliament’s lower house, or Lok Sabha.&nbsp;Nehru became the world’s first statesman to call for a nuclear test ban. He urged that nuclear powers of the world create a ‘standstill agreement’ – a critical step towards the long journey of nuclear disarmament. Much has changed in the next 20 years, and India’s stance has shifted. Rather, it was forced to shift under a strong geopolitical compass, often moved by the West.&nbsp;Fresh out of its colonial identity and finding its footing in the world, New Delhi moved against it. In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test. Codenamed ‘Operation Smiling Buddha’s the test triggered a hypocritical frown from the West. It marked a significant moment; making India the sixth country to possess nuclear weapons. More importantly, it was the first outside the permanent members of the UN Security Council to conduct such a test.&nbsp;India did not stop its nuclear ambitions there. In 1998, the country conducted Pokhran-II, a second series of nuclear tests. For India’s leadership, the tests were an assertion of strategic autonomy.&nbsp;<h2>India &amp; CTBT: A relationship stuck in time</h2>Two years before India’s second nuclear test, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into existence.In the year 1996, the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on&nbsp;10 September. But for the treaty to enter into force, it was decided on various factors that 44 countries are necessary to sign and ratify it.&nbsp;Of those 44, there are 9 countries that have not ratified the treaty. Of these, there are 3, which have not even signed it. India, Pakistan &amp; North Korea. The Pariahs. Of the three, North Korea is no surprise. Pakistan has chosen to be an observer state. But India, excluding itself, has long been a surprise for many stakeholders globally and domestically, too. Not to forget, the company finds itself in. One, an adversarial neighbour with a deeply connected past but a complicated co-existence ever since. The second is a country that has chosen to keep the world at arm’s length.&nbsp;But India? With its global positioning and the growing bilateral relationships with countries around the world, why has it segued away from this multi-lateral relationship of the CTBTO? Several reasons.&nbsp;New Delhi has repeatedly called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty an unequal one, biased towards the five recognised nuclear states, which do not include India. The country has also contested ambiguous language in several of the Treaty’s provisions. For one, the lack of clarity on sub-critical nuclear tests remains a strong point of contention even today. More recently, it appears to have only deepened, especially after the U.S. conducted subcritical nuclear tests in May last year.&nbsp;Another provision of the Treaty that India contests is the ‘On-Site Inspection.’ The country has long maintained that it finds OSI intrusive, and in contradiction to national security, which cannot be compromised. Nor should it.&nbsp;Let me be clear; India’s issues with the Treaty are valid. My issue is the closed door that has hindered any and all possible conversation, at a table where 187 state signatories have a seat. India has repeatedly been offered a proposal to accept an observer status and access the data from the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System. But India has refused, as recently as 2019.&nbsp;India does not stand to lose much by accepting an observer status. It absolves the country of any obligation towards the Treaty, but grants access that any country positioning itself as an upcoming global superpower does need. Geopolitically, India should take a seat at any and every table its regional neighbours sit on. Especially Pakistan and China. Beyond the obvious strategic positioning, India’s diplomatic stakeholders need to take its scientific and academic community into confidence. Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for multi-lateral conversations, but they are incomplete without India, and India is incomplete without them.&nbsp;My two cents to New Delhi? You don’t have to take the plunge, but you can take a single step. It is time.

A record participation unfolded at the CTBTO’s Science & Technology conference this past week. But India, estimated to have the third-largest scientific and technical manpower in the world, was conspicuously absent. Question is, why?

Five days at the hallowed halls of the Hofburg Palace, listening to experts transcend all boundaries to engage with each other, the Science and Technology conference turned out to be a convincing one. For me, at least. But as an Indian journalist, there was also a question gnawing away at me. Why isn’t India here? Why aren’t we here? It appears that decades later, the conversation of nuclear test ban and transparency, which in many ways began in New Delhi, has changed course over time. And a lot has contributed to these shifting winds. Global call-to-action transforms into a national call In 1954, the U.S. conducted a high-yield thermonuclear test called ‘Castle Bravo’; it’s resulted yield nearly three times the expected amount. Shortly after, thousands of miles away, free India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a thundering address at the Parliament’s lower house, or Lok Sabha. Nehru became the world’s first statesman to call for a nuclear test ban. He urged that nuclear powers of the world create a ‘standstill agreement’ – a critical step towards the long journey of nuclear disarmament. Much has changed in the next 20 years, and India’s stance has shifted. Rather, it was forced to shift under a strong geopolitical compass, often moved by the West. Fresh out of its colonial identity and finding its footing in the world, New Delhi moved against it. In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test. Codenamed ‘Operation Smiling Buddha’s the test triggered a hypocritical frown from the West. It marked a significant moment; making India the sixth country to possess nuclear weapons. More importantly, it was the first outside the permanent members of the UN Security Council to conduct such a test. India did not stop its nuclear ambitions there. In 1998, the country conducted Pokhran-II, a second series of nuclear tests. For India’s leadership, the tests were an assertion of strategic autonomy. India & CTBT: A relationship stuck in time Two years before India’s second nuclear test, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into existence. In the year 1996, the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September. But for the treaty to enter into force, it was decided on various factors that 44 countries are necessary to sign and ratify it. Of those 44, there are 9 countries that have not ratified the treaty. Of these, there are 3, which have not even signed it. India, Pakistan & North Korea. The Pariahs. Of the three, North Korea is no surprise. Pakistan has chosen to be an observer state. But India, excluding itself, has long been a surprise for many stakeholders globally and domestically, too. Not to forget, the company finds itself in. One, an adversarial neighbour with a deeply connected past but a complicated co-existence ever since. The second is a country that has chosen to keep the world at arm’s length. But India? With its global positioning and the growing bilateral relationships with countries around the world, why has it segued away from this multi-lateral relationship of the CTBTO? Several reasons. New Delhi has repeatedly called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty an unequal one, biased towards the five recognised nuclear states, which do not include India. The country has also contested ambiguous language in several of the Treaty’s provisions. For one, the lack of clarity on sub-critical nuclear tests remains a strong point of contention even today. More recently, it appears to have only deepened, especially after the U.S. conducted subcritical nuclear tests in May last year. Another provision of the Treaty that India contests is the ‘On-Site Inspection.’ The country has long maintained that it finds OSI intrusive, and in contradiction to national security, which cannot be compromised. Nor should it. Let me be clear; India’s issues with the Treaty are valid. My issue is the closed door that has hindered any and all possible conversation, at a table where 187 state signatories have a seat. India has repeatedly been offered a proposal to accept an observer status and access the data from the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System. But India has refused, as recently as 2019. India does not stand to lose much by accepting an observer status. It absolves the country of any obligation towards the Treaty, but grants access that any country positioning itself as an upcoming global superpower does need. Geopolitically, India should take a seat at any and every table its regional neighbours sit on. Especially Pakistan and China. Beyond the obvious strategic positioning, India’s diplomatic stakeholders need to take its scientific and academic community into confidence. Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for multi-lateral conversations, but they are incomplete without India, and India is incomplete without them. My two cents to New Delhi? You don’t have to take the plunge, but you can take a single step. It is time.

A record participation unfolded at the CTBTO’s Science &amp; Technology conference this past week. But India, estimated to have the third-largest scientific and technical manpower in the world, was conspicuously absent. Question is, why?

India and CTBTO need each other

Not far from the fringes of missile strikes, air raid sirens and plumes of smoke billowing in the skies of Yemen, Oman’s cloud nine moment came when they qualified for the Asia Cup 2025 for the very first time. Albeit the qualification in Asia’s premier tournament is a chest-thumping moment for Oman cricket, the performance in the tournament has been rather lacklustre. The same can be said about their East Asian counterparts, Hong Kong, who are now taking part in their fifth Asia Cup. Adding to this are the hosts UAE, whose woes continue at multilateral events.<h2>What has gone wrong for associate nations?</h2>The string of below-par performances comes just 14 months after a stellar T20 World Cup in the West Indies and USA that saw teams that are generally considered as minnows upstage some of the biggest giants in the game, the most notable being USA piping Pakistan in a nail-biting ‘super over’ thriller.&nbsp;Alongside Pakistan, that tournament also saw New Zealand and Sri Lanka crashing out in the round-robin stage, paving the way for Afghanistan and the USA to storm through into the Super 8s, with the former securing a maiden semi-final berth. The event truly bequeathed a belief that cricket is finally forging its path in becoming a global spectacle like football.&nbsp;Whilst many pinned their hopes on associate nations to replicate the ruckus and upend some results from last year, expectations fell flat as all three minnows were getting skittled and outfoxed to double-digit scores. Teams like Hong Kong were literally having butter fingers as they dropped the simplest of all catches, which might have irked the bowlers and the management.&nbsp;The shoddy display by these teams tells that these sides lack experience, which only comes by playing more cricket with the bigger Test-playing nations like India or Australia, at least in the shortest format.&nbsp;Take Hong Kong, for example, the dearth of experience was clearly evident when their bowlers could not defend their total against Bangladesh, a team that has gained notoriety for having the poorest run rate in T20Is alongside Sri Lanka.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/cricket-asia-cup-2025-full-squads-complete-fixtures-date-time-venue-and-live-streaming-details-check-all-details-1755585771834">Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details</a><h2>Other factors</h2>Apart from this, another cause of concern is that none of these players from the UAE, Oman and Hong Kong take part in any of the franchise tournaments held across the world. Adding to that, players in these lesser-known teams are not full-time cricketers, with some working as delivery partners or in white collar jobs.&nbsp;Furthermore, there is no proper domestic cricket structure or a franchise tournament, barring the UAE, which hosts the ILT20.&nbsp;ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-rohit-sharma-to-virat-kohli-here-is-a-look-at-five-indian-batters-with-most-runs-in-asia-cup-odis-t20is-sachin-tendulkar-ms-dhoni-dhawan-1754123070628">From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is)</a>&nbsp;For teams like the UAE, Oman, Hong Kong and others, achieving parity or reducing the gap with bigger Test-playing nations can only be done through consistency. This can only be achieved if these teams take part in trilateral or quadrilateral tournaments with the bigger teams. That, of course, depends on whether or how much the bigger nations are willing to accommodate or adjust their Future Tour Programmes (FTPs).&nbsp;With just months away from the 2026 T20 World Cup, associate nations will have to pull out all stops if they intend to go higher up in the pecking order of international cricket.&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

Albeit the qualification in Asia’s premier tournament is a chest-thumping moment for Oman cricket, the performance in the tournament has been rather lacklustre.

Not far from the fringes of missile strikes, air raid sirens and plumes of smoke billowing in the skies of Yemen, Oman’s cloud nine moment came when they qualified for the Asia Cup 2025 for the very first time. Albeit the qualification in Asia’s premier tournament is a chest-thumping moment for Oman cricket, the performance in the tournament has been rather lacklustre. The same can be said about their East Asian counterparts, Hong Kong, who are now taking part in their fifth Asia Cup. Adding to this are the hosts UAE, whose woes continue at multilateral events. What has gone wrong for associate nations? The string of below-par performances comes just 14 months after a stellar T20 World Cup in the West Indies and USA that saw teams that are generally considered as minnows upstage some of the biggest giants in the game, the most notable being USA piping Pakistan in a nail-biting ‘super over’ thriller. Alongside Pakistan, that tournament also saw New Zealand and Sri Lanka crashing out in the round-robin stage, paving the way for Afghanistan and the USA to storm through into the Super 8s, with the former securing a maiden semi-final berth. The event truly bequeathed a belief that cricket is finally forging its path in becoming a global spectacle like football. Whilst many pinned their hopes on associate nations to replicate the ruckus and upend some results from last year, expectations fell flat as all three minnows were getting skittled and outfoxed to double-digit scores. Teams like Hong Kong were literally having butter fingers as they dropped the simplest of all catches, which might have irked the bowlers and the management. The shoddy display by these teams tells that these sides lack experience, which only comes by playing more cricket with the bigger Test-playing nations like India or Australia, at least in the shortest format. Take Hong Kong, for example, the dearth of experience was clearly evident when their bowlers could not defend their total against Bangladesh, a team that has gained notoriety for having the poorest run rate in T20Is alongside Sri Lanka. ALSO READ | Asia Cup 2025: All you need to know - full squads, complete fixtures, date, time, venue and other key details Other factors Apart from this, another cause of concern is that none of these players from the UAE, Oman and Hong Kong take part in any of the franchise tournaments held across the world. Adding to that, players in these lesser-known teams are not full-time cricketers, with some working as delivery partners or in white collar jobs. Furthermore, there is no proper domestic cricket structure or a franchise tournament, barring the UAE, which hosts the ILT20. ALSO READ | From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is) For teams like the UAE, Oman, Hong Kong and others, achieving parity or reducing the gap with bigger Test-playing nations can only be done through consistency. This can only be achieved if these teams take part in trilateral or quadrilateral tournaments with the bigger teams. That, of course, depends on whether or how much the bigger nations are willing to accommodate or adjust their Future Tour Programmes (FTPs). With just months away from the 2026 T20 World Cup, associate nations will have to pull out all stops if they intend to go higher up in the pecking order of international cricket. 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

Albeit the qualification in Asia’s premier tournament is a chest-thumping moment for Oman cricket, the performance in the tournament has been rather lacklustre.

Asia Cup 2025: Why associate nations have struggled to shake off minnows tag despite glimpses in T20 World Cup

In an era where the power of governments fundamentally derives from the consent of the people they govern, Gen Z's protests worldwide serve as a stark reminder that authority unchecked by public will can lead to upheaval. These young demonstrators, prioritising their holistic well-being—encompassing economic opportunities, social justice, and personal freedoms—are quick to mobilize and demand change. Accounting for roughly 26 percent of the global population, Gen Z has emerged as a driving force challenging established conventions in politics and personal life. Their aspirations must be integrated into governance, or risk backlash from unilateral decisions, suppression, and leaders' personal aggrandizement, as seen in the eye-opening crises in France and Nepal. Democratic dissent, when handled with decency and sensitivity, can pave the way for progress; however, heavy-handed tactics only fuel resentment. Ultimately, change to the establishment comes via the ballot or, regrettably, the bullet—but in the fast-paced world of social media reels, real-life results unfold at unprecedented speeds.&nbsp;From France's "Block Everything" movement to Nepal's outcry against "Nepo Kids," Gen Z is wielding the cudgels against systems that stray from the democratic ideal of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." These protests underscore that Gen Z and authoritarian politics are incompatible; governments must prioritize inclusive development, listening to voices rather than silencing them through bans or force. The scenes of ember-red flames, billowing smoke, stick-wielding youths, and mobile selfies from Western Europe to South Asia highlight a global attention-grabber: Nepal's streets turning into battlegrounds against corruption and suppression, mirroring broader youth-led unrest.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/people-shouldn-t-be-afraid-of-their-government-governments-should-be-afraid-of-their-people-lessons-from-south-asia-1757514125479">People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people: Lessons from South Asia</a>&nbsp;Gen Z Wants Progress, Not Power Plays&nbsp;What began in Nepal as outrage over a September 4, 2025, ban on 26 social media platforms—citing regulatory issues but perceived as a bid to stifle dissent—escalated into demands for accountability, jobs, and political overhaul. Protesters, predominantly aged 13-28, clashed with police, torched parliament buildings like Singh Durbar, and vandalized politicians' homes, leading to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's resignation amid the chaos. This marks Nepal's worst unrest in years, with at least 19-30 deaths and over 300 injuries reported, prompting army patrols, curfews in Kathmandu, and international calls for restraint from groups like Human Rights Watch. The ban backfired, as youths used VPNs and offline networks to amplify videos of police brutality, drawing global solidarity inspired by movements like Hong Kong's or Thailand's. Underlying issues include 19 percent youth unemployment, wealth gaps, and cronyism benefiting elites, despite 5.8 percent economic growth in 2024. The government labeled the protests "hijacked" by political elements, but critics see it as a failure to address core grievances. Social media was restored post-unrest, but no consensus has emerged on an interim leader, with fears of further escalation as prisons saw escapes and borders felt economic ripples. After two days of violent unrest (Sept 8–9), calm is returning to Kathmandu as the army enforces order and detains rioters. Gen Z leaders, however, demand an interim government under ex–Supreme Court Chief Justice Sushila Karki, citing the need for transparency.&nbsp;Echoing this, Nepal's crisis reflects global patterns where Gen Z reshapes discourse, as seen in Bangladesh's 2024 youth-led toppling of Sheikh Hasina or US Black Lives Matter waves. Social media accelerates local grievances into international narratives, sensitizing populations to democratic rights. Yet, protests alone aren't sufficient—governments must respond with vision for inclusive policies like education, skills training, and anti-corruption measures. Ignoring Gen Z's calls for progress over power plays invites flare-ups anywhere.&nbsp;‘Block Everything’ Echoes French Revolution&nbsp;In France, the "Block Everything" (Bloquons Tout) movement erupted on September 10, 2025, coinciding with new Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu's first day in office after François Bayrou's resignation. Nationwide protests saw 200,000-250,000 demonstrators—many young and Gen Z—blocking highways, roundabouts, gas stations, and tram lines, setting barricades ablaze, and clashing with 80,000 deployed police, resulting in 295-473 arrests by late afternoon. Originating online in May among right-wing groups but co-opted by the left, it targets President Emmanuel Macron's elite, austerity measures, and proposed €44 billion spending cuts amid 114 percent GDP public debt. Scenes in Paris, Lille, Marseille, and Rennes included tear gas, water cannons, and fires at restaurants and vehicles, drawing comparisons to the 2018-2019 Yellow Vests and the French Revolution of 1789, when citizens rose against economic hardship and elitism, toppling entrenched power structures. Today’s more educated, anticapitalist youth seek social justice and reduced inequality, echoing the revolutionary cries for liberty and equality. Endorsed by figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the movement uses TikTok, Telegram, and Instagram for coordination, employing "Black Bloc" tactics. Authorities warn of no tolerance for violence, but the movement's viral, leaderless nature—reminiscent of the decentralized uprisings during the French Revolution—signals ongoing challenges for governance in addressing Gen Z’s demands for systemic change.&nbsp;Both cases reveal unilateral decisions—like Nepal's ban or France's budget cuts—backfiring, with suppression breeding resentment. Nepal's history of movements (e.g., 2006 monarchy end) shows Gen Z's digital edge in mobilization, while France's echoes fears of prolonged unrest. Governments must adapt through dialogue and inclusive development to represent Gen Z's aspirations.&nbsp;However, Gen Z's violent protests, which have led to loss of life and widespread destruction, are widely criticized. While Gen Z and the educated global population have every right to voice their opposition to injustices, this must not come at the expense of decency. Escalating to lethal clashes or property destruction undermines their cause and invites harsher crackdowns. Peaceful methods, amplified through social media, can drive change without bloodshed. As Mahatma Gandhi profoundly stated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”&nbsp;

Accounting for roughly 26 percent of the global population, Gen Z has emerged as a driving force challenging established conventions in politics and personal life.

In an era where the power of governments fundamentally derives from the consent of the people they govern, Gen Z's protests worldwide serve as a stark reminder that authority unchecked by public will can lead to upheaval. These young demonstrators, prioritising their holistic well-being—encompassing economic opportunities, social justice, and personal freedoms—are quick to mobilize and demand change. Accounting for roughly 26 percent of the global population, Gen Z has emerged as a driving force challenging established conventions in politics and personal life. Their aspirations must be integrated into governance, or risk backlash from unilateral decisions, suppression, and leaders' personal aggrandizement, as seen in the eye-opening crises in France and Nepal. Democratic dissent, when handled with decency and sensitivity, can pave the way for progress; however, heavy-handed tactics only fuel resentment. Ultimately, change to the establishment comes via the ballot or, regrettably, the bullet—but in the fast-paced world of social media reels, real-life results unfold at unprecedented speeds. From France's "Block Everything" movement to Nepal's outcry against "Nepo Kids," Gen Z is wielding the cudgels against systems that stray from the democratic ideal of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." These protests underscore that Gen Z and authoritarian politics are incompatible; governments must prioritize inclusive development, listening to voices rather than silencing them through bans or force. The scenes of ember-red flames, billowing smoke, stick-wielding youths, and mobile selfies from Western Europe to South Asia highlight a global attention-grabber: Nepal's streets turning into battlegrounds against corruption and suppression, mirroring broader youth-led unrest. Also Read: People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people: Lessons from South Asia Gen Z Wants Progress, Not Power Plays What began in Nepal as outrage over a September 4, 2025, ban on 26 social media platforms—citing regulatory issues but perceived as a bid to stifle dissent—escalated into demands for accountability, jobs, and political overhaul. Protesters, predominantly aged 13-28, clashed with police, torched parliament buildings like Singh Durbar, and vandalized politicians' homes, leading to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli's resignation amid the chaos. This marks Nepal's worst unrest in years, with at least 19-30 deaths and over 300 injuries reported, prompting army patrols, curfews in Kathmandu, and international calls for restraint from groups like Human Rights Watch. The ban backfired, as youths used VPNs and offline networks to amplify videos of police brutality, drawing global solidarity inspired by movements like Hong Kong's or Thailand's. Underlying issues include 19 percent youth unemployment, wealth gaps, and cronyism benefiting elites, despite 5.8 percent economic growth in 2024. The government labeled the protests "hijacked" by political elements, but critics see it as a failure to address core grievances. Social media was restored post-unrest, but no consensus has emerged on an interim leader, with fears of further escalation as prisons saw escapes and borders felt economic ripples. After two days of violent unrest (Sept 8–9), calm is returning to Kathmandu as the army enforces order and detains rioters. Gen Z leaders, however, demand an interim government under ex–Supreme Court Chief Justice Sushila Karki, citing the need for transparency. Echoing this, Nepal's crisis reflects global patterns where Gen Z reshapes discourse, as seen in Bangladesh's 2024 youth-led toppling of Sheikh Hasina or US Black Lives Matter waves. Social media accelerates local grievances into international narratives, sensitizing populations to democratic rights. Yet, protests alone aren't sufficient—governments must respond with vision for inclusive policies like education, skills training, and anti-corruption measures. Ignoring Gen Z's calls for progress over power plays invites flare-ups anywhere. ‘Block Everything’ Echoes French Revolution In France, the "Block Everything" (Bloquons Tout) movement erupted on September 10, 2025, coinciding with new Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu's first day in office after François Bayrou's resignation. Nationwide protests saw 200,000-250,000 demonstrators—many young and Gen Z—blocking highways, roundabouts, gas stations, and tram lines, setting barricades ablaze, and clashing with 80,000 deployed police, resulting in 295-473 arrests by late afternoon. Originating online in May among right-wing groups but co-opted by the left, it targets President Emmanuel Macron's elite, austerity measures, and proposed €44 billion spending cuts amid 114 percent GDP public debt. Scenes in Paris, Lille, Marseille, and Rennes included tear gas, water cannons, and fires at restaurants and vehicles, drawing comparisons to the 2018-2019 Yellow Vests and the French Revolution of 1789, when citizens rose against economic hardship and elitism, toppling entrenched power structures. Today’s more educated, anticapitalist youth seek social justice and reduced inequality, echoing the revolutionary cries for liberty and equality. Endorsed by figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the movement uses TikTok, Telegram, and Instagram for coordination, employing "Black Bloc" tactics. Authorities warn of no tolerance for violence, but the movement's viral, leaderless nature—reminiscent of the decentralized uprisings during the French Revolution—signals ongoing challenges for governance in addressing Gen Z’s demands for systemic change. Both cases reveal unilateral decisions—like Nepal's ban or France's budget cuts—backfiring, with suppression breeding resentment. Nepal's history of movements (e.g., 2006 monarchy end) shows Gen Z's digital edge in mobilization, while France's echoes fears of prolonged unrest. Governments must adapt through dialogue and inclusive development to represent Gen Z's aspirations. However, Gen Z's violent protests, which have led to loss of life and widespread destruction, are widely criticized. While Gen Z and the educated global population have every right to voice their opposition to injustices, this must not come at the expense of decency. Escalating to lethal clashes or property destruction undermines their cause and invites harsher crackdowns. Peaceful methods, amplified through social media, can drive change without bloodshed. As Mahatma Gandhi profoundly stated, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”

Accounting for roughly 26 percent of the global population, Gen Z has emerged as a driving force challenging established conventions in politics and personal life.

Nepal’s ‘nepo kids’ to France’s ‘block everything’, how Gen Z’s reels-to-revolution shakes the world

The first part of this article's headline is a quote from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The line is spoken by V, the masked anarchist titular character fighting a fascist regime in a dystopian future Britain. When one looks at the recent mass protests that toppled governments in South Asia, the crux of these lines is being proven again: that the people are the sovereigns, and the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. When regimes tinker with that consent for too long with impunity, eruptions will happen, as the people have the right, and responsibility, to overthrow them. It is not uncommon for governments to forget that they exist to serve the people, and not the other way round. They can be overthrown – by ballots or bullets – if they violate people's trust. Unchecked authoritarianism and corruption will be met with often unexpected levels of resistance and violence.What should the governments of the region and further afield learn from the Nepal protest?<h2>When people rise up against their government: The tipping point</h2>There is always a cocktail of causes that lead to a tipping point: collective action follows when fear, repression, or economic hardship become so unbearable that people are willing to die to make their nations a better place. In South Asia, this idea manifested vividly in recent protests across Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Some of these movements were successful, &nbsp;some led to further chaos and uncertainty, while others are still evolving. &nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/guns-fired-weapons-seized-buildings-burnt-the-deadly-day-of-violence-in-nepal-protest-in-pics-gen-z-nepo-kids-oust-pm-oli-1757495741405">Guns fired, weapons seized, buildings burnt: The deadly day of violence in Nepal protest IN PICS</a> But the causes are similar: economic hardship marked by high cost of living and unemployment, authoritarian overreach, social injustices. That’s when ordinary citizens, particularly the youth, roam the streets in defiance of state control, forcing regime changes, government backdowns, or ongoing armed struggles. The outcomes vary by country, but the essence remains the same: when governments consistently instil fear, something breaks in people. In fact their anger makes them fearless.<h2>Nepal: Youth-led uprising against corruption and censorship morphs into mayhem</h2>In a matter of a week this month, Nepal erupted in widespread "Gen Z" protests triggered by a government ban on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. The ostensible reason was the platforms’ alleged failure to register under a new law, but the protests against it went beyond the youth and became an expression of fury over rampant corruption, nepotism ("nepo kids" of elites flaunting luxury amid poverty), and economic stagnation. As youth unemployment hit 20.8 per cent, the protesters – mostly teenagers and young adults – defied curfews, set fire to government buildings like Parliament and the Supreme Court, and targeted politicians' homes, reportedly leading to at least 22 deaths.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-protest-kp-oli-s-india-visit-in-third-term-that-never-happened-1757418162033">Nepal protest: Oli's India visit in third term — that never happened</a>The government's violent response – deploying the army and imposing curfews – was evidence of how much it feared its own people. The fragility of the government was evident when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned and was seen boarding a chopper just two days into the protests, after four cabinet ministers stepped down. The social media ban was lifted, and President Ram Chandra Paudel invited Gen Z leaders for talks, exposing the regime's vulnerability.<h2>Bangladesh: Student-led revolution topples a government</h2>The 2024 student-led "July Revolution" in Bangladesh started as a protest against the reinstatement of a 30 per cent job quota for descendants of 1971 war veterans, even as the youth were reeling under high unemployment. Peaceful demonstrations soon spiralled into a mass uprising against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's 15-year rule. Hasina faced allegations of corruption, media suppression, and election rigging of the 2024 polls which the opposition had boycotted. Protesters, joined by parents and opposition parties like BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, stormed Hasina's residence on August 5, forcing her to flee the country.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-protest-ramesh-lekhak-home-minister-resigns-after-18-killed-in-clashes-1757341508160">Nepal protest: Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak sends resignation after 18 killed in clashes</a>The protests were fanned by the government's brutal crackdown ordered by Hasina, which reportedly resulted in 1,400 deaths, mostly at the hands of security forces. The "Long March to Dhaka" defied curfews, leading to Hasina's ouster and the taking over of an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. &nbsp; Even though that 'revolution' soon spiralled into attacks on Awami League supporters and its ban, this was another instance of how the people showed that the government should fear them.<h2>Sri Lanka's Aragalaya: A loud cry against years of family rule</h2>The 2022 Aragalaya ("struggle") in Sri Lanka was the people’s collective response to the worst economic crisis since the South Asian island’s independence. In the post-pandemic world, the country defaulted on international debt, causing inflation and fuel shortages. The people were already opposed to the corruption under the Rajapaksa family. Days of protests and violence eventually forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country and resign in July. The protesters occupied the seats of power like the presidential palace. Their demand was a "system change", as poverty doubled to 25 per cent. Even today, the crisis's aftermath lingers, with IMF-mandated austerity measures still sparking smaller protests against high taxes and inequality.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed</a>The Sri Lankan government initially responded with brutal force and the weaponisation of repressive laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But the people refused to leave the streets, and the struggle led to a different electoral result in 2024 that saw the left-leaning Anura Kumara Dissanayake's NPP alliance winning by a landslide. That was a repudiation of the elite that occupied power for decades. Here also, people made the government afraid of them, paving the way for a democratic renewal without full-scale violence.<h2>Myanmar: From protests to armed people's war</h2>Myanmar’s 2021 military coup and its aftermath is, however, a more nuanced story. After the removal of Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government and installation of a military junta, a massive civil disobedience and protest followed. It was met with lethal force, with at least 2,500 civilians reportedly killed. In the past two years, the civilian protests died down, with the resistance evolving into a civil war. The National Unity Government (NUG) and ethnic armed groups like the Arakan Army and Kachin Independence Army have captured territories like Lashio and Ann, controlling 42 per cent of the country.The junta responded with airstrikes, torture, and civilian killings – reportedly 6,486 deaths by April 2025. The People's Resistance Force, which emerged as a response to the coup, has grown from 65,000 fighters in 2022 to 85,000 by 2024, even as 93 per cent of the public is estimated to be supporting the NUG. The events have displaced some 3.5 million, and the chaotic situation continues, with people continuing to resist the government.<h2>Pakistan and Afghanistan: The story is still evolving</h2>Similar protest movements are taking place against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the current dispensation in Pakistan. In spite of the jailing of former prime minister Imran Khan, his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party led protests. In these marches, thousands defied barricades and prohibitory orders, with nearly 1,000 people arrested and at least six people killed.The government has shut down the internet several times, used Section 144 for bans and curfews, and made mass arrests of more than 500 in August. Some 108 PTI members were jailed in 2025, often on anti-terrorism convictions. The government clearly fears PTI's mobilisation. But how far Khan can survive and succeed depends on a number of factors. The powerful army-intelligence nexus has been running Pakistan for years. It is not easy to topple that regime. But one day, things could change dramatically.<h2>A regional tide of defiance</h2>The pattern across these nations is clear: people protest, and governments afraid of loss of control and power respond with violence, censorship, or repression. But that often backfires very quickly. Economic crises (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) and authoritarianism (Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan) are fuelling youth-led resistance, leading to resignations (Nepal, Bangladesh), electoral shifts (Sri Lanka), or sustained warfare (Myanmar). In the case of Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the story is still unfolding: defiance persists, but at a heavy cost.<h2>The results are not always rosy</h2>It has been seen that the final results of any mass movement are not perfect. It is messy, often transitional. Sometimes such movements only replace one repressive regime with another. External influences and games in the chess of global influence complicate these people’s movements. But they all point to a lesson that the powerful often forget: when pushed to the brink, people shed fear, making governments deal with the power of their collective action. &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

Mass protests across South Asia—from Nepal to Bangladesh and beyond—show rising youth-led resistance against authoritarianism, corruption, and economic woes. These movements prove that people are the final authority, and when pushed, they can make governments fear them 



The first part of this article's headline is a quote from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The line is spoken by V, the masked anarchist titular character fighting a fascist regime in a dystopian future Britain. When one looks at the recent mass protests that toppled governments in South Asia, the crux of these lines is being proven again: that the people are the sovereigns, and the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. When regimes tinker with that consent for too long with impunity, eruptions will happen, as the people have the right, and responsibility, to overthrow them. It is not uncommon for governments to forget that they exist to serve the people, and not the other way round. They can be overthrown – by ballots or bullets – if they violate people's trust. Unchecked authoritarianism and corruption will be met with often unexpected levels of resistance and violence. What should the governments of the region and further afield learn from the Nepal protest? When people rise up against their government: The tipping point There is always a cocktail of causes that lead to a tipping point: collective action follows when fear, repression, or economic hardship become so unbearable that people are willing to die to make their nations a better place. In South Asia, this idea manifested vividly in recent protests across Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Some of these movements were successful, some led to further chaos and uncertainty, while others are still evolving. Also read: Guns fired, weapons seized, buildings burnt: The deadly day of violence in Nepal protest IN PICS But the causes are similar: economic hardship marked by high cost of living and unemployment, authoritarian overreach, social injustices. That’s when ordinary citizens, particularly the youth, roam the streets in defiance of state control, forcing regime changes, government backdowns, or ongoing armed struggles. The outcomes vary by country, but the essence remains the same: when governments consistently instil fear, something breaks in people. In fact their anger makes them fearless. Nepal: Youth-led uprising against corruption and censorship morphs into mayhem In a matter of a week this month, Nepal erupted in widespread "Gen Z" protests triggered by a government ban on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. The ostensible reason was the platforms’ alleged failure to register under a new law, but the protests against it went beyond the youth and became an expression of fury over rampant corruption, nepotism ("nepo kids" of elites flaunting luxury amid poverty), and economic stagnation. As youth unemployment hit 20.8 per cent, the protesters – mostly teenagers and young adults – defied curfews, set fire to government buildings like Parliament and the Supreme Court, and targeted politicians' homes, reportedly leading to at least 22 deaths. Also read: Nepal protest: Oli's India visit in third term — that never happened The government's violent response – deploying the army and imposing curfews – was evidence of how much it feared its own people. The fragility of the government was evident when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned and was seen boarding a chopper just two days into the protests, after four cabinet ministers stepped down. The social media ban was lifted, and President Ram Chandra Paudel invited Gen Z leaders for talks, exposing the regime's vulnerability. Bangladesh: Student-led revolution topples a government The 2024 student-led "July Revolution" in Bangladesh started as a protest against the reinstatement of a 30 per cent job quota for descendants of 1971 war veterans, even as the youth were reeling under high unemployment. Peaceful demonstrations soon spiralled into a mass uprising against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's 15-year rule. Hasina faced allegations of corruption, media suppression, and election rigging of the 2024 polls which the opposition had boycotted. Protesters, joined by parents and opposition parties like BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, stormed Hasina's residence on August 5, forcing her to flee the country. Also read: Nepal protest: Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak sends resignation after 18 killed in clashes The protests were fanned by the government's brutal crackdown ordered by Hasina, which reportedly resulted in 1,400 deaths, mostly at the hands of security forces. The "Long March to Dhaka" defied curfews, leading to Hasina's ouster and the taking over of an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. Even though that 'revolution' soon spiralled into attacks on Awami League supporters and its ban, this was another instance of how the people showed that the government should fear them. Sri Lanka's Aragalaya: A loud cry against years of family rule The 2022 Aragalaya ("struggle") in Sri Lanka was the people’s collective response to the worst economic crisis since the South Asian island’s independence. In the post-pandemic world, the country defaulted on international debt, causing inflation and fuel shortages. The people were already opposed to the corruption under the Rajapaksa family. Days of protests and violence eventually forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country and resign in July. The protesters occupied the seats of power like the presidential palace. Their demand was a "system change", as poverty doubled to 25 per cent. Even today, the crisis's aftermath lingers, with IMF-mandated austerity measures still sparking smaller protests against high taxes and inequality. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed The Sri Lankan government initially responded with brutal force and the weaponisation of repressive laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But the people refused to leave the streets, and the struggle led to a different electoral result in 2024 that saw the left-leaning Anura Kumara Dissanayake's NPP alliance winning by a landslide. That was a repudiation of the elite that occupied power for decades. Here also, people made the government afraid of them, paving the way for a democratic renewal without full-scale violence. Myanmar: From protests to armed people's war Myanmar’s 2021 military coup and its aftermath is, however, a more nuanced story. After the removal of Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government and installation of a military junta, a massive civil disobedience and protest followed. It was met with lethal force, with at least 2,500 civilians reportedly killed. In the past two years, the civilian protests died down, with the resistance evolving into a civil war. The National Unity Government (NUG) and ethnic armed groups like the Arakan Army and Kachin Independence Army have captured territories like Lashio and Ann, controlling 42 per cent of the country. The junta responded with airstrikes, torture, and civilian killings – reportedly 6,486 deaths by April 2025. The People's Resistance Force, which emerged as a response to the coup, has grown from 65,000 fighters in 2022 to 85,000 by 2024, even as 93 per cent of the public is estimated to be supporting the NUG. The events have displaced some 3.5 million, and the chaotic situation continues, with people continuing to resist the government. Pakistan and Afghanistan: The story is still evolving Similar protest movements are taking place against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the current dispensation in Pakistan. In spite of the jailing of former prime minister Imran Khan, his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party led protests. In these marches, thousands defied barricades and prohibitory orders, with nearly 1,000 people arrested and at least six people killed. The government has shut down the internet several times, used Section 144 for bans and curfews, and made mass arrests of more than 500 in August. Some 108 PTI members were jailed in 2025, often on anti-terrorism convictions. The government clearly fears PTI's mobilisation. But how far Khan can survive and succeed depends on a number of factors. The powerful army-intelligence nexus has been running Pakistan for years. It is not easy to topple that regime. But one day, things could change dramatically. A regional tide of defiance The pattern across these nations is clear: people protest, and governments afraid of loss of control and power respond with violence, censorship, or repression. But that often backfires very quickly. Economic crises (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) and authoritarianism (Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan) are fuelling youth-led resistance, leading to resignations (Nepal, Bangladesh), electoral shifts (Sri Lanka), or sustained warfare (Myanmar). In the case of Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the story is still unfolding: defiance persists, but at a heavy cost. The results are not always rosy It has been seen that the final results of any mass movement are not perfect. It is messy, often transitional. Sometimes such movements only replace one repressive regime with another. External influences and games in the chess of global influence complicate these people’s movements. But they all point to a lesson that the powerful often forget: when pushed to the brink, people shed fear, making governments deal with the power of their collective action. 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

Mass protests across South Asia—from Nepal to Bangladesh and beyond—show rising youth-led resistance against authoritarianism, corruption, and economic woes. These movements prove that people are the final authority, and when pushed, they can make governments fear them&nbsp;&nbsp;

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people: Lessons from South Asia

US President Donald Trump’s sudden reversal on India has become the talking point in global diplomacy. After weeks of tough talk, high tariffs, and social media criticism, Trump unexpectedly shifted his tone. He praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “great Prime Minister” and called India-US ties “very special.” PM Modi, in a measured and statesmanlike response, reciprocated warmly and underlined the strength of the partnership.&nbsp;This change is not just a passing remark. It carries deeper meaning. The US and India need each other for peace, prosperity, and balance in an uncertain world. The U-turn signals that even in times of strain, both democracies recognize the value of staying aligned. Why Trump Changed His Tone&nbsp;Trump’s hard line on India, marked by tariffs as high as 50 percent on Indian imports, was seen as punishment for New Delhi’s independent energy and trade policies. His criticism even extended to suggesting that India was drifting closer to Russia and China. But soon after, he walked back and stressed friendship.&nbsp;Why this shift? The answer lies in strategic reality. Over the decades, successive governments on both sides of the Pacific have built a robust India-US partnership. India’s geographic position, economic strength, and democratic credentials make it indispensable for America’s long-term interests in Asia. India is part of the Indo-Pacific balance and a counterweight in an era of shifting alliances.&nbsp;Economically too, India matters. It is the fastest-growing major economy and a huge consumer market. American companies such as Apple and Tesla see India as a vital investment hub. Equally, India’s pool of skilled professionals continues to strengthen US industries, from Silicon Valley to healthcare.&nbsp;In this context, Trump’s U-turn was less about personal sentiment and more about recognizing ground realities. Alienating India could not only hurt US companies but also weaken America’s strategic influence in Asia. India’s Mature Diplomacy&nbsp;India, on its part, responded to the situation with balance and dignity. Throughout the tariff episode, New Delhi avoided sharp words or retaliation. Instead, it stuck to a calm, strategic communication style. PM Modi’s eventual response to Trump’s praise was measured: he highlighted mutual respect and reaffirmed the partnership.&nbsp;This reflects India’s long-standing approach to foreign policy. Guided by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world is one family—India seeks global peace and cooperation, not confrontation. At the same time, it protects its sovereignty and makes independent choices, whether on energy, trade, or defense.&nbsp;India’s focus on “Make in India” and “Make for World” highlights its dual ambition: self-reliance at home and contribution to global prosperity abroad. By avoiding any warlike rhetoric, India showed the world that it stands for constructive engagement, even under pressure.&nbsp;Another dimension is the strength of the Indian diaspora in the US Millions of Indian-origin Americans contribute significantly to the US economy and society. They form a natural bridge between the two democracies and are an important factor in shaping US policies toward India. Shared Need for Peace and Prosperity&nbsp;The India-US relationship is not just transactional. It is strategic, people-driven, and rooted in shared democratic values. Both countries want an open, stable global order. They have cooperated on defense, technology, clean energy, and regional stability. Both stand against terrorism and support freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific.&nbsp;Even when disagreements emerge—whether on trade or foreign policy—these are bumps on a larger road. The big picture remains the same: the US needs India as a trusted partner in Asia, and India needs the US as a reliable economic and technological ally. Together, they act as stabilizers in a world facing conflicts, recession risks, and geopolitical rivalries. What Could Be Next&nbsp;Trump’s U-turn is more than an adjustment of words. It is a recognition that India cannot be sidelined in any global strategy. The US may impose tariffs or raise concerns, but ultimately, cooperation with India is unavoidable. For India, the episode reaffirms the wisdom of patience and diplomatic maturity.&nbsp;What could be next? The coming months may see new negotiations on trade, technology, and defense. US companies are expected to expand their presence in India, while strategic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific could deepen further. On the global stage, India is likely to leverage this renewed warmth to strengthen its voice at the United Nations, the G20, and other multilateral platforms.&nbsp;Trump’s softer stand may also have a domestic angle. With elections approaching in the US, outreach to the influential Indian diaspora and projecting strong India ties could become part of his campaign narrative. On the other hand, India will continue to walk its independent path, balancing relations with multiple powers while safeguarding its sovereignty.&nbsp;The reset shows that even in moments of friction, India and the US remain bound by shared interests and larger responsibilities. If both nations now build on this opening with vision and consistency, their partnership can not only secure prosperity for their people but also shape the future of global peace, stability, and economic growth. In an era of shifting powers, this may well be one of the defining alliances of the 21st century.

India’s geographic position, economic strength, and democratic credentials make it indispensable for America’s long-term interests in Asia.

US President Donald Trump’s sudden reversal on India has become the talking point in global diplomacy. After weeks of tough talk, high tariffs, and social media criticism, Trump unexpectedly shifted his tone. He praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “great Prime Minister” and called India-US ties “very special.” PM Modi, in a measured and statesmanlike response, reciprocated warmly and underlined the strength of the partnership. This change is not just a passing remark. It carries deeper meaning. The US and India need each other for peace, prosperity, and balance in an uncertain world. The U-turn signals that even in times of strain, both democracies recognize the value of staying aligned. Why Trump Changed His Tone Trump’s hard line on India, marked by tariffs as high as 50 percent on Indian imports, was seen as punishment for New Delhi’s independent energy and trade policies. His criticism even extended to suggesting that India was drifting closer to Russia and China. But soon after, he walked back and stressed friendship. Why this shift? The answer lies in strategic reality. Over the decades, successive governments on both sides of the Pacific have built a robust India-US partnership. India’s geographic position, economic strength, and democratic credentials make it indispensable for America’s long-term interests in Asia. India is part of the Indo-Pacific balance and a counterweight in an era of shifting alliances. Economically too, India matters. It is the fastest-growing major economy and a huge consumer market. American companies such as Apple and Tesla see India as a vital investment hub. Equally, India’s pool of skilled professionals continues to strengthen US industries, from Silicon Valley to healthcare. In this context, Trump’s U-turn was less about personal sentiment and more about recognizing ground realities. Alienating India could not only hurt US companies but also weaken America’s strategic influence in Asia. India’s Mature Diplomacy India, on its part, responded to the situation with balance and dignity. Throughout the tariff episode, New Delhi avoided sharp words or retaliation. Instead, it stuck to a calm, strategic communication style. PM Modi’s eventual response to Trump’s praise was measured: he highlighted mutual respect and reaffirmed the partnership. This reflects India’s long-standing approach to foreign policy. Guided by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world is one family—India seeks global peace and cooperation, not confrontation. At the same time, it protects its sovereignty and makes independent choices, whether on energy, trade, or defense. India’s focus on “Make in India” and “Make for World” highlights its dual ambition: self-reliance at home and contribution to global prosperity abroad. By avoiding any warlike rhetoric, India showed the world that it stands for constructive engagement, even under pressure. Another dimension is the strength of the Indian diaspora in the US Millions of Indian-origin Americans contribute significantly to the US economy and society. They form a natural bridge between the two democracies and are an important factor in shaping US policies toward India. Shared Need for Peace and Prosperity The India-US relationship is not just transactional. It is strategic, people-driven, and rooted in shared democratic values. Both countries want an open, stable global order. They have cooperated on defense, technology, clean energy, and regional stability. Both stand against terrorism and support freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. Even when disagreements emerge—whether on trade or foreign policy—these are bumps on a larger road. The big picture remains the same: the US needs India as a trusted partner in Asia, and India needs the US as a reliable economic and technological ally. Together, they act as stabilizers in a world facing conflicts, recession risks, and geopolitical rivalries. What Could Be Next Trump’s U-turn is more than an adjustment of words. It is a recognition that India cannot be sidelined in any global strategy. The US may impose tariffs or raise concerns, but ultimately, cooperation with India is unavoidable. For India, the episode reaffirms the wisdom of patience and diplomatic maturity. What could be next? The coming months may see new negotiations on trade, technology, and defense. US companies are expected to expand their presence in India, while strategic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific could deepen further. On the global stage, India is likely to leverage this renewed warmth to strengthen its voice at the United Nations, the G20, and other multilateral platforms. Trump’s softer stand may also have a domestic angle. With elections approaching in the US, outreach to the influential Indian diaspora and projecting strong India ties could become part of his campaign narrative. On the other hand, India will continue to walk its independent path, balancing relations with multiple powers while safeguarding its sovereignty. The reset shows that even in moments of friction, India and the US remain bound by shared interests and larger responsibilities. If both nations now build on this opening with vision and consistency, their partnership can not only secure prosperity for their people but also shape the future of global peace, stability, and economic growth. In an era of shifting powers, this may well be one of the defining alliances of the 21st century.

India’s geographic position, economic strength, and democratic credentials make it indispensable for America’s long-term interests in Asia.

Trade Tariffs, Tough Talk, & U-Turn! Trump Calls Modi ‘Great’ — Why It Matters and What’s Next”

When we talk about defence reforms, the conversation almost always drifts to tanks, missiles, or drones. Necessary, yes. But ask any soldier and you’ll hear a quieter truth: morale is as decisive as firepower. And morale is built not just on equipment in the field, but on the well-being of families at home.That is why the GST Council’s decision of 3 September 2025, coming into effect on 22 September, matters so much. On the surface, it is a fiscal measure — trimming tax rates, exempting categories of hardware and goods. In reality, it is a reform that touches every serving soldier, every veteran, and every family living in a cantonment.<h2>Salaries, pensions, and purchasing power</h2>India’s defence budget this year is ₹6.81 lakh crore. Of that, a staggering ₹1.47 lakh crore goes to salaries and pensions for serving personnel, retirees, and their dependents. This is the real backbone of our military community.Until now, GST added a hidden weight to household expenses. Groceries, school fees, appliances, even uniforms — the cumulative bite was felt in every cantonment home. The latest rationalisation, which reduces GST rates to simpler 5 and 18 per cent slabs and exempts many essentials, means those rupees stretch further.For a sepoy’s family, that might mean not putting off the purchase of a new washing machine. For a pensioner in Jaipur, it might mean medicines that cost less each month. Small things, perhaps. But together, they add up to dignity and security.<h2>The cantonment economy</h2>Walk through a market in Ambala, Pune, or Jalandhar and you’ll see what this really means. Local shopkeepers, grocers, tailors, and electronics vendors all depend heavily on defence families’ spending. When GST on essentials falls, demand rises. And when demand rises, small-town economies breathe easier.The Army doesn’t just defend borders. It sustains entire communities in cantonments across the country. The GST reform gives those communities a timely boost, especially as we head into the festive season.<h2>Linking morale to readiness</h2>It is easy to forget how tightly morale links to readiness. A jawan manning a post on the Line of Control fights with a different resolve when he knows his family is comfortable back home. A major commanding a company in Ladakh sleeps a little easier when school bills and household expenses don’t consume his wife’s evenings.Fiscal relief, at the family level, reduces stress on serving personnel. And reduced stress translates directly into focus on the mission. We often talk of drones as force multipliers. But morale is a force multiplier too — and this reform strengthens it.<h2>Veterans and their families</h2>Let’s not overlook veterans. Many live on fixed pensions, watching costs creep upward year after year. For them, GST relief is not a technicality — it is a lifeline. Lower tax on essentials means less pressure on monthly budgets, less reliance on support networks, and more dignity in retirement.For widows and dependents of soldiers, this reform is equally important. It is a quiet acknowledgement that service to the nation extends beyond uniformed years, and that the state still stands behind those who stood for it.<h2>Beyond the household: A national signal</h2>The government is prepared to absorb between ₹48,000 crore and ₹1.1 lakh crore in revenue loss to make this reform work, depending on how the calculation is framed — lower if you look at the wider GST impact across government, higher when scoped specifically to defence-related procurement. That figure tells its own story. It is not just about balancing accounts — it is about prioritising security, not only at the border but in the lives of those who guard it.National security is not just a line of tanks. It is also the confidence of a soldier’s child in Shillong who can afford better books, or a veteran’s widow in Bhopal who manages her bills more comfortably. By easing life for soldiers and their families, the government sends a signal that security policy is people policy too.<h2>A reform felt at home and on the frontier</h2>GST 2.0 will be written up as a tax reform. But for those in uniform and those who once wore it, it will be remembered as something else: a morale reform.It makes pay and pensions go further. It strengthens cantonment economies. It uplifts veterans and their families. And in doing so, it strengthens the Army itself.Because when a military family feels secure in Ambala or Leh, the Army’s resolve on the frontier becomes that much stronger. That is the true morale dividend of GST 2.0.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 latest rationalisation, which reduces GST rates to simpler 5 and 18 per cent slabs and exempts many essentials, means those rupees stretch further.

When we talk about defence reforms, the conversation almost always drifts to tanks, missiles, or drones. Necessary, yes. But ask any soldier and you’ll hear a quieter truth: morale is as decisive as firepower. And morale is built not just on equipment in the field, but on the well-being of families at home. That is why the GST Council’s decision of 3 September 2025, coming into effect on 22 September, matters so much. On the surface, it is a fiscal measure — trimming tax rates, exempting categories of hardware and goods. In reality, it is a reform that touches every serving soldier, every veteran, and every family living in a cantonment. Salaries, pensions, and purchasing power India’s defence budget this year is ₹6.81 lakh crore. Of that, a staggering ₹1.47 lakh crore goes to salaries and pensions for serving personnel, retirees, and their dependents. This is the real backbone of our military community. Until now, GST added a hidden weight to household expenses. Groceries, school fees, appliances, even uniforms — the cumulative bite was felt in every cantonment home. The latest rationalisation, which reduces GST rates to simpler 5 and 18 per cent slabs and exempts many essentials, means those rupees stretch further. For a sepoy’s family, that might mean not putting off the purchase of a new washing machine. For a pensioner in Jaipur, it might mean medicines that cost less each month. Small things, perhaps. But together, they add up to dignity and security. The cantonment economy Walk through a market in Ambala, Pune, or Jalandhar and you’ll see what this really means. Local shopkeepers, grocers, tailors, and electronics vendors all depend heavily on defence families’ spending. When GST on essentials falls, demand rises. And when demand rises, small-town economies breathe easier. The Army doesn’t just defend borders. It sustains entire communities in cantonments across the country. The GST reform gives those communities a timely boost, especially as we head into the festive season. Linking morale to readiness It is easy to forget how tightly morale links to readiness. A jawan manning a post on the Line of Control fights with a different resolve when he knows his family is comfortable back home. A major commanding a company in Ladakh sleeps a little easier when school bills and household expenses don’t consume his wife’s evenings. Fiscal relief, at the family level, reduces stress on serving personnel. And reduced stress translates directly into focus on the mission. We often talk of drones as force multipliers. But morale is a force multiplier too — and this reform strengthens it. Veterans and their families Let’s not overlook veterans. Many live on fixed pensions, watching costs creep upward year after year. For them, GST relief is not a technicality — it is a lifeline. Lower tax on essentials means less pressure on monthly budgets, less reliance on support networks, and more dignity in retirement. For widows and dependents of soldiers, this reform is equally important. It is a quiet acknowledgement that service to the nation extends beyond uniformed years, and that the state still stands behind those who stood for it. Beyond the household: A national signal The government is prepared to absorb between ₹48,000 crore and ₹1.1 lakh crore in revenue loss to make this reform work, depending on how the calculation is framed — lower if you look at the wider GST impact across government, higher when scoped specifically to defence-related procurement. That figure tells its own story. It is not just about balancing accounts — it is about prioritising security, not only at the border but in the lives of those who guard it. National security is not just a line of tanks. It is also the confidence of a soldier’s child in Shillong who can afford better books, or a veteran’s widow in Bhopal who manages her bills more comfortably. By easing life for soldiers and their families, the government sends a signal that security policy is people policy too. A reform felt at home and on the frontier GST 2.0 will be written up as a tax reform. But for those in uniform and those who once wore it, it will be remembered as something else: a morale reform. It makes pay and pensions go further. It strengthens cantonment economies. It uplifts veterans and their families. And in doing so, it strengthens the Army itself. Because when a military family feels secure in Ambala or Leh, the Army’s resolve on the frontier becomes that much stronger. That is the true morale dividend of GST 2.0. 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 latest rationalisation, which reduces GST rates to simpler 5 and 18 per cent slabs and exempts many essentials, means those rupees stretch further.

The morale dividend: What GST relief means for soldiers and veterans

India's GST 2.0 rationalization under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi marks a bold step in tax reforms, sending a clear message to the world that the country is serious about spurring growth and attracting investments. With simplified slabs and rate cuts on everyday items, this overhaul goes beyond mere tweaks—it aims to put more money in consumers' pockets, rev up manufacturing, and lift overall economic sentiment. Coming on the heels of income tax relief in the 2025 Union Budget and RBI's repo rate cuts, GST 2.0 forms part of an economic hat-trick designed to counter global headwinds like trade tariffs and sluggish demand. As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced, the new structure, effective from September 22, collapses multiple brackets into four: 0 per cent for essentials, 5 per cent for basic goods, 18 per cent for most items, and 40 per cent for luxury and sin products like high-end cars and aerated drinks.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/putin-s-hug-xi-s-smile-modi-s-message-to-trump-s-america-1756964858692">Putin's Hug, Xi's Smile: Modi's message to Trump's America</a>This move scraps the confusing 12 per cent and 28 per cent slabs, ending classification disputes that have long plagued businesses.The timing could not be better. India's economy grew at 7.4 per cent in the last quarter of fiscal 2024-25, but global uncertainties demand fresh momentum. GST 2.0 is expected to add 20-30 basis points to GDP growth, pushing projections towards 6.5-7 per cent over the next two years, according to estimates from HSBC and the IMF. By lowering taxes on items like paneer, packaged snacks, and even luxury SUVs—now under 40 per cent but without the old cess—the reform eases burdens on households and firms alike. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has urged industry to pass on these benefits, ensuring cheaper goods reach consumers and spark a spending spree.This is no standalone change. It syncs with the 2025 Union Budget's income tax overhaul, where slabs were streamlined under the new regime: nil up to Rs 4 lakh, 5 per cent between Rs 4-8 lakh, and so on, with no tax payable on incomes up to Rs 12 lakh after rebates and deductions. The exemption threshold for middle-class earners jumped, leaving more disposable income for spending. Add to this the Reserve Bank of India's recent moves: a repo rate cut to 5.5 per cent and a reduced cash reserve ratio, injecting liquidity and making loans cheaper. Borrowers now face lower EMIs on home and vehicle loans, while businesses get easier credit for expansion. Together, these steps create a virtuous cycle: cheaper goods, affordable credit, and higher take-home pay, all set to drive consumption.The ripple effects are already visible in market euphoria. Sectors like automobiles, cement, real estate, and consumer goods are buzzing, with stock indices climbing on reform hopes. For instance, big cars and SUVs might see effective price drops despite the 40 per cent slab, thanks to cess withdrawal. The banking, financial services, and insurance (BFSI) space stands to gain from rising loans and investments. Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), often hit by complex taxes, now face simpler compliance, freeing up resources for growth. Manufacturing gets a leg up, with rate cuts in textiles, renewable energy, and auto parts fixing inverted duty structures that once led to refund delays. This could ramp up production and exports, making India more competitive globally.For rural households and the middle class, GST 2.0 means real relief. Essentials stay at 0 or 5 per cent, while processed foods and hygiene items see cuts, easing inflation pressures. With more cash in hand, spending on durables and services could rise, creating a multiplier effect that lifts jobs and incomes across the board. Experts like those from the Indian Chamber of Commerce note this could offset high US tariffs' impact, adding up to 1 per cent to GDP. The reform also boosts ease of doing business, with fewer slabs cutting litigation and improving India's global rankings. Foreign investors, eyeing stable policies, may pour in more, drawn by a market where consumption drives two-thirds of growth.Yet, success hinges on execution. Businesses must pass on savings, as urged by the government, to avoid profiteering. States, worried about revenue dips, get compensation assurances, but long-term fiscal health needs monitoring. If done right, GST 2.0 could rekindle "animal spirits" in the economy, offsetting drags from global slowdowns.In the end, GST 2.0 is more than a tax cut—it's a growth engine. By simplifying rules and fueling demand, it signals to global players that India is open for business. With GDP forecasts at 6.4-6.5 per cent for 2025-26 from the IMF and RBI, this reform could push the needle higher. From small households saving on snacks to big firms expanding output, the benefits touch all. As India eyes Viksit Bharat by 2047, such moves show policy is immediate, tangible, and geared for sustained prosperity.&nbsp;

The timing could not be better. Indias economy grew at 7.4 per cent in the last quarter of fiscal 2024-25, but global uncertainties demand fresh momentum. 

India's GST 2.0 rationalization under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi marks a bold step in tax reforms, sending a clear message to the world that the country is serious about spurring growth and attracting investments. With simplified slabs and rate cuts on everyday items, this overhaul goes beyond mere tweaks—it aims to put more money in consumers' pockets, rev up manufacturing, and lift overall economic sentiment. Coming on the heels of income tax relief in the 2025 Union Budget and RBI's repo rate cuts, GST 2.0 forms part of an economic hat-trick designed to counter global headwinds like trade tariffs and sluggish demand. As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced, the new structure, effective from September 22, collapses multiple brackets into four: 0 per cent for essentials, 5 per cent for basic goods, 18 per cent for most items, and 40 per cent for luxury and sin products like high-end cars and aerated drinks. Also Read: Putin's Hug, Xi's Smile: Modi's message to Trump's America This move scraps the confusing 12 per cent and 28 per cent slabs, ending classification disputes that have long plagued businesses. The timing could not be better. India's economy grew at 7.4 per cent in the last quarter of fiscal 2024-25, but global uncertainties demand fresh momentum. GST 2.0 is expected to add 20-30 basis points to GDP growth, pushing projections towards 6.5-7 per cent over the next two years, according to estimates from HSBC and the IMF. By lowering taxes on items like paneer, packaged snacks, and even luxury SUVs—now under 40 per cent but without the old cess—the reform eases burdens on households and firms alike. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has urged industry to pass on these benefits, ensuring cheaper goods reach consumers and spark a spending spree. This is no standalone change. It syncs with the 2025 Union Budget's income tax overhaul, where slabs were streamlined under the new regime: nil up to Rs 4 lakh, 5 per cent between Rs 4-8 lakh, and so on, with no tax payable on incomes up to Rs 12 lakh after rebates and deductions. The exemption threshold for middle-class earners jumped, leaving more disposable income for spending. Add to this the Reserve Bank of India's recent moves: a repo rate cut to 5.5 per cent and a reduced cash reserve ratio, injecting liquidity and making loans cheaper. Borrowers now face lower EMIs on home and vehicle loans, while businesses get easier credit for expansion. Together, these steps create a virtuous cycle: cheaper goods, affordable credit, and higher take-home pay, all set to drive consumption. The ripple effects are already visible in market euphoria. Sectors like automobiles, cement, real estate, and consumer goods are buzzing, with stock indices climbing on reform hopes. For instance, big cars and SUVs might see effective price drops despite the 40 per cent slab, thanks to cess withdrawal. The banking, financial services, and insurance (BFSI) space stands to gain from rising loans and investments. Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), often hit by complex taxes, now face simpler compliance, freeing up resources for growth. Manufacturing gets a leg up, with rate cuts in textiles, renewable energy, and auto parts fixing inverted duty structures that once led to refund delays. This could ramp up production and exports, making India more competitive globally. For rural households and the middle class, GST 2.0 means real relief. Essentials stay at 0 or 5 per cent, while processed foods and hygiene items see cuts, easing inflation pressures. With more cash in hand, spending on durables and services could rise, creating a multiplier effect that lifts jobs and incomes across the board. Experts like those from the Indian Chamber of Commerce note this could offset high US tariffs' impact, adding up to 1 per cent to GDP. The reform also boosts ease of doing business, with fewer slabs cutting litigation and improving India's global rankings. Foreign investors, eyeing stable policies, may pour in more, drawn by a market where consumption drives two-thirds of growth. Yet, success hinges on execution. Businesses must pass on savings, as urged by the government, to avoid profiteering. States, worried about revenue dips, get compensation assurances, but long-term fiscal health needs monitoring. If done right, GST 2.0 could rekindle "animal spirits" in the economy, offsetting drags from global slowdowns. In the end, GST 2.0 is more than a tax cut—it's a growth engine. By simplifying rules and fueling demand, it signals to global players that India is open for business. With GDP forecasts at 6.4-6.5 per cent for 2025-26 from the IMF and RBI, this reform could push the needle higher. From small households saving on snacks to big firms expanding output, the benefits touch all. As India eyes Viksit Bharat by 2047, such moves show policy is immediate, tangible, and geared for sustained prosperity.

The timing could not be better. India's economy grew at 7.4 per cent in the last quarter of fiscal 2024-25, but global uncertainties demand fresh momentum.&nbsp;

Why GST 2.0 is a global signal that India means business, EXPLAINED

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

US President Donald Trump’s new Middle East requires ‘Bibisitters’

Djibouti–Mogadishu Continuum: Mapping a China-friendly maritime chain

Not for Sale: India Rejects Trump's Command on Russian Oil

Bihar Battle 2025: NDA or Mahagathbandhan? THESE seats Hold Key to victory

Not just a ‘beautiful’ face: Global polity has a big sexism problem

From ceasefires to Accords: Can Donald Trump really win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Bihar Polls in just two phases & five days: The real reasons behind the rush?

Hard ball or soft state? Pak's White House rock show reveals two-faced diplomacy

Trump's Ultimatum: Did Hamas Just Say "Yes" to Peace or "Yes" to More War?

Dhvani: The Indian hypersonic beast that Pak can't stop and China can't ignore

Gaza plan shows limits of Trump’s influence on Netanyahu

Ladakh’s Gen Z protesters urged to choose dialogue over discord

Why Kash Patel must go: The FBI’s integrity is at stake

Asia Cup 2025: Pakistan crumble under the weight of its ‘self-implanted’ controversies

Who is to be blamed for India vs Pakistan fixtures in Asia Cup 2025?

India's Chabahar dilemma: Navigating between strategic interests, US sanctions

Why PM Modi@75 is indispensable for global prosperity | Explained

India and CTBTO need each other

Asia Cup 2025: Why associate nations have struggled to shake off minnows tag

Nepal’s ‘nepo kids’ to France’s ‘block everything’, how Gen Z shook the world

Governments should be afraid of their people: Lessons from South Asia

Trade Tariffs, Tough Talk, & U-Turn! Trump Calls Modi ‘Great’ — Why It Matters

The morale dividend: What GST relief means for soldiers and veterans

Why GST 2.0 is a global signal that India means business, EXPLAINED