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

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stepped off his plane in Tianjin for the SCO summit, it was not just a normal diplomatic trip – it was a strong message. After seven years, Modi’s return to Chinese soil told the world: India will not be forced to pick sides in today’s divided world.&nbsp;The timing was both perfect and necessary. Donald Trump had slapped a 50% tariff (highest in the world) on Indian goods. Many thought India would run back to the West. Instead, Modi warmly met Xi Jinping in Tianjin, showing that India’s foreign policy will not be controlled by Washington or anyone else.&nbsp;The Art of Strategic Defiance&nbsp;What happened in China was classic Modi diplomacy – bold, careful, and confident. Photos of Modi, Xi, and Putin laughing together were not just for the cameras; they carried strong political meaning. At a time when the world is splitting into two big camps, India showed its belief in “multialignment” – working with everyone, owned by no one.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/a-brahmin-blunder-navarro-s-weaponised-misunderstanding-of-caste-and-class-1756834098320">A Brahmin Blunder: Navarro’s weaponised misunderstanding of caste and class</a>&nbsp;Trump and his team don’t like this. They think BRICS is anti-West, they call India’s oil trade with Russia a betrayal, and they expect India to behave like a loyal follower. But India’s reply was smart: the US and EU also trade with Russia when it suits them.&nbsp;The message was clear – if America can act in its interest, so can India.&nbsp;Beyond the Handshakes and Photo-ops&nbsp;Some critics say Modi’s China trip was only symbolic. But they are missing the deeper point. India’s presence at the SCO was not about bowing down to China or Russia – it was about keeping independence in a world breaking into hostile groups.&nbsp;Look at the background: US tariffs are shaking trade, wars are raging, and countries are being forced to pick sides. In this climate, platforms like the SCO give India other ways to talk and cooperate.&nbsp;The 10-year development plan, the new SCO bank, and four security centres announced in Tianjin are not just paperwork. They are building blocks for a world order that does not run only through Washington or Brussels.&nbsp;The Russia Factor: Pragmatism Over Pressure&nbsp;India’s defiance was clearest in its dealings with Russia. Despite American pressure, Modi hugged Putin and even rode in his car – a gesture that surely worried Washington.&nbsp;This was not drama. India’s defence ties with Russia are still crucial. In the May India-Pakistan clashes, Russian-supplied S-400 systems and BrahMos missiles gave India a strong edge. When your security depends on a partner, national interest comes before diplomatic pressure.&nbsp;Americans forget: in the Cold War, they armed Pakistan while the Soviets armed India. History matters – and India remembers who supported it when it counted.&nbsp;The China Challenge: Cautious Optimism&nbsp;The Modi-Xi talks in Tianjin were another step in mending ties. Calling each other “development partners, not competitors” sounds nice, but reality is tough. India has a huge trade deficit with China, Beijing openly calls Pakistan its “iron brother”, and China recently blocked fertilizer exports during India’s sowing season. Trust is still weak.&nbsp;But talking is better than fighting. The October 2024 border patrolling deal and later Modi-Xi meetings show both sides know the cost of conflict. With America becoming less reliable, India cannot afford to fight with its biggest neighbour.&nbsp;The Balancing Act Continues&nbsp;India understands today’s geopolitics very well. Unlike the Cold War’s fixed alliances, the modern world needs flexibility and smart balancing.&nbsp;India can:<ul><li>buy oil from Russia</li><li>buy weapons from America</li><li>buy technology from Europe</li><li>and still engage with China</li></ul> That’s what an independent country does.&nbsp;Trump’s “deal-making” view of international relations has, in fact, given India more space. If everything is just a deal, then old alliances lose their meaning.&nbsp;Looking Ahead: The Price of Autonomy&nbsp;Modi’s China visit was more than diplomacy – it was a clear sign that India will walk its own path in a multipolar world. Of course, risks exist. If China and America make peace, India could be isolated. If China puts more economic pressure, India’s growth may slow.&nbsp;But for a nation that suffered centuries of foreign rule, strategic autonomy is not just policy – it is survival. The warm applause Modi got from SCO partners in Tianjin was not just formality. It was recognition that India represents a new model of global relations – one based on equality, not submission.&nbsp;As the world breaks into rival blocs, India’s multialignment looks more like wisdom than hesitation. In Tianjin, Modi didn’t just join a summit – he showed the world that India bows to no one, not even its friends.&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;

What happened in China was classic Modi diplomacy – bold, careful, and confident. Photos of Modi, Xi, and Putin laughing together were not just for the cameras; they carried strong political meaning.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stepped off his plane in Tianjin for the SCO summit, it was not just a normal diplomatic trip – it was a strong message. After seven years, Modi’s return to Chinese soil told the world: India will not be forced to pick sides in today’s divided world. The timing was both perfect and necessary. Donald Trump had slapped a 50% tariff (highest in the world) on Indian goods. Many thought India would run back to the West. Instead, Modi warmly met Xi Jinping in Tianjin, showing that India’s foreign policy will not be controlled by Washington or anyone else. The Art of Strategic Defiance What happened in China was classic Modi diplomacy – bold, careful, and confident. Photos of Modi, Xi, and Putin laughing together were not just for the cameras; they carried strong political meaning. At a time when the world is splitting into two big camps, India showed its belief in “multialignment” – working with everyone, owned by no one. Also Read: A Brahmin Blunder: Navarro’s weaponised misunderstanding of caste and class Trump and his team don’t like this. They think BRICS is anti-West, they call India’s oil trade with Russia a betrayal, and they expect India to behave like a loyal follower. But India’s reply was smart: the US and EU also trade with Russia when it suits them. The message was clear – if America can act in its interest, so can India. Beyond the Handshakes and Photo-ops Some critics say Modi’s China trip was only symbolic. But they are missing the deeper point. India’s presence at the SCO was not about bowing down to China or Russia – it was about keeping independence in a world breaking into hostile groups. Look at the background: US tariffs are shaking trade, wars are raging, and countries are being forced to pick sides. In this climate, platforms like the SCO give India other ways to talk and cooperate. The 10-year development plan, the new SCO bank, and four security centres announced in Tianjin are not just paperwork. They are building blocks for a world order that does not run only through Washington or Brussels. The Russia Factor: Pragmatism Over Pressure India’s defiance was clearest in its dealings with Russia. Despite American pressure, Modi hugged Putin and even rode in his car – a gesture that surely worried Washington. This was not drama. India’s defence ties with Russia are still crucial. In the May India-Pakistan clashes, Russian-supplied S-400 systems and BrahMos missiles gave India a strong edge. When your security depends on a partner, national interest comes before diplomatic pressure. Americans forget: in the Cold War, they armed Pakistan while the Soviets armed India. History matters – and India remembers who supported it when it counted. The China Challenge: Cautious Optimism The Modi-Xi talks in Tianjin were another step in mending ties. Calling each other “development partners, not competitors” sounds nice, but reality is tough. India has a huge trade deficit with China, Beijing openly calls Pakistan its “iron brother”, and China recently blocked fertilizer exports during India’s sowing season. Trust is still weak. But talking is better than fighting. The October 2024 border patrolling deal and later Modi-Xi meetings show both sides know the cost of conflict. With America becoming less reliable, India cannot afford to fight with its biggest neighbour. The Balancing Act Continues India understands today’s geopolitics very well. Unlike the Cold War’s fixed alliances, the modern world needs flexibility and smart balancing. India can: buy oil from Russia buy weapons from America buy technology from Europe and still engage with China That’s what an independent country does. Trump’s “deal-making” view of international relations has, in fact, given India more space. If everything is just a deal, then old alliances lose their meaning. Looking Ahead: The Price of Autonomy Modi’s China visit was more than diplomacy – it was a clear sign that India will walk its own path in a multipolar world. Of course, risks exist. If China and America make peace, India could be isolated. If China puts more economic pressure, India’s growth may slow. But for a nation that suffered centuries of foreign rule, strategic autonomy is not just policy – it is survival. The warm applause Modi got from SCO partners in Tianjin was not just formality. It was recognition that India represents a new model of global relations – one based on equality, not submission. As the world breaks into rival blocs, India’s multialignment looks more like wisdom than hesitation. In Tianjin, Modi didn’t just join a summit – he showed the world that India bows to no one, not even its friends. 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.

What happened in China was classic Modi diplomacy – bold, careful, and confident. Photos of Modi, Xi, and Putin laughing together were not just for the cameras; they carried strong political meaning.

Putin's Hug, Xi's Smile: Modi's message to Trump's America

Peter Navarro has done it again. Donald Trump’s senior adviser has once more taken aim at India, but this time his target reveals a stunning ignorance that goes beyond simple trade disputes. On September 1, Navarro declared on Fox News that “Brahmins are profiteering at the expense of the Indian people,” mixing up centuries of history, culture, and economics in one confused statement.&nbsp;This is not just another diplomatic gaffe. It is a perfect example of how Western politicians continue to view India through outdated and fundamentally wrong lenses, creating dangerous misunderstandings that hurt both countries.&nbsp;Navarro’s comments came during his usual complaints about India’s trade policies. He called India “the maharaja of tariffs” and questioned why Prime Minister Modi aligns with Putin and Xi Jinping. But then he made his most revealing mistake, suggesting that Brahmins are somehow the business elite profiteering from trade with America.&nbsp;The problem is that Navarro appears to be confusing two completely different uses of the word “Brahmin”. In India's ancient caste system, Brahmins are traditionally priests and scholars, not merchants or business leaders. They have held cultural and religious influence, yes, but they were never the trading class. That role historically belonged to other communities like the Vaishyas.&nbsp;What Navarro seems to be thinking of are the “Boston Brahmins”, a term coined by American writer Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1861 to describe Boston’s wealthy Protestant elite. These were the descendants of English colonists who built fortunes through trade and shipping, then used their wealth to control Boston’s social and cultural life for generations.&nbsp;The Boston Brahmins were indeed business leaders and profiteers. They founded elite schools, married within their circle, and looked down on immigrants, especially the Irish Catholics who later challenged their dominance. They were the ones who built walls around their peninsula city and tried to keep outsiders from sharing their power.&nbsp;But calling wealthy Indians “Brahmins” in this American sense reveals exactly the kind of orientalist thinking that has poisoned Western views of Asia for centuries. Navarro is taking an American term inspired by incomplete understanding of Indian culture and applying it back to modern India in a way that makes no sense.&nbsp;Modern India’s business leaders come from all backgrounds. The Tatas, Birlas, Ambanis, and other major industrial families represent various communities, not just one caste. India’s tech boom has created entrepreneurs from every corner of society. To suggest that one traditional priestly caste controls India’s economy shows a complete misunderstanding of how modern India actually works.&nbsp;This confusion matters because it shapes policy. If American leaders think India operates like some medieval caste hierarchy with Brahmins pulling all the strings, they will make wrong decisions about trade, diplomacy, and partnership. They will miss the real dynamics of Indian democracy, which is far more complex and diverse than their stereotypes suggest.&nbsp;The reaction on social media was swift and angry, with many Indians calling Navarro’s comments racist and casteist. They are right to be upset. These are exactly the kinds of statements that make Indians wonder whether America truly sees them as equals or just as characters in some colonial-era story.&nbsp;Navarro’s bigger point about trade disputes might have some merit. Countries can disagree about tariffs and trade policies without anyone being wrong. But when those disagreements get mixed up with cultural ignorance and historical confusion, they become something much worse.&nbsp;America and India are natural partners in many ways. Both are large democracies dealing with the challenges of managing diverse populations and growing economies. Both face pressure from authoritarian neighbours. Both benefit when their relationship works well.&nbsp;But partnerships require understanding, not assumptions. They require seeing each other as they really are, not as characters in outdated stories. When American leaders use terms they do not understand to describe Indian society, they damage the trust that makes real cooperation possible.&nbsp;Navarro’s “Brahmin blunder” is more than just an embarrassing mistake. It is a warning about what happens when ignorance meets authority. In an age when America and India need to work together on everything from technology to security, such misunderstandings are not just wrong but dangerous.&nbsp;The solution is simple but not easy. American leaders need to learn about modern India from Indians, not from colonial-era books or Hollywood movies. They need to understand that India in 2025 is not the India of their imagination. And they need to realise that making policy based on cultural stereotypes helps no one, least of all the American workers they claim to represent.&nbsp;Peter Navarro may think he is defending American interests, but his confused comments about Brahmins show he does not even understand the country he is criticising. That ignorance makes him a poor guide for American policy and a worse advocate for American workers.&nbsp;If America wants to compete with India, it should start by understanding India. Real understanding, not orientalist fantasies dressed up as foreign policy expertise.&nbsp;(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace &amp; Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.)&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The Boston Brahmins were indeed business leaders and profiteers. They founded elite schools, married within their circle, and looked down on immigrants, especially the Irish Catholics who later challenged their dominance.

Peter Navarro has done it again. Donald Trump’s senior adviser has once more taken aim at India, but this time his target reveals a stunning ignorance that goes beyond simple trade disputes. On September 1, Navarro declared on Fox News that “Brahmins are profiteering at the expense of the Indian people,” mixing up centuries of history, culture, and economics in one confused statement. This is not just another diplomatic gaffe. It is a perfect example of how Western politicians continue to view India through outdated and fundamentally wrong lenses, creating dangerous misunderstandings that hurt both countries. Navarro’s comments came during his usual complaints about India’s trade policies. He called India “the maharaja of tariffs” and questioned why Prime Minister Modi aligns with Putin and Xi Jinping. But then he made his most revealing mistake, suggesting that Brahmins are somehow the business elite profiteering from trade with America. The problem is that Navarro appears to be confusing two completely different uses of the word “Brahmin”. In India's ancient caste system, Brahmins are traditionally priests and scholars, not merchants or business leaders. They have held cultural and religious influence, yes, but they were never the trading class. That role historically belonged to other communities like the Vaishyas. What Navarro seems to be thinking of are the “Boston Brahmins”, a term coined by American writer Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1861 to describe Boston’s wealthy Protestant elite. These were the descendants of English colonists who built fortunes through trade and shipping, then used their wealth to control Boston’s social and cultural life for generations. The Boston Brahmins were indeed business leaders and profiteers. They founded elite schools, married within their circle, and looked down on immigrants, especially the Irish Catholics who later challenged their dominance. They were the ones who built walls around their peninsula city and tried to keep outsiders from sharing their power. But calling wealthy Indians “Brahmins” in this American sense reveals exactly the kind of orientalist thinking that has poisoned Western views of Asia for centuries. Navarro is taking an American term inspired by incomplete understanding of Indian culture and applying it back to modern India in a way that makes no sense. Modern India’s business leaders come from all backgrounds. The Tatas, Birlas, Ambanis, and other major industrial families represent various communities, not just one caste. India’s tech boom has created entrepreneurs from every corner of society. To suggest that one traditional priestly caste controls India’s economy shows a complete misunderstanding of how modern India actually works. This confusion matters because it shapes policy. If American leaders think India operates like some medieval caste hierarchy with Brahmins pulling all the strings, they will make wrong decisions about trade, diplomacy, and partnership. They will miss the real dynamics of Indian democracy, which is far more complex and diverse than their stereotypes suggest. The reaction on social media was swift and angry, with many Indians calling Navarro’s comments racist and casteist. They are right to be upset. These are exactly the kinds of statements that make Indians wonder whether America truly sees them as equals or just as characters in some colonial-era story. Navarro’s bigger point about trade disputes might have some merit. Countries can disagree about tariffs and trade policies without anyone being wrong. But when those disagreements get mixed up with cultural ignorance and historical confusion, they become something much worse. America and India are natural partners in many ways. Both are large democracies dealing with the challenges of managing diverse populations and growing economies. Both face pressure from authoritarian neighbours. Both benefit when their relationship works well. But partnerships require understanding, not assumptions. They require seeing each other as they really are, not as characters in outdated stories. When American leaders use terms they do not understand to describe Indian society, they damage the trust that makes real cooperation possible. Navarro’s “Brahmin blunder” is more than just an embarrassing mistake. It is a warning about what happens when ignorance meets authority. In an age when America and India need to work together on everything from technology to security, such misunderstandings are not just wrong but dangerous. The solution is simple but not easy. American leaders need to learn about modern India from Indians, not from colonial-era books or Hollywood movies. They need to understand that India in 2025 is not the India of their imagination. And they need to realise that making policy based on cultural stereotypes helps no one, least of all the American workers they claim to represent. Peter Navarro may think he is defending American interests, but his confused comments about Brahmins show he does not even understand the country he is criticising. That ignorance makes him a poor guide for American policy and a worse advocate for American workers. If America wants to compete with India, it should start by understanding India. Real understanding, not orientalist fantasies dressed up as foreign policy expertise. (Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.) (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The Boston Brahmins were indeed business leaders and profiteers. They founded elite schools, married within their circle, and looked down on immigrants, especially the Irish Catholics who later challenged their dominance.

A Brahmin Blunder: Navarro’s weaponised misunderstanding of caste and class

In the last week of August, US President Donald Trump sported for the first time a revised version of the ubiquitous red Make America Great Again baseball hat. The bold white lettering on the front says TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING. &nbsp;&nbsp;The new hat, which leaves no doubt about how the American president thinks of himself, is not yet for sale on the website of the official Trump store but private sellers were quick to market the MAGA update for a range of prices, from &nbsp;$14 up.&nbsp;Trump’s new hat slogan brings to mind the famous assertion “l’etat, c’est moi”, Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ who ruled France from 1634 to 1715, told parliament in Paris in 1655. The phrase translates as “I am the State” and reflects the monarch’s absolute power.&nbsp;Trump’s Democratic critics say the president is dreaming of the power wielded by monarchs and cite his campaign to extend the power of the executive by weakening the other two pillars of the US government’s separation of powers, the legislative and the judicial. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Democratic opposition has been slow in reacting to the new hat’s slogan, though it provides plenty of ammunition for mocking it, not least Trump’s often-repeated assertion during his campaign for the presidency that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine in a day. &nbsp;&nbsp;The first time Donald Trump assured the world that he could end Russia’s devastating all-out war on Ukraine in a day was on March 5, 2023, when he was running for re-election to a second term. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than one day,” he told a cheering crowd. &nbsp;&nbsp;By the end of August, seven months into his second term, that was 891 days ago, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored his American counterpart’s suggestions for a ceasefire to stop the enormous casualties on both sides. &nbsp;&nbsp;A made-for-television summit between the two men in Alaska this month was followed by a sharp increase in Russian bombings.&nbsp;Trump has long boasted of his good relations with Putin, whom he has called “dear Vlad” but they have made no dent in the Russian’s insistence that the “root causes” of the conflict must be addressed before any ceasefire. In essence, the root causes mean the existence of an independent pro-Western state bordering on Russia.&nbsp;Though TRUMP WAS RIGHT ON EVERYTHING is open for debate on a long string of events, most of the president’s core supporters stand by him even though some of them are angered by his administration’s failure to provide full information on the “Epstein files” relating to the sex crimes of the late convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. &nbsp;&nbsp;For those whose support has not been diminished, there is a vast array of merchandise to show their backing in public. The most widely displayed are red MAGA hats, but for those seeking variations, the Trump store offers 96 models in a range of colours, including green. &nbsp;&nbsp;There are also T-shirts, tote bags, hoodies, pickleball paddles, coffee mugs, a variety of Trump ankle socks, tumblers with the logo of Mar-a-Lago, the president’s Florida home, needlepoint Trump coaster sets, and a newly arrived Trump dog bow tie. &nbsp;&nbsp;According to campaign aides, the shop has sold more than two million MAGA hats since the beginning of 2023, when the campaign gathered steam. There are no figures on sales since Trump’s re-election, but there clearly is no shortage of merchandise other than red hats. &nbsp;&nbsp;The hat slogan, MAGA, turned into a movement. Turning TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING into a catchy acronym appears to be as difficult as ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Or Israel’s assault on Gaza city.&nbsp;Trump presided over a meeting of that conflict on August 27 that brought together his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his special envoy Steve Witkoff and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The White House was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about the meeting.&nbsp;Witkoff told a television interviewer that the administration was putting together “a very comprehensive plan” for the region. No details were given. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has matched Putin in ignoring US suggestions, pressed on with a full-scale offensive to take over Gaza City, home to a million Palestinians.&nbsp;Another Trump policy which clashes with the slogan on his hat is the imposition of tariffs on countries around the world, a move which upended the global trading system.&nbsp;The highest import tariffs on a major US trading partner took effect on August 27 – 50 per cent on India, including 25 per cent to punish the world’s most populous country for purchasing oil from Russia. The Trump administration argues that those imports prop up the Russian economy and allow Putin to press on with his war of aggression.&nbsp;However, just two days after the levies on India took effect, a federal court ruled that many of the tariffs were illegal because Trump lacked the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States.&nbsp;The decision undercuts a core tenet of Trump’s economic agenda, but the judges allowed the tariffs to remain in force to allow the administration to take the case to the Supreme Court, probably in mid-October. The outcome of the court’s decision is uncertain.&nbsp;What is certain is that America’s trade partners have been watching the tariff decisions with a mixture of bafflement, irritation and anger over Trump’s apparent assumption that his power has no limits. &nbsp;&nbsp;The most vocal critic of the American president has been his Brazilian counterpart, Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, whose country faces as steep a tariff rate as India. In an interview with the US network CNN, he said:&nbsp;“I’ve been saying publicly that we will use all the words that exist in the dictionary in trying to negotiate. That’s how the trade world works. What we cannot have is President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the US. He was not elected to be the emperor of the world.”

Trump’s new hat slogan brings to mind the famous assertion “l’etat, c’est moi”, Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ who ruled France from 1634 to 1715, told parliament in Paris in 1655. The phrase translates as “I am the State” and reflects the monarch’s absolute power.

In the last week of August, US President Donald Trump sported for the first time a revised version of the ubiquitous red Make America Great Again baseball hat. The bold white lettering on the front says TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING. The new hat, which leaves no doubt about how the American president thinks of himself, is not yet for sale on the website of the official Trump store but private sellers were quick to market the MAGA update for a range of prices, from $14 up. Trump’s new hat slogan brings to mind the famous assertion “l’etat, c’est moi”, Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ who ruled France from 1634 to 1715, told parliament in Paris in 1655. The phrase translates as “I am the State” and reflects the monarch’s absolute power. Trump’s Democratic critics say the president is dreaming of the power wielded by monarchs and cite his campaign to extend the power of the executive by weakening the other two pillars of the US government’s separation of powers, the legislative and the judicial. The Democratic opposition has been slow in reacting to the new hat’s slogan, though it provides plenty of ammunition for mocking it, not least Trump’s often-repeated assertion during his campaign for the presidency that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine in a day. The first time Donald Trump assured the world that he could end Russia’s devastating all-out war on Ukraine in a day was on March 5, 2023, when he was running for re-election to a second term. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than one day,” he told a cheering crowd. By the end of August, seven months into his second term, that was 891 days ago, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored his American counterpart’s suggestions for a ceasefire to stop the enormous casualties on both sides. A made-for-television summit between the two men in Alaska this month was followed by a sharp increase in Russian bombings. Trump has long boasted of his good relations with Putin, whom he has called “dear Vlad” but they have made no dent in the Russian’s insistence that the “root causes” of the conflict must be addressed before any ceasefire. In essence, the root causes mean the existence of an independent pro-Western state bordering on Russia. Though TRUMP WAS RIGHT ON EVERYTHING is open for debate on a long string of events, most of the president’s core supporters stand by him even though some of them are angered by his administration’s failure to provide full information on the “Epstein files” relating to the sex crimes of the late convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. For those whose support has not been diminished, there is a vast array of merchandise to show their backing in public. The most widely displayed are red MAGA hats, but for those seeking variations, the Trump store offers 96 models in a range of colours, including green. There are also T-shirts, tote bags, hoodies, pickleball paddles, coffee mugs, a variety of Trump ankle socks, tumblers with the logo of Mar-a-Lago, the president’s Florida home, needlepoint Trump coaster sets, and a newly arrived Trump dog bow tie. According to campaign aides, the shop has sold more than two million MAGA hats since the beginning of 2023, when the campaign gathered steam. There are no figures on sales since Trump’s re-election, but there clearly is no shortage of merchandise other than red hats. The hat slogan, MAGA, turned into a movement. Turning TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING into a catchy acronym appears to be as difficult as ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Or Israel’s assault on Gaza city. Trump presided over a meeting of that conflict on August 27 that brought together his son-in-law Jared Kushner, his special envoy Steve Witkoff and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The White House was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about the meeting. Witkoff told a television interviewer that the administration was putting together “a very comprehensive plan” for the region. No details were given. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has matched Putin in ignoring US suggestions, pressed on with a full-scale offensive to take over Gaza City, home to a million Palestinians. Another Trump policy which clashes with the slogan on his hat is the imposition of tariffs on countries around the world, a move which upended the global trading system. The highest import tariffs on a major US trading partner took effect on August 27 – 50 per cent on India, including 25 per cent to punish the world’s most populous country for purchasing oil from Russia. The Trump administration argues that those imports prop up the Russian economy and allow Putin to press on with his war of aggression. However, just two days after the levies on India took effect, a federal court ruled that many of the tariffs were illegal because Trump lacked the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. The decision undercuts a core tenet of Trump’s economic agenda, but the judges allowed the tariffs to remain in force to allow the administration to take the case to the Supreme Court, probably in mid-October. The outcome of the court’s decision is uncertain. What is certain is that America’s trade partners have been watching the tariff decisions with a mixture of bafflement, irritation and anger over Trump’s apparent assumption that his power has no limits. The most vocal critic of the American president has been his Brazilian counterpart, Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, whose country faces as steep a tariff rate as India. In an interview with the US network CNN, he said: “I’ve been saying publicly that we will use all the words that exist in the dictionary in trying to negotiate. That’s how the trade world works. What we cannot have is President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the US. He was not elected to be the emperor of the world.”

Trump’s new hat slogan brings to mind the famous assertion “l’etat, c’est moi”, Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ who ruled France from 1634 to 1715, told parliament in Paris in 1655. The phrase translates as “I am the State” and reflects the monarch’s absolute power.

Trump 2.0 – A revealing message on a red hat

Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s official visits to East Asia, Japan and China, from 29 August to 1 September, should be viewed as part of a well-considered strategic approach to reconnect India with important players in the multipolar world of the 21st century. The year 2025 is turning out to be a memorable milestone in this journey. His meeting with the US president in February in Washington and his interaction with G7 leaders, including Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba, at the Kananaskis Summit in May have now been followed by his visits to Japan, and later to China to participate in the SCO Summit in Tianjin. If all goes well, the year could end with Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump visiting India before the year ends.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sco-summit-2025-can-sco-and-brics-become-a-genuine-counterweight-to-western-alliances-such-as-nato-g7-and-eu-1756554676724">SCO Summit 2025: Can SCO and BRICS become a genuine counterweight to Western alliances such as NATO, G7 and EU?</a><h2>The context</h2>In this global context, Japan continues to enjoy a position of exceptional significance for India, A fellow Asian democracy, a valued source of trade, technology and investment, and a nation with a long memory of positive links with India, Japan has acquired even greater weight as an Indo-Pacific power working closely with its other partners, the US, Australia, and India.At a time when US-India ties are under exceptional strain due to the tariff and other issues, legitimate doubts have been raised about the immediate future of the Quad. In his pre-PM visit media briefing on 26 August. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri sought to dispel these doubts by stressing that further development of the Quad cooperation would figure in the talks in Tokyo. “Both our countries attach high value to this forum and this partnership,” he said.The continuing faith in the in the relevance of the Quad was reinforced from the other end of the Indian Ocean by Penny Wong, the Australian foreign minister, who told a group of visiting Indian journalists on 27 August that India and her country were “strong partners of the Quad” because “we have those shared strategic objectives,” The Japanese government too has been on the same page.Scholars observing the evolution of India-Japan relations in recent years have been in broad agreement that ties continue to make progress, despite the frequent change of prime ministers in Japan. PM Modi has had to deal with four PMs since 2014, namely Shinzo Abe, Yoshihide Suga, Fumio Kishida, and Shigeru Ishiba. This results from a deep convergence of interests, as Sanjay Kumar Verma, a former Indian ambassador to Japan, pointed out. The two sides have also been conscious of the challenges facing the relationship. These include Japanese frustration over “India’s regulatory complexity” and India’s concerns about “Japan’s slowing economy.”This stand-alone Modi visit for the 15th annual summit with Japan was the first since 2018, though he has visited the country since then for multilateral engagements. Besides, this was the eighth time Modi had visited Japan since becoming PM in 2014. It is well known that, even as the chief minister of Gujarat, he frequently visited China and Japan, reflecting the importance he attached to relations with the two Asian powers. Experts believe that the visit to Japan and then to China represented a shrewd endeavour at balancing several priorities of Indian foreign policy.<h2>What the two leaders said</h2>In his statement upon departure from Delhi and in the speeches and remarks he delivered while in Japan, PM Modi emphasised the importance of the India-Japan partnership for the two countries and beyond. “As two of the largest economies and vibrant democracies of the world, their partnership is extremely important, not just for the two countries but for global peace and stability as well,” he observed. He called Japan “a tech powerhouse” and India “a talent powerhouse,” suggesting that constructive collaboration between the two would help them lead the revolution in green energy, mobility, and logistics infrastructure. Ishiba agreed, adding, “We need to take advantage of each other’s strengths, to bring solutions to our challenges and to help each other.”In a crisp joint statement issued after the visit’s conclusion, the two PMs recalled the long-standing friendship linking their nations, which is rooted in “civilizational ties, shared values and interests, common strategic outlook and mutual respect for each other.” Appreciating the progress and cooperation in bilateral relations, they resolved to advance the Special Strategic and Global Partnership further.<h2>Key outcomes</h2>The success of Modi’s visit to Japan should be measured by analysing its tangible outcomes. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) highlighted over a dozen of them by listing the important documents signed, in addition to the joint statement. This list includes the following: India-Japan Joint Vision for the Next Decade; Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, which presents a comprehensive framework to evolve defence and security cooperation as a response to contemporary security challenges; Action Plan for India-Japan Human Resource Exchange; MOUs on Mineral Resources and Digital Partnership 2.0; and the Joint Declaration on Clean Hydrogen and Ammonia.The announcement of other outcomes covered, inter alia, the ambitious target of JPY 10 trillion ($67 billion) as private Japanese investment in India in the next decade, the launch of AI Initiative and the next generation mobility partnership as well as the Forum of Small and Medium Enterprises to strengthen collaboration among SMEs of the countries as “the engines of our respective economies,” and high-level exchanges between Indian states and Japanese prefectures.The joint statement provides detailed information about the three pillars of partnership: defence and security, economic cooperation, and collaboration in various other domains. It made a polite reference to the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail, which has been delayed, emphasising its importance and agreeing to commence operations “at the earliest” while acknowledging the need to introduce the latest Japanese Shinkansen technology in India.Two other points may be mentioned here. First, the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to the development of India’s North Eastern Region (NER) by enhancing “hard, soft, and people-to-people connectivity” and continuing their work through the Act East Forum. Second, they welcomed more bilateral cooperation for Africa’s sustainable economic development by establishing “an industrial hub” for trade and investment with Africa. The Indian side showed much interest in PM Ishiba‘s announcement of ‘the economic region initiative’ for the Indian Ocean – Africa region made at TICAD-9.<h2>Assessment</h2>The Indian side has obviously judged the Modi visit as a notable success, given that significant decisions of far-reaching importance have been taken. The impression aptly created was that, despite India’s current difficulties with the US, Japan remains bullish and seriously interested in taking forward the relationship in bilateral,regional, and global domains. This sent out a meaningful signal of its own to China, Modi’s next stop.Both sides expressed their continuing interest in strengthening their cooperation within the Quad, despite continuing (or even increasing) uncertainty about President Trump‘s plan to attend the summit to be hosted by India in 2025. They positively projected the evolution of the Quad into “a vital and enduring regional grouping” and added that they looked forward to the summit later in the year. Modi extended an invitation to his host to visit India for the summit, which was accepted. It was not revealed if they considered a Plan B in the event the US president fails to attend the summit. Finally, they also welcomed close cooperation between the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and the Indo-Pacific Oceans’ Initiative (IPOI). On the Myanmar question, they found notable convergence on the way forward.Overall, this visit has strengthened not only the India-Japan partnership but also India’s position in Asia and on the global stage.

PM Narendra Modi’s visits to Japan and China highlight India’s strategy to engage key powers. Earlier, he met G7 leaders and the US president, with Putin and Trump possibly visiting India later.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s official visits to East Asia, Japan and China, from 29 August to 1 September, should be viewed as part of a well-considered strategic approach to reconnect India with important players in the multipolar world of the 21st century. The year 2025 is turning out to be a memorable milestone in this journey. His meeting with the US president in February in Washington and his interaction with G7 leaders, including Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba, at the Kananaskis Summit in May have now been followed by his visits to Japan, and later to China to participate in the SCO Summit in Tianjin. If all goes well, the year could end with Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump visiting India before the year ends. Also read: SCO Summit 2025: Can SCO and BRICS become a genuine counterweight to Western alliances such as NATO, G7 and EU? The context In this global context, Japan continues to enjoy a position of exceptional significance for India, A fellow Asian democracy, a valued source of trade, technology and investment, and a nation with a long memory of positive links with India, Japan has acquired even greater weight as an Indo-Pacific power working closely with its other partners, the US, Australia, and India. At a time when US-India ties are under exceptional strain due to the tariff and other issues, legitimate doubts have been raised about the immediate future of the Quad. In his pre-PM visit media briefing on 26 August. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri sought to dispel these doubts by stressing that further development of the Quad cooperation would figure in the talks in Tokyo. “Both our countries attach high value to this forum and this partnership,” he said. The continuing faith in the in the relevance of the Quad was reinforced from the other end of the Indian Ocean by Penny Wong, the Australian foreign minister, who told a group of visiting Indian journalists on 27 August that India and her country were “strong partners of the Quad” because “we have those shared strategic objectives,” The Japanese government too has been on the same page. Scholars observing the evolution of India-Japan relations in recent years have been in broad agreement that ties continue to make progress, despite the frequent change of prime ministers in Japan. PM Modi has had to deal with four PMs since 2014, namely Shinzo Abe, Yoshihide Suga, Fumio Kishida, and Shigeru Ishiba. This results from a deep convergence of interests, as Sanjay Kumar Verma, a former Indian ambassador to Japan, pointed out. The two sides have also been conscious of the challenges facing the relationship. These include Japanese frustration over “India’s regulatory complexity” and India’s concerns about “Japan’s slowing economy.” This stand-alone Modi visit for the 15th annual summit with Japan was the first since 2018, though he has visited the country since then for multilateral engagements. Besides, this was the eighth time Modi had visited Japan since becoming PM in 2014. It is well known that, even as the chief minister of Gujarat, he frequently visited China and Japan, reflecting the importance he attached to relations with the two Asian powers. Experts believe that the visit to Japan and then to China represented a shrewd endeavour at balancing several priorities of Indian foreign policy. What the two leaders said In his statement upon departure from Delhi and in the speeches and remarks he delivered while in Japan, PM Modi emphasised the importance of the India-Japan partnership for the two countries and beyond. “As two of the largest economies and vibrant democracies of the world, their partnership is extremely important, not just for the two countries but for global peace and stability as well,” he observed. He called Japan “a tech powerhouse” and India “a talent powerhouse,” suggesting that constructive collaboration between the two would help them lead the revolution in green energy, mobility, and logistics infrastructure. Ishiba agreed, adding, “We need to take advantage of each other’s strengths, to bring solutions to our challenges and to help each other.” In a crisp joint statement issued after the visit’s conclusion, the two PMs recalled the long-standing friendship linking their nations, which is rooted in “civilizational ties, shared values and interests, common strategic outlook and mutual respect for each other.” Appreciating the progress and cooperation in bilateral relations, they resolved to advance the Special Strategic and Global Partnership further. Key outcomes The success of Modi’s visit to Japan should be measured by analysing its tangible outcomes. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) highlighted over a dozen of them by listing the important documents signed, in addition to the joint statement. This list includes the following: India-Japan Joint Vision for the Next Decade; Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, which presents a comprehensive framework to evolve defence and security cooperation as a response to contemporary security challenges; Action Plan for India-Japan Human Resource Exchange; MOUs on Mineral Resources and Digital Partnership 2.0; and the Joint Declaration on Clean Hydrogen and Ammonia. The announcement of other outcomes covered, inter alia, the ambitious target of JPY 10 trillion ($67 billion) as private Japanese investment in India in the next decade, the launch of AI Initiative and the next generation mobility partnership as well as the Forum of Small and Medium Enterprises to strengthen collaboration among SMEs of the countries as “the engines of our respective economies,” and high-level exchanges between Indian states and Japanese prefectures. The joint statement provides detailed information about the three pillars of partnership: defence and security, economic cooperation, and collaboration in various other domains. It made a polite reference to the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed rail, which has been delayed, emphasising its importance and agreeing to commence operations “at the earliest” while acknowledging the need to introduce the latest Japanese Shinkansen technology in India. Two other points may be mentioned here. First, the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to the development of India’s North Eastern Region (NER) by enhancing “hard, soft, and people-to-people connectivity” and continuing their work through the Act East Forum. Second, they welcomed more bilateral cooperation for Africa’s sustainable economic development by establishing “an industrial hub” for trade and investment with Africa. The Indian side showed much interest in PM Ishiba‘s announcement of ‘the economic region initiative’ for the Indian Ocean – Africa region made at TICAD-9. Assessment The Indian side has obviously judged the Modi visit as a notable success, given that significant decisions of far-reaching importance have been taken. The impression aptly created was that, despite India’s current difficulties with the US, Japan remains bullish and seriously interested in taking forward the relationship in bilateral, regional, and global domains. This sent out a meaningful signal of its own to China, Modi’s next stop. Both sides expressed their continuing interest in strengthening their cooperation within the Quad, despite continuing (or even increasing) uncertainty about President Trump‘s plan to attend the summit to be hosted by India in 2025. They positively projected the evolution of the Quad into “a vital and enduring regional grouping” and added that they looked forward to the summit later in the year. Modi extended an invitation to his host to visit India for the summit, which was accepted. It was not revealed if they considered a Plan B in the event the US president fails to attend the summit. Finally, they also welcomed close cooperation between the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and the Indo-Pacific Oceans’ Initiative (IPOI). On the Myanmar question, they found notable convergence on the way forward. Overall, this visit has strengthened not only the India-Japan partnership but also India’s position in Asia and on the global stage.

PM Narendra Modi’s visits to Japan and China highlight India’s strategy to engage key powers. Earlier, he met G7 leaders and the US president, with Putin and Trump possibly visiting India later.

PM Modi in Japan, on a larger Asia mission

As global trade faces fresh headwinds from unilateral US tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with his Japanese counterpart, Shigeru Ishiba, in Tokyo has drawn sharp attention. The two-day visit marks the 15th India-Japan Annual Summit and comes at a time when both nations seek to build more robust economic buffers. With the US imposing duties on key imports, India and Japan are stepping up their partnership to secure supply chains and drive mutual growth, a move that could steady Asia’s economic landscape.&nbsp;The summit builds on a long-standing special strategic and global partnership between the two countries. During the talks, PM Modi and Ishiba agreed to expand cooperation across eight key fields: economy, economic security, mobility, environment, technology and innovation, health, people-to-people links, and ties between local governments. This broad framework aims to address shared challenges like climate change and digital divides while capitalising on each other’s strengths. Japan, with its advanced tech base, and India, with its vast market and young workforce, see this as a way to create jobs and spur innovation on both sides.&nbsp;At the heart of the discussions lies PM Modi’s flagship ‘Make in India’ programme, now evolving into ‘Make for the World’. The prime minister urged Japanese industry leaders at the India-Japan Economic Forum to invest more deeply in five priority areas: manufacturing, technology and innovation, green energy, next-generation infrastructure, and skills development. He highlighted the success of India-Japan collaboration in the automobile sector, where Japanese firms like Suzuki and Honda helped build India’s auto industry from scratch in the 1980s. Today, India ranks among the world’s top vehicle producers, thanks in part to that early support. PM Modi suggested replicating this model in emerging fields such as batteries, robotics, semiconductors, shipbuilding, and nuclear energy.&nbsp;Japan’s response has been enthusiastic. Tokyo plans to double its private-sector investment in India to 10 trillion yen, or about USD 68 billion, over the next decade. This builds on the previous target of 5 trillion yen set in 2022, which saw annual inflows of around 1 trillion yen. Japanese companies have already poured over USD 40 billion into India, including USD 13 billion in the last two years alone. The new goal, outlined in a joint statement, will focus on high-tech sectors to help India become a global manufacturing hub. For instance, an agreement on joint credit mechanisms will support clean energy projects, aligning with India’s push for sustainable development.&nbsp;Beyond investments, the leaders emphasised human connections. Japan aims to increase exchanges with India to 500,000 people over the next five years, including 50,000 skilled workers and talents from India. This could ease Japan’s labour shortages in ageing industries while providing Indian youth with global opportunities. PM Modi also visited a semiconductor facility in Sendai, underscoring the partnership’s forward-looking nature. With India investing heavily in chip-making—over Rs 65,000 crore recently—Japanese expertise could accelerate this effort, reducing reliance on vulnerable global supplies.&nbsp;Several bilateral pacts were inked during the visit, including memorandums on digital partnerships, clean energy, and economic security. A notable deal involves the space agencies of both countries—the Indian Space Research Organisation and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency—for a joint Lunar Polar Exploration Mission. This scientific collaboration could yield breakthroughs in resource mapping on the moon, benefiting future space endeavours. In defence, the talks touched on transferring Japanese E-10 coaches for India’s high-speed rail projects, like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train, which is already a symbol of the partnership.&nbsp;Experts view this summit as a strategic pivot amid rising US protectionism. With tariffs disrupting trade flows, India and Japan are working to diversify their economies. Bilateral trade stood at USD 22.85 billion in 2023-24, with Japan enjoying a surplus due to exports of machinery and electronics. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, in place since 2011, has cut tariffs, but trade remains below potential. By ramping up investments, both nations aim to balance this and create resilient value chains. For India, Japanese funds could boost its export-oriented manufacturing under ‘Make for the World’, targeting global markets in green tech and digital services.&nbsp;On a wider canvas, the India-Japan bond contributes to Asia’s stability. As members of the Quad grouping with the US and Australia, they share concerns over assertive actions in the Indo-Pacific, including maritime disputes. Their partnership promotes a rules-based order, countering any single power’s dominance. Economically, it could inspire similar ties across the region, from Southeast Asia to Africa, cultivating shared prosperity. PM Modi echoed this in his remarks, noting that India and Japan hold a common vision for peace and progress, not just for their people but for the world.&nbsp;Yet, challenges persist. India’s trade deficit with Japan, at around USD 5 billion last year, needs addressing through more balanced exchanges. Regulatory hurdles in India, such as land acquisition delays, have slowed some projects. Japan, facing domestic economic pressures, must ensure its firms see India as a safe bet. If navigated well, this alliance could set an example for Asia, where growth often hinges on cross-border cooperation.&nbsp;As PM Modi wraps up his Japan leg before heading to China for the SCO summit, the message is clear: In an uncertain world, old friends like India and Japan are paving a path to enduring stability and wealth. From the nostalgic charm of ‘Mera Joota Hai Japani’ to the ambitious vision of ‘Make in India, Make for the World’, this visit may well mark a turning point, where ‘Make in India’ becomes a bridge for Asian unity.&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.)

With US tariffs disrupting trade flows, India and Japan are working to diversify their economies. Bilateral trade between Tokyo and Delhi stood at USD 22.85 billion in 2023-24, with Japan enjoying a surplus due to exports of machinery and electronics.

As global trade faces fresh headwinds from unilateral US tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with his Japanese counterpart, Shigeru Ishiba, in Tokyo has drawn sharp attention. The two-day visit marks the 15th India-Japan Annual Summit and comes at a time when both nations seek to build more robust economic buffers. With the US imposing duties on key imports, India and Japan are stepping up their partnership to secure supply chains and drive mutual growth, a move that could steady Asia’s economic landscape. The summit builds on a long-standing special strategic and global partnership between the two countries. During the talks, PM Modi and Ishiba agreed to expand cooperation across eight key fields: economy, economic security, mobility, environment, technology and innovation, health, people-to-people links, and ties between local governments. This broad framework aims to address shared challenges like climate change and digital divides while capitalising on each other’s strengths. Japan, with its advanced tech base, and India, with its vast market and young workforce, see this as a way to create jobs and spur innovation on both sides. At the heart of the discussions lies PM Modi’s flagship ‘Make in India’ programme, now evolving into ‘Make for the World’. The prime minister urged Japanese industry leaders at the India-Japan Economic Forum to invest more deeply in five priority areas: manufacturing, technology and innovation, green energy, next-generation infrastructure, and skills development. He highlighted the success of India-Japan collaboration in the automobile sector, where Japanese firms like Suzuki and Honda helped build India’s auto industry from scratch in the 1980s. Today, India ranks among the world’s top vehicle producers, thanks in part to that early support. PM Modi suggested replicating this model in emerging fields such as batteries, robotics, semiconductors, shipbuilding, and nuclear energy. Japan’s response has been enthusiastic. Tokyo plans to double its private-sector investment in India to 10 trillion yen, or about USD 68 billion, over the next decade. This builds on the previous target of 5 trillion yen set in 2022, which saw annual inflows of around 1 trillion yen. Japanese companies have already poured over USD 40 billion into India, including USD 13 billion in the last two years alone. The new goal, outlined in a joint statement, will focus on high-tech sectors to help India become a global manufacturing hub. For instance, an agreement on joint credit mechanisms will support clean energy projects, aligning with India’s push for sustainable development. Beyond investments, the leaders emphasised human connections. Japan aims to increase exchanges with India to 500,000 people over the next five years, including 50,000 skilled workers and talents from India. This could ease Japan’s labour shortages in ageing industries while providing Indian youth with global opportunities. PM Modi also visited a semiconductor facility in Sendai, underscoring the partnership’s forward-looking nature. With India investing heavily in chip-making—over Rs 65,000 crore recently—Japanese expertise could accelerate this effort, reducing reliance on vulnerable global supplies. Several bilateral pacts were inked during the visit, including memorandums on digital partnerships, clean energy, and economic security. A notable deal involves the space agencies of both countries—the Indian Space Research Organisation and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency—for a joint Lunar Polar Exploration Mission. This scientific collaboration could yield breakthroughs in resource mapping on the moon, benefiting future space endeavours. In defence, the talks touched on transferring Japanese E-10 coaches for India’s high-speed rail projects, like the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train, which is already a symbol of the partnership. Experts view this summit as a strategic pivot amid rising US protectionism. With tariffs disrupting trade flows, India and Japan are working to diversify their economies. Bilateral trade stood at USD 22.85 billion in 2023-24, with Japan enjoying a surplus due to exports of machinery and electronics. The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, in place since 2011, has cut tariffs, but trade remains below potential. By ramping up investments, both nations aim to balance this and create resilient value chains. For India, Japanese funds could boost its export-oriented manufacturing under ‘Make for the World’, targeting global markets in green tech and digital services. On a wider canvas, the India-Japan bond contributes to Asia’s stability. As members of the Quad grouping with the US and Australia, they share concerns over assertive actions in the Indo-Pacific, including maritime disputes. Their partnership promotes a rules-based order, countering any single power’s dominance. Economically, it could inspire similar ties across the region, from Southeast Asia to Africa, cultivating shared prosperity. PM Modi echoed this in his remarks, noting that India and Japan hold a common vision for peace and progress, not just for their people but for the world. Yet, challenges persist. India’s trade deficit with Japan, at around USD 5 billion last year, needs addressing through more balanced exchanges. Regulatory hurdles in India, such as land acquisition delays, have slowed some projects. Japan, facing domestic economic pressures, must ensure its firms see India as a safe bet. If navigated well, this alliance could set an example for Asia, where growth often hinges on cross-border cooperation. As PM Modi wraps up his Japan leg before heading to China for the SCO summit, the message is clear: In an uncertain world, old friends like India and Japan are paving a path to enduring stability and wealth. From the nostalgic charm of ‘Mera Joota Hai Japani’ to the ambitious vision of ‘Make in India, Make for the World’, this visit may well mark a turning point, where ‘Make in India’ becomes a bridge for Asian unity. (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.)

With US tariffs disrupting trade flows, India and Japan are working to diversify their economies. Bilateral trade between Tokyo and Delhi stood at USD 22.85 billion in 2023-24, with Japan enjoying a surplus due to exports of machinery and electronics.

From ‘Mera Joota Hai Japani’ to ‘Make in India, Make for the World’, PM Modi’s India-Japan alliance boosts Asian stability

Bigg Boss is back with a new season, new faces, and fresh chaos. It’s only been a week, so picking a favourite feels too soon. But if you asked me who I like the least? Easy. Tanya Mittal.She introduces herself as a “spiritual influencer” and businesswoman, but what she’s really influencing is Pick Me culture. And Gen Z already has a word for that: a “Pick Me” woman. This is someone who chases male validation by putting other women down. Tanya? She’s practically the brand ambassador.<h2>‘I’m better than other girls’ - Girl, you okay?</h2>Whether Tanya’s chilling with one housemate or a whole group, she somehow circles back to flexing her wealth or hinting that she’s “better than other women.” But let’s pause - what does that even mean?&nbsp;Her answer: sarees. Yes. During the captaincy task, Tanya claimed to be a feminist, but she previously suggested that women who cover up are automatically “better” than those who wear revealing clothes. Girl, no. That’s not feminism. That’s just moral policing with extra steps. Your outfit - a saree, jeans, or a bikini - has zero correlation with your character.<h2>Preaching modesty and practicing hypocrisy?</h2>In a chat with her fellow contestant Pranay More, Tanya bragged that she never wore short dresses or did the “usual showbiz stuff” other women had to. But a quick scroll through her Instagram shows her flaunting backless blouses and deep-neck outfits in glossy GRWM reels. Hypocrisy, party of one.<h2>The makeup shade&nbsp;</h2>One moment that really sealed the Pick Me deal was when Neelam Giri was doing her makeup with Pranay nearby. Tanya turned to him and said, “Teach me makeup, please. I don’t know how to do it. I look the same all day. Look at other girls, they’re always wearing fancy eyeliner.”&nbsp;This is classic Pick Me language: “I’m not like those other girls.” She throws shade at women who enjoy makeup while performing “natural girl” innocence - even though she was herself wearing makeup. Being a “girl’s girl” means hyping up other women, not competing with them for validation.<h2>Here's the problem</h2>This isn’t just about Tanya’s contradictions; it’s about the message behind them. A woman in a saree deserves respect. So does a woman in a bikini. A woman with makeup is valid. So is one without. Feminism isn’t about declaring yourself “better” by shaming other women’s choices.Maybe Tanya’s antics are just a game plan to stir controversy and stay relevant. But if she’s serious? That’s worrying. Because there’s nothing empowering about being the final boss of Pick Me energy.&nbsp;Tanya, here’s the tea: a man who chooses you because you put down other women is not a prize - he’s a red flag - and so are you if you continue doing what you’re doing. The real flex isn’t being a Pick Me. It’s being a With Me, the woman who uplifts, supports, and stands beside other women.Until then, saree in the bathroom or not, we’re not impressed.

Maybe Tanya antics are just a game plan to stir controversy and stay relevant. But if she is serious? That is worrying. Because there is nothing empowering about being the Final Boss of Pick Me energy.

Bigg Boss is back with a new season, new faces, and fresh chaos. It’s only been a week, so picking a favourite feels too soon. But if you asked me who I like the least? Easy. Tanya Mittal. She introduces herself as a “spiritual influencer” and businesswoman, but what she’s really influencing is Pick Me culture. And Gen Z already has a word for that: a “Pick Me” woman. This is someone who chases male validation by putting other women down. Tanya? She’s practically the brand ambassador. ‘I’m better than other girls’ - Girl, you okay? Whether Tanya’s chilling with one housemate or a whole group, she somehow circles back to flexing her wealth or hinting that she’s “better than other women.” But let’s pause - what does that even mean? Her answer: sarees. Yes. During the captaincy task, Tanya claimed to be a feminist, but she previously suggested that women who cover up are automatically “better” than those who wear revealing clothes. Girl, no. That’s not feminism. That’s just moral policing with extra steps. Your outfit - a saree, jeans, or a bikini - has zero correlation with your character. Preaching modesty and practicing hypocrisy? In a chat with her fellow contestant Pranay More, Tanya bragged that she never wore short dresses or did the “usual showbiz stuff” other women had to. But a quick scroll through her Instagram shows her flaunting backless blouses and deep-neck outfits in glossy GRWM reels. Hypocrisy, party of one. The makeup shade One moment that really sealed the Pick Me deal was when Neelam Giri was doing her makeup with Pranay nearby. Tanya turned to him and said, “Teach me makeup, please. I don’t know how to do it. I look the same all day. Look at other girls, they’re always wearing fancy eyeliner.” This is classic Pick Me language: “I’m not like those other girls.” She throws shade at women who enjoy makeup while performing “natural girl” innocence - even though she was herself wearing makeup. Being a “girl’s girl” means hyping up other women, not competing with them for validation. Here's the problem This isn’t just about Tanya’s contradictions; it’s about the message behind them. A woman in a saree deserves respect. So does a woman in a bikini. A woman with makeup is valid. So is one without. Feminism isn’t about declaring yourself “better” by shaming other women’s choices. Maybe Tanya’s antics are just a game plan to stir controversy and stay relevant. But if she’s serious? That’s worrying. Because there’s nothing empowering about being the final boss of Pick Me energy. Tanya, here’s the tea: a man who chooses you because you put down other women is not a prize - he’s a red flag - and so are you if you continue doing what you’re doing. The real flex isn’t being a Pick Me. It’s being a With Me, the woman who uplifts, supports, and stands beside other women. Until then, saree in the bathroom or not, we’re not impressed.

Maybe Tanya’s antics are just a game plan to stir controversy and stay relevant. But if she’s serious? That’s worrying. Because there’s nothing empowering about being the final boss of Pick Me energy.

Bigg Boss' Tanya Mittal is the final boss of 'Pick me'

In 1986, India started the Kaveri engine project&nbsp;with a big dream: to make its own powerful jet engine and free its air force from dependence on foreign suppliers. But almost four decades later, the dream is still out of reach. The project has already cost more than six times the original budget, yet India’s Tejas fighter jets continue to fly with American engines.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, what went wrong? The Kaveri engine has struggled from the beginning. It never managed to produce enough thrust, and has repeatedly faced problems like being too heavy, overheating, and lacking durability. Even after decades of upgrades, it cannot match engines designed abroad as far back as the 1970s. That is why the Tejas is forced to use proven American engines — and when supplies are delayed, Tejas production slows down as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-weapon-pakistan-fears-most-not-brahmos-s-speed-but-nirbhay-s-silent-lethality-1755977473015">The weapon Pakistan fears most: Not BrahMos's speed, but Nirbhay's silent lethality</a>&nbsp;Some of the challenges are technical. India’s defense industry has lagged in metallurgy, advanced materials, and precision manufacturing&nbsp;— the building blocks of every jet engine. Without mastering these basics, it has been stuck at the same level for years. Another big reason is poor program management. Experts often say that the project was never matched with India’s real industrial capability. At the same time, the developers resisted genuine partnership — whether with foreign firms, Indian private companies, or even universities.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Interestingly, the often-cited excuse that “nobody shares engine technology” no longer holds true. India is already getting nearly 80% technology transfer with the American F414 engine and has also teamed up with French company Safran for a new fifth‑generation engine. This shows that cooperation is&nbsp;possible when projects are well organized.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/apache-vs-prachand-the-high-altitude-battle-that-india-s-indigenous-helicopter-already-won-1754292333816">Apache vs Prachand: The high altitude battle that India's indigenous helicopter already won</a>&nbsp;Even now, the Kaveri has only been cleared for limited test flights. A weaker version is being planned for India’s future stealth drone, the Ghatak. Since drones need less powerful engines than fighter jets, this might be achievable. But critics worry that splitting resources between fighters and drones will delay progress even further.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Some Indian experts argue that the Kaveri project should not be called a failure, since it created a base of knowledge for future projects. But after nearly 40 years without a usable result, the real lesson is not just about engineering. It’s about how not to run a national defence program&nbsp;— a point widely noted by defense express media. The road to a true Indian jet engine remains long, and nobody can say how many more years it will take.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Read More | &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/delayed-but-deadly-can-the-ghatak-drone-overcome-its-hurdles-1756108617798">Delayed but deadly: Can the Ghatak drone overcome its hurdles?</a>

India’s Kaveri jet engine project, started in 1986, faces ongoing issues like low thrust and overheating, forcing Tejas jets to use US engines. Technical gaps, poor management, and limited collaboration slowed progress. 

In 1986, India started the Kaveri engine project with a big dream: to make its own powerful jet engine and free its air force from dependence on foreign suppliers. But almost four decades later, the dream is still out of reach. The project has already cost more than six times the original budget, yet India’s Tejas fighter jets continue to fly with American engines. So, what went wrong? The Kaveri engine has struggled from the beginning. It never managed to produce enough thrust, and has repeatedly faced problems like being too heavy, overheating, and lacking durability. Even after decades of upgrades, it cannot match engines designed abroad as far back as the 1970s. That is why the Tejas is forced to use proven American engines — and when supplies are delayed, Tejas production slows down as well. Read More | The weapon Pakistan fears most: Not BrahMos's speed, but Nirbhay's silent lethality Some of the challenges are technical. India’s defense industry has lagged in metallurgy, advanced materials, and precision manufacturing — the building blocks of every jet engine. Without mastering these basics, it has been stuck at the same level for years. Another big reason is poor program management. Experts often say that the project was never matched with India’s real industrial capability. At the same time, the developers resisted genuine partnership — whether with foreign firms, Indian private companies, or even universities. Interestingly, the often-cited excuse that “nobody shares engine technology” no longer holds true. India is already getting nearly 80% technology transfer with the American F414 engine and has also teamed up with French company Safran for a new fifth‑generation engine. This shows that cooperation is possible when projects are well organized. Read More | Apache vs Prachand: The high altitude battle that India's indigenous helicopter already won Even now, the Kaveri has only been cleared for limited test flights. A weaker version is being planned for India’s future stealth drone, the Ghatak. Since drones need less powerful engines than fighter jets, this might be achievable. But critics worry that splitting resources between fighters and drones will delay progress even further. Some Indian experts argue that the Kaveri project should not be called a failure, since it created a base of knowledge for future projects. But after nearly 40 years without a usable result, the real lesson is not just about engineering. It’s about how not to run a national defence program — a point widely noted by defense express media. The road to a true Indian jet engine remains long, and nobody can say how many more years it will take. Read More | Delayed but deadly: Can the Ghatak drone overcome its hurdles?

India’s Kaveri jet engine project, started in 1986, faces ongoing issues like low thrust and overheating, forcing Tejas jets to use US engines. Technical gaps, poor management, and limited collaboration slowed progress.&nbsp;

Why India still can’t build its own jet engine – even after 40 years

"What will people say?" This one infamous line in Hindi - Log kya kahenge - has ruined more lives than you can imagine. Of course, it goes without saying that in India, it is the females who are almost always at its receiving end, either directly or indirectly. From impacting the choice of a life partner, to girls making unconventional career choices (or simply choosing to work or stay at home), the clothes one wears, the things one speaks and even the food someone picks to eat (Yes, even non-vegetarian food can get one labelled not sanskari (cultured) enough). This one line is enough to make people do things they don't want to do, even the most uncomfortable acts they might not agree to personally, but do them anyway because, well, if not, then "log kya kahenge?" You would think that the educated urban families don't give two hoots about what people say, but you could not be more wrong. And it is not just the older generation, but even young boys and girls. Dowry is one such tradition that, despite being illegal, plays an important role in marriages even today.&nbsp;The Nikki Bhati case in India has led people to ask - Why do people marry their daughters off in families that ask for dowry? &nbsp;The 28-year-old got married to Vipin Bhati nine years ago. Her sister, Kanchan, married Vipin's brother, Rohit. The family gave a Scorpio SUV, cash and gold to their sons-in-law. She recently died after allegedly being burned following an argument over an additional demand of Rs 3.6 million (Rs 36 lakh). When Nikki's father, Bhikari Singh Payla, was asked by a journalist why did he marry his daughter into a family that asked for dowry, he said, "In our clan, marriages happen through (dowry) mediators." The idea is so well-ingrained that perhaps this is why Payla himself is being accused of harassment by his daughter-in-law. Minakshi married Nikki's brother in 2016, and brought with her a sedan car. She claims the Paylas sent her back to her home, demanding a new model of Scorpio and cash. The family has refuted her allegations, saying she is welcome to return and that no one has ever hit Minakshi.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/noida-dowry-death-nikki-bhati-s-family-faces-fresh-allegations-of-dowry-torture-by-estranged-daughter-in-law-1756294551067">‘My son never raised his hand’: Nikki Bhati’s father on allegations of dowry torture by estranged daughter-in-law</a>&nbsp;<h2>Young professionals are perfectly OK with taking and giving dowry</h2>But, who are these people asking why agree to a match with dowry? Aren't they guilty of being complicit in something similar? The truth is, those demanding dowry and giving dowry walk amongst us. We encounter them in our everyday lives, oblivious about how they think. As Payla said, dowry is how marriages happen. I have come across girls whose parents were unable to secure a match because the boy's family asked for "too much" dowry. Well, they were prepared to give "some", but not "too much." They are boys and girls working in reputable companies in good positions. Yet, the boys were completely OK with their parents asking for lakhs in cash and a good car. A girl's parents found a match after years of effort. Weeks later, when preparations were on, the demand for dowry increased. The girl's family did not agree to it, so the boy's family called it off. The same thing happened to a friend, except in her case, her family ended things before it was too late.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/noida-dowry-death-conflicting-claims-emerge-as-cctv-video-shows-husband-vipin-outside-home-when-nikki-bhati-was-set-on-fire-1756181091487">Noida dowry death: Conflicting claims emerge as CCTV video shows husband Vipin outside&nbsp;home when Nikki Bhati was set on fire</a><h2>Dowry - a matter of pride, honour and reputation</h2>If someone marries their daughter without giving dowry, and if the boy's family agrees to a match without taking dowry, the inevitable wonderment arises among people - "Something must be wrong, why did no give and take happen?" The families risk being looked down upon by the society if dowry is not a part of the equation. But, shouldn't it be the other way around? The simple answer is no. In fact, the more a girl's family gives, the more honourable they come across as. The girl's family also sees it as a ticket to ensuring a good and easy-going life filled with love and respect from her in-laws. I even know of girls who forced their parents to give a huge dowry, just to show off.&nbsp;For the boy's family, being able to secure a huge dowry is a sure-shot way to skyrocket their reputation in society. People going 'ooh' and "aah" at seeing all the cash, jewellery, and the model of the car is music to their ears. Their chest swells with pride when they hear their relatives saying such good things about the things the new bride got. I have seen it happen, and have wondered if this is the main reason they get their sons married.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/noida-dowry-murder-she-died-herself-victim-s-husband-denies-killing-wife-1756134870175/embed<h2>Can the practice of dowry ever end?</h2>Everyone knows dowry is illegal, yet no one speaks up when it is about their family. Can this practice ever end? I know of families who started saving up for a dowry from the moment they had a daughter. They are providing them with good education, a life full of opportunities and the chance to become whatever they want to. Yet, they know that the day they decide to get them married, they will have to show how much they can give. You'd think that things would change with younger generations, but traditions never do. And, of course, there is the question of "log kya kahenge?"

Dowry in India is an age-old tradition. Hundreds of years ago, girls were married, and they were given things that would make them comfortable in their new home. Slowly, it became an evil practice, one that started taking innocent lives. Who is to blame?

"What will people say?" This one infamous line in Hindi - Log kya kahenge - has ruined more lives than you can imagine. Of course, it goes without saying that in India, it is the females who are almost always at its receiving end, either directly or indirectly. From impacting the choice of a life partner, to girls making unconventional career choices (or simply choosing to work or stay at home), the clothes one wears, the things one speaks and even the food someone picks to eat (Yes, even non-vegetarian food can get one labelled not sanskari (cultured) enough). This one line is enough to make people do things they don't want to do, even the most uncomfortable acts they might not agree to personally, but do them anyway because, well, if not, then "log kya kahenge?" You would think that the educated urban families don't give two hoots about what people say, but you could not be more wrong. And it is not just the older generation, but even young boys and girls. Dowry is one such tradition that, despite being illegal, plays an important role in marriages even today. The Nikki Bhati case in India has led people to ask - Why do people marry their daughters off in families that ask for dowry? The 28-year-old got married to Vipin Bhati nine years ago. Her sister, Kanchan, married Vipin's brother, Rohit. The family gave a Scorpio SUV, cash and gold to their sons-in-law. She recently died after allegedly being burned following an argument over an additional demand of Rs 3.6 million (Rs 36 lakh). When Nikki's father, Bhikari Singh Payla, was asked by a journalist why did he marry his daughter into a family that asked for dowry, he said, "In our clan, marriages happen through (dowry) mediators." The idea is so well-ingrained that perhaps this is why Payla himself is being accused of harassment by his daughter-in-law. Minakshi married Nikki's brother in 2016, and brought with her a sedan car. She claims the Paylas sent her back to her home, demanding a new model of Scorpio and cash. The family has refuted her allegations, saying she is welcome to return and that no one has ever hit Minakshi. Also Read: ‘My son never raised his hand’: Nikki Bhati’s father on allegations of dowry torture by estranged daughter-in-law Young professionals are perfectly OK with taking and giving dowry But, who are these people asking why agree to a match with dowry? Aren't they guilty of being complicit in something similar? The truth is, those demanding dowry and giving dowry walk amongst us. We encounter them in our everyday lives, oblivious about how they think. As Payla said, dowry is how marriages happen. I have come across girls whose parents were unable to secure a match because the boy's family asked for "too much" dowry. Well, they were prepared to give "some", but not "too much." They are boys and girls working in reputable companies in good positions. Yet, the boys were completely OK with their parents asking for lakhs in cash and a good car. A girl's parents found a match after years of effort. Weeks later, when preparations were on, the demand for dowry increased. The girl's family did not agree to it, so the boy's family called it off. The same thing happened to a friend, except in her case, her family ended things before it was too late. Also Read: Noida dowry death: Conflicting claims emerge as CCTV video shows husband Vipin outside home when Nikki Bhati was set on fire Dowry - a matter of pride, honour and reputation If someone marries their daughter without giving dowry, and if the boy's family agrees to a match without taking dowry, the inevitable wonderment arises among people - "Something must be wrong, why did no give and take happen?" The families risk being looked down upon by the society if dowry is not a part of the equation. But, shouldn't it be the other way around? The simple answer is no. In fact, the more a girl's family gives, the more honourable they come across as. The girl's family also sees it as a ticket to ensuring a good and easy-going life filled with love and respect from her in-laws. I even know of girls who forced their parents to give a huge dowry, just to show off. For the boy's family, being able to secure a huge dowry is a sure-shot way to skyrocket their reputation in society. People going 'ooh' and "aah" at seeing all the cash, jewellery, and the model of the car is music to their ears. Their chest swells with pride when they hear their relatives saying such good things about the things the new bride got. I have seen it happen, and have wondered if this is the main reason they get their sons married. https://www.wionews.com/videos/noida-dowry-murder-she-died-herself-victim-s-husband-denies-killing-wife-1756134870175/embed Can the practice of dowry ever end? Everyone knows dowry is illegal, yet no one speaks up when it is about their family. Can this practice ever end? I know of families who started saving up for a dowry from the moment they had a daughter. They are providing them with good education, a life full of opportunities and the chance to become whatever they want to. Yet, they know that the day they decide to get them married, they will have to show how much they can give. You'd think that things would change with younger generations, but traditions never do. And, of course, there is the question of "log kya kahenge?"

Dowry in India is an age-old tradition. Hundreds of years ago, girls were married, and they were given things that would make them comfortable in their new home. Slowly, it became an evil practice, one that started taking innocent lives. Who is to blame?

The scourge of dowry in India — How 'log kya kahenge?' (What will people say) ensures the practice never truly ends

The Parliament of India’s decision to pass the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, banning real-money online games, marks a turning point for the country’s digital landscape. The move, driven by concerns over gambling addiction, money laundering, and financial frauds, targets a USD 3.8 billion industry that has attracted global investors and powered platforms like Dream11, Games24x7, Mobile Premier League, 99Games, KheloFantasy, and My11Circle. Official data paints a grim picture: Indians lose nearly Rs 20,000 crore annually to such games, impacting around 45 crore people. The human toll is stark—families pushed into debt, young lives disrupted, and mental health strained by addictive platforms. This ban, while disruptive, reflects the PM Modi-led Central Government’s duty to shield citizens from exploitative systems that drain household savings and channel profits to foreign firms. Yet, it also raises a critical question: what lies ahead for India’s gaming future?&nbsp;For years, real-money gaming (RMG) platforms have lured players with the promise of quick riches. Games like rummy, poker, and fantasy sports blurred the lines between skill and gambling, trapping users in cycles of deposits and losses. Industry advocates highlight the sector’s economic contributions—Rs 31,000 crore in annual revenue, over 2 lakh jobs, and Rs 25,000 crore in foreign investment. However, these gains pale against the social costs. Media reports note that lawmakers see an outright ban as more effective than regulation, given the financial ruin caused by “manipulative design features and addictive algorithms” in these games. The state’s stance is clear: if physical gambling faces strict controls, its digital version cannot escape scrutiny. The flow of billions overseas further underlines the unsustainability of this model, where India’s tax revenue is dwarfed by citizen losses.&nbsp;Ban, an opportunity&nbsp;The ban, however, is not just a crackdown—it’s an opportunity to reshape India’s gaming ecosystem. The Online Gaming Bill explicitly promotes e-sports, educational, and social gaming platforms, signaling a shift toward ethical entertainment. The Union Ministry of Sports will frame guidelines for e-sports events, establish training academies, research centres, and technology platforms, recognizing competitive gaming as a legitimate sport. This aligns with global trends, where e-sports is a USD 180 billion industry, surpassing films and music in revenue. By nurturing skill-based gaming, India can tap into professional tournaments, streaming economies, and creative studios, building a sector that inspires talent and careers without exploiting users.&nbsp;Gaming, the Aatmanirbhar way&nbsp;A Make-in-India gaming vision could anchor this new direction. For too long, Indian gamers have consumed foreign content—Chinese battle royales, American sports titles, or European fantasy games—while local talent served global studios. A domestic ecosystem can change this. It would keep capital within India, curbing the outflow of billions to overseas firms. Game development, animation, coding, and event management could create lakhs of jobs, boosting employment in high-skill sectors. Games rooted in Indian culture—think a strategy title based on the Mahabharata or a city-builder inspired by the Indus Valley Civilization—could resonate globally, showcasing India’s heritage. Most crucially, homegrown platforms can embed ethical safeguards like spending caps, time alerts, and age verification, ensuring safe and responsible entertainment. So, if Aatmanirbhar Bharat is more than a slogan, online gaming is one of the sectors where it must be tested.&nbsp;Eyeing for ethical gaming&nbsp;The bill’s emphasis on cultural and educational games matching with Indian values adds another layer. These platforms, free from monetary stakes, can engage users through storytelling and skill-building. Imagine games that teach history or promote digital literacy, appealing to both young players and families. Such initiatives can position India as a hub for meaningful gaming, distinct from the profit-driven RMG model. The government’s push to regulate content under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ensures these games remain age-appropriate and culturally relevant, creating a balanced digital ecosystem.&nbsp;Critics warn that a blanket ban might drive users to illegal offshore apps, which lack oversight and consumer protections. This concern is valid—unregulated platforms pose risks of fraud and exploitation. However, the solution lies in swiftly building ethical alternatives. When offered engaging, safe, and culturally resonant games, users are likely to shift away from shady operators. European markets offer a blueprint: strict KYC norms, spending limits, self-exclusion options, and independent grievance mechanisms ensure responsible gaming. India, with its success in digital payments, can adopt similar standards, leapfrogging into a model for ethical gaming globally.&nbsp;The road ahead demands a straegic coordination. Policymakers must work with developers to create a supportive environment, offering incentives for local studios and clear compliance rules. Entrepreneurs should seize the chance to build platforms that prioritize user welfare over profit. Gamers, too, have a role—choosing ethical games can drive demand for quality content. If real-money gaming is revisited, it must operate under tight rules: robust KYC, spending caps, and transparent fund management to prevent misuse.&nbsp;Ultimately, gaming is more than entertainment—it ventilates how India balances innovation with responsibility. The ban is not the end but a chance to clear a flawed path and build a better one. A healthy, ethical gaming industry can become a pillar of India’s digital economy, creating jobs, retaining wealth, and projecting cultural pride. Under PM Modi’s vision, India is not just banning harmful games—it is laying the foundation for a gaming future that is innovative, inclusive, and proudly Indian.

Indians lose nearly Rs 20,000 crore annually to such games, impacting around 45 crore people. The human toll is stark—families pushed into debt, young lives disrupted, and mental health strained by addictive platforms. 

The Parliament of India’s decision to pass the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, banning real-money online games, marks a turning point for the country’s digital landscape. The move, driven by concerns over gambling addiction, money laundering, and financial frauds, targets a USD 3.8 billion industry that has attracted global investors and powered platforms like Dream11, Games24x7, Mobile Premier League, 99Games, KheloFantasy, and My11Circle. Official data paints a grim picture: Indians lose nearly Rs 20,000 crore annually to such games, impacting around 45 crore people. The human toll is stark—families pushed into debt, young lives disrupted, and mental health strained by addictive platforms. This ban, while disruptive, reflects the PM Modi-led Central Government’s duty to shield citizens from exploitative systems that drain household savings and channel profits to foreign firms. Yet, it also raises a critical question: what lies ahead for India’s gaming future? For years, real-money gaming (RMG) platforms have lured players with the promise of quick riches. Games like rummy, poker, and fantasy sports blurred the lines between skill and gambling, trapping users in cycles of deposits and losses. Industry advocates highlight the sector’s economic contributions—Rs 31,000 crore in annual revenue, over 2 lakh jobs, and Rs 25,000 crore in foreign investment. However, these gains pale against the social costs. Media reports note that lawmakers see an outright ban as more effective than regulation, given the financial ruin caused by “manipulative design features and addictive algorithms” in these games. The state’s stance is clear: if physical gambling faces strict controls, its digital version cannot escape scrutiny. The flow of billions overseas further underlines the unsustainability of this model, where India’s tax revenue is dwarfed by citizen losses. Ban, an opportunity The ban, however, is not just a crackdown—it’s an opportunity to reshape India’s gaming ecosystem. The Online Gaming Bill explicitly promotes e-sports, educational, and social gaming platforms, signaling a shift toward ethical entertainment. The Union Ministry of Sports will frame guidelines for e-sports events, establish training academies, research centres, and technology platforms, recognizing competitive gaming as a legitimate sport. This aligns with global trends, where e-sports is a USD 180 billion industry, surpassing films and music in revenue. By nurturing skill-based gaming, India can tap into professional tournaments, streaming economies, and creative studios, building a sector that inspires talent and careers without exploiting users. Gaming, the Aatmanirbhar way A Make-in-India gaming vision could anchor this new direction. For too long, Indian gamers have consumed foreign content—Chinese battle royales, American sports titles, or European fantasy games—while local talent served global studios. A domestic ecosystem can change this. It would keep capital within India, curbing the outflow of billions to overseas firms. Game development, animation, coding, and event management could create lakhs of jobs, boosting employment in high-skill sectors. Games rooted in Indian culture—think a strategy title based on the Mahabharata or a city-builder inspired by the Indus Valley Civilization—could resonate globally, showcasing India’s heritage. Most crucially, homegrown platforms can embed ethical safeguards like spending caps, time alerts, and age verification, ensuring safe and responsible entertainment. So, if Aatmanirbhar Bharat is more than a slogan, online gaming is one of the sectors where it must be tested. Eyeing for ethical gaming The bill’s emphasis on cultural and educational games matching with Indian values adds another layer. These platforms, free from monetary stakes, can engage users through storytelling and skill-building. Imagine games that teach history or promote digital literacy, appealing to both young players and families. Such initiatives can position India as a hub for meaningful gaming, distinct from the profit-driven RMG model. The government’s push to regulate content under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ensures these games remain age-appropriate and culturally relevant, creating a balanced digital ecosystem. Critics warn that a blanket ban might drive users to illegal offshore apps, which lack oversight and consumer protections. This concern is valid—unregulated platforms pose risks of fraud and exploitation. However, the solution lies in swiftly building ethical alternatives. When offered engaging, safe, and culturally resonant games, users are likely to shift away from shady operators. European markets offer a blueprint: strict KYC norms, spending limits, self-exclusion options, and independent grievance mechanisms ensure responsible gaming. India, with its success in digital payments, can adopt similar standards, leapfrogging into a model for ethical gaming globally. The road ahead demands a straegic coordination. Policymakers must work with developers to create a supportive environment, offering incentives for local studios and clear compliance rules. Entrepreneurs should seize the chance to build platforms that prioritize user welfare over profit. Gamers, too, have a role—choosing ethical games can drive demand for quality content. If real-money gaming is revisited, it must operate under tight rules: robust KYC, spending caps, and transparent fund management to prevent misuse. Ultimately, gaming is more than entertainment—it ventilates how India balances innovation with responsibility. The ban is not the end but a chance to clear a flawed path and build a better one. A healthy, ethical gaming industry can become a pillar of India’s digital economy, creating jobs, retaining wealth, and projecting cultural pride. Under PM Modi’s vision, India is not just banning harmful games—it is laying the foundation for a gaming future that is innovative, inclusive, and proudly Indian.

Indians lose nearly Rs 20,000 crore annually to such games, impacting around 45 crore people. The human toll is stark—families pushed into debt, young lives disrupted, and mental health strained by addictive platforms.&nbsp;

Online Gaming Going Aatmanirbhar Way! PM Modi’s Push for Esports Rooted in Ethical Entertainment

As the roar of aircraft engines fills the skies over Mysore during Dasara 2025's spectacular aeroshow, few spectators will know they are witnessing a tribute to one of India's most overlooked heroes. The thunderous display above is not just entertainment – it's a long-overdue salute to Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the visionary young royal who literally made India's aviation dreams take flight.<h2>The Man Who Said Yes When Everyone Else Said No</h2>Picture this: It's 1940, and India has no aircraft manufacturing capability. American businessman William Pawley and Indian industrialist Walchand Hirachand have a revolutionary idea – build planes in India. They approach multiple maharajas across the country, seeking support for this ambitious venture.The rulers of Baroda, Gwalior, and Bhavanagar all decline. Even shareholders of established companies reject the proposal as too risky. But when they reach Mysore in October 1940, something extraordinary happens. The 27-year-old Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, who had just ascended the throne barely a month earlier after his uncle Krishna Raja Wadiyar's death, sees what others cannot – the future of Indian aviation.<h2>From Tragedy to Vision in Record Time</h2>The young Maharaja had inherited his throne on September 8, 1940, following his uncle's death on August 3. Within weeks of becoming ruler, he faced a decision that would shape India's industrial future. When Walchand and Pawley landed in Bangalore that October, they found not just a willing partner, but a visionary leader ready to bet his kingdom's resources on an impossible dream.What happened next reads like a business miracle. The project had already received British approval in July 1940 within 72 hours of Pawley's presentation at Simla. But it was the young Maharaja's decisive support that transformed possibility into reality.<h2>The Speed of Royal Vision</h2>The Maharaja didn't just offer symbolic support. He gave 700 acres of prime land absolutely free, invested a massive Rs. 25 lakhs (equivalent to hundreds of crores today), and provided complete governmental backing. The Mysore Government Order No: D 3663-372/10C 216-40-16 dated February 11, 1941, made it official.On December 23, 1940, Hindustan Aircraft Company was incorporated under the Mysore Companies Act. Work began the very next day on December 24. The foundation was laid on January 12, 1941. Within just three weeks, the first building and runway were ready. By August 29, 1941, the company handed over its first Harlow trainer aircraft to the Government of India.This wasn't just fast – it was lightning speed in an era without modern construction equipment or communication technology. The young Maharaja's administration moved with urgency that would make today's startup founders envious.<h2>A Patriot's Sacrifice Over Profit</h2>When Pearl Harbour changed the war's trajectory in December 1941, and attacks on India became a real threat, the Government of India decided to take complete control of the facility. While private investor Walchand made a handsome profit of Rs. 57 lakhs on his Rs. 25 lakh investment, the Maharaja's approach was strikingly different.In April 1942, when GOI bought out Walchand's shares for Rs. 82.11 lakhs, the Maharaja refused to sell his stake. Instead, he handed over complete control to the Government of India until "2 years after end of war," asking only for a modest solatium of Rs. 12.11 lakhs to cover sterilised interest during wartime. His priority wasn't profit – it was national service.The factory became the 84th Air Depot under the United States Army Air Forces, rapidly expanding to become one of the largest aircraft overhaul and repair organisations in the East. From April 1946, Mysore State again became an active partner until the final transition.<h2>The Birth of HAL and a Forgotten Legacy</h2>On October 1, 1964, Hindustan Aircraft Limited merged with Aeronautics India Limited to form Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). This merger created one of Asia's largest aerospace companies, but it also buried the memory of its royal founder.Today, HAL operates 11 research centers, 21 manufacturing divisions, and has an annual turnover exceeding $3 billion. Yet when we celebrate HAL as a symbol of Indian aerospace prowess, we rarely remember its origins. HAL's official records acknowledge the company was established "in association with the Kingdom of Mysore," but they fail to properly honour Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar – the visionary who provided the land, investment, and unwavering support that made Indian aviation possible.This historical amnesia is not just unfair – it's a disservice to understanding how modern India was built. The young Maharaja didn't just invest money; he invested faith in India's industrial future when few others dared to dream so big.<h2>The Ultimate Homecoming</h2>The Mysore Dasara 2025 aeroshow is more than a spectacular display of aerobatic skills and modern aircraft. It's the ultimate homecoming celebration – aircraft returning to the skies above the land where Indian aviation was born 84 years ago, and where HAL took its final form 61 years ago in 1964.As we watch pilots perform death-defying stunts and marvel at cutting-edge fighter jets, let's remember the 27-year-old Maharaja who, barely a month into his reign, bet his kingdom's resources on a crazy idea called "manufacturing aircraft in India." His vision soared higher than any plane that flies today.Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar didn't just make India fly – he made India believe it could fly. In a world where profit often trumps patriotism, his story reminds us that true leadership sometimes means choosing national interest over personal gain.That legacy deserves to be remembered, celebrated, and honoured every time an Indian aircraft takes to the skies. The aeroshow over Mysore isn't just about the present – it's a tribute to the past that made our aviation future possible.

Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar didn't just make India fly – he made India believe it could fly. In a world where profit often trumps patriotism, his story reminds us that true leadership sometimes means choosing national interest over personal gain.

As the roar of aircraft engines fills the skies over Mysore during Dasara 2025's spectacular aeroshow, few spectators will know they are witnessing a tribute to one of India's most overlooked heroes. The thunderous display above is not just entertainment – it's a long-overdue salute to Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the visionary young royal who literally made India's aviation dreams take flight. The Man Who Said Yes When Everyone Else Said No Picture this: It's 1940, and India has no aircraft manufacturing capability. American businessman William Pawley and Indian industrialist Walchand Hirachand have a revolutionary idea – build planes in India. They approach multiple maharajas across the country, seeking support for this ambitious venture. The rulers of Baroda, Gwalior, and Bhavanagar all decline. Even shareholders of established companies reject the proposal as too risky. But when they reach Mysore in October 1940, something extraordinary happens. The 27-year-old Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, who had just ascended the throne barely a month earlier after his uncle Krishna Raja Wadiyar's death, sees what others cannot – the future of Indian aviation. From Tragedy to Vision in Record Time The young Maharaja had inherited his throne on September 8, 1940, following his uncle's death on August 3. Within weeks of becoming ruler, he faced a decision that would shape India's industrial future. When Walchand and Pawley landed in Bangalore that October, they found not just a willing partner, but a visionary leader ready to bet his kingdom's resources on an impossible dream. What happened next reads like a business miracle. The project had already received British approval in July 1940 within 72 hours of Pawley's presentation at Simla. But it was the young Maharaja's decisive support that transformed possibility into reality. The Speed of Royal Vision The Maharaja didn't just offer symbolic support. He gave 700 acres of prime land absolutely free, invested a massive Rs. 25 lakhs (equivalent to hundreds of crores today), and provided complete governmental backing. The Mysore Government Order No: D 3663-372/10C 216-40-16 dated February 11, 1941, made it official. On December 23, 1940, Hindustan Aircraft Company was incorporated under the Mysore Companies Act. Work began the very next day on December 24. The foundation was laid on January 12, 1941. Within just three weeks, the first building and runway were ready. By August 29, 1941, the company handed over its first Harlow trainer aircraft to the Government of India. This wasn't just fast – it was lightning speed in an era without modern construction equipment or communication technology. The young Maharaja's administration moved with urgency that would make today's startup founders envious. A Patriot's Sacrifice Over Profit When Pearl Harbour changed the war's trajectory in December 1941, and attacks on India became a real threat, the Government of India decided to take complete control of the facility. While private investor Walchand made a handsome profit of Rs. 57 lakhs on his Rs. 25 lakh investment, the Maharaja's approach was strikingly different. In April 1942, when GOI bought out Walchand's shares for Rs. 82.11 lakhs, the Maharaja refused to sell his stake. Instead, he handed over complete control to the Government of India until "2 years after end of war," asking only for a modest solatium of Rs. 12.11 lakhs to cover sterilised interest during wartime. His priority wasn't profit – it was national service. The factory became the 84th Air Depot under the United States Army Air Forces, rapidly expanding to become one of the largest aircraft overhaul and repair organisations in the East. From April 1946, Mysore State again became an active partner until the final transition. The Birth of HAL and a Forgotten Legacy On October 1, 1964, Hindustan Aircraft Limited merged with Aeronautics India Limited to form Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). This merger created one of Asia's largest aerospace companies, but it also buried the memory of its royal founder. Today, HAL operates 11 research centers, 21 manufacturing divisions, and has an annual turnover exceeding $3 billion. Yet when we celebrate HAL as a symbol of Indian aerospace prowess, we rarely remember its origins. HAL's official records acknowledge the company was established "in association with the Kingdom of Mysore," but they fail to properly honour Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar – the visionary who provided the land, investment, and unwavering support that made Indian aviation possible. This historical amnesia is not just unfair – it's a disservice to understanding how modern India was built. The young Maharaja didn't just invest money; he invested faith in India's industrial future when few others dared to dream so big. The Ultimate Homecoming The Mysore Dasara 2025 aeroshow is more than a spectacular display of aerobatic skills and modern aircraft. It's the ultimate homecoming celebration – aircraft returning to the skies above the land where Indian aviation was born 84 years ago, and where HAL took its final form 61 years ago in 1964. As we watch pilots perform death-defying stunts and marvel at cutting-edge fighter jets, let's remember the 27-year-old Maharaja who, barely a month into his reign, bet his kingdom's resources on a crazy idea called "manufacturing aircraft in India." His vision soared higher than any plane that flies today. Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar didn't just make India fly – he made India believe it could fly. In a world where profit often trumps patriotism, his story reminds us that true leadership sometimes means choosing national interest over personal gain. That legacy deserves to be remembered, celebrated, and honoured every time an Indian aircraft takes to the skies. The aeroshow over Mysore isn't just about the present – it's a tribute to the past that made our aviation future possible.

Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar didn't just make India fly – he made India believe it could fly. In a world where profit often trumps patriotism, his story reminds us that true leadership sometimes means choosing national interest over personal gain.

When Mysore's young maharaja made India fly: The forgotten hero of our aviation story

US President Donald Trump’s sudden belligerent treatment of India is drawing fire from prominent figures of the US foreign policy establishment who call it a mistake, prompting the most serious dispute between the two countries in decades. Over the past few weeks, dismay over the impact of punitive sanctions imposed on the world’s most populous country has been reflected in sharply worded headlines in weighty publications as well as in public statements on television networks.&nbsp;Examples: Trump Takes a Destructive Turn against India (The Wall Street Journal); Trump’s biggest foreign policy mistake (The Washington Post); The Shocking Rift Between India and the United States (Foreign Affairs). The latter, considered one of the Western world’s most influential foreign policy magazines, added a pessimistic sub-headline: “Can Progress in the Partnership Survive Trump?”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariffs-experts-warn-on-u-s-debt-trajectory-predictable-crisis-ahead-1755689377271/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariffs-experts-warn-on-u-s-debt-trajectory-predictable-crisis-ahead-1755689377271/embed</a>&nbsp;This comes just six months after Trump greeted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a hug at the White House and described him as “a great friend” and “great leader” who is doing a really great job in India. Everybody talks about him. He’s doing a fantastic job.” That shower of praise stopped soon after India refused to bow to a number of demands the Trump administration stipulated as conditions to advance a bilateral trade deal. They included opening India’s agricultural markets and, most importantly, halting imports of Russian oil. Those imports, the Americans argued, prop up the Russian economy and thus allow Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression on Ukraine. There is no dispute over the veracity of this assertion but administration critics of India failed to mention that the biggest importer of Russian oil is China, not India.&nbsp;Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nikki-haley-wants-trump-to-talk-to-pm-modi-over-russian-oil-issue-highlights-china-threat-amid-tariff-war-1755736744441">Nikki Haley wants Trump to talk to PM Modi over Russian oil issue, highlights China 'threat' amid tariff war</a>&nbsp;While Trump slapped a punitive tariff of 25 per cent on India, on top of a previously imposed 25 per cent, he gave China another 90-day pause to consider how to proceed with negotiations. The daunting 50 per cent tariffs on India are due to take effect next week, on August 27. Trade talks seeking to solve the impasse had been scheduled for two days from August 25 but were called off. No new date has been fixed. In the Washington Post (“biggest foreign policy mistake”), the political analyst Fareed Zakaria said Trump has “undone decades of painstaking work by US, diplomats” for Washington and Delhi to grew closer and for India to be key to preventing Chinese domination of Asia.&nbsp;Instead, India and China are drawing closer. Modi has hailed “steady progress’ in improving the bilateral relationship with China and will pay his first visit there in seven years at the end of the month at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two will meet at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit meeting. For experts on the geopolitics of Asia, the effect of Trump’s move came as no surprise. John Bolton, National Security Council advisor in the first Trump administration, said in a television interview that his former boss had made an “enormous mistake” by showing bias towards Beijing over New Delhi.&nbsp;Read More | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-offers-india-5-discount-on-crude-oil-to-help-tide-over-trump-tariffs-1755711924356">Russia offers India 5% discount on crude oil to help tide over Trump tariffs</a>&nbsp;Nikki Haley, America’s UN ambassador during Trump’s first term, warned that it would be a “massive mistake” to allow the tariff dispute to slide into an enduring rupture. “If that were to happen, the Chinese Communist Party would be quick to play India and the United States against one another.” The Foreign Affairs analysis agreed that Trump appears more eager to strike a deal with China than to relent on his tough stance on India.&nbsp;On what basis the volatile US president makes decisions is a perpetual guessing game in Washington. One theory offered by Carlos Versano, the editor of a daily newsletter by Newsweek, which made its debut today, pointed to a phenomenon which goes beyond geopolitics and tariffs. He wrote: “There is a deep undercurrent of anti-Indian settlement that runs through MAGA, which Trump is probably aware of. I spend entirely too much of my precious waking hours trawling through right-wing message boards and X threads to see what they are talking about…and the racism and xenophobia towards Indians is pretty shocking.”&nbsp;Read More |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/why-us-imposed-tariffs-on-india-and-not-china-trump-s-treasury-secretary-explains-1755669214602">Why US imposed tariffs on India and not China? Trump's Treasury Secretary explains</a>&nbsp;According to Versano, anti-Indian sentiment among Trump’s core loyalists is rooted in the belief that Indians are scamming the H-1B visa programme to take away jobs from Americans in the high-paying tech sectors in Silicon Valley and other technology centres. There is no way to know how valid this theory is but it IS known that Trump pays a lot of attention on the mood of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) followers who gave him the edge in the elections he won in 2024. Six months into Trump’s second term, no theory is too far-fetched to be ignored.

Trump’s harsh tariffs on India have sparked backlash from US foreign policy experts, who warn that it threatens decades of progress in ties. Critics say Trump favours China over India, with 50 per cent tariffs set to begin Aug 27.

US President Donald Trump’s sudden belligerent treatment of India is drawing fire from prominent figures of the US foreign policy establishment who call it a mistake, prompting the most serious dispute between the two countries in decades. Over the past few weeks, dismay over the impact of punitive sanctions imposed on the world’s most populous country has been reflected in sharply worded headlines in weighty publications as well as in public statements on television networks. Examples: Trump Takes a Destructive Turn against India (The Wall Street Journal); Trump’s biggest foreign policy mistake (The Washington Post); The Shocking Rift Between India and the United States (Foreign Affairs). The latter, considered one of the Western world’s most influential foreign policy magazines, added a pessimistic sub-headline: “Can Progress in the Partnership Survive Trump?” https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariffs-experts-warn-on-u-s-debt-trajectory-predictable-crisis-ahead-1755689377271/embed This comes just six months after Trump greeted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a hug at the White House and described him as “a great friend” and “great leader” who is doing a really great job in India. Everybody talks about him. He’s doing a fantastic job.” That shower of praise stopped soon after India refused to bow to a number of demands the Trump administration stipulated as conditions to advance a bilateral trade deal. They included opening India’s agricultural markets and, most importantly, halting imports of Russian oil. Those imports, the Americans argued, prop up the Russian economy and thus allow Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression on Ukraine. There is no dispute over the veracity of this assertion but administration critics of India failed to mention that the biggest importer of Russian oil is China, not India. Read More | Nikki Haley wants Trump to talk to PM Modi over Russian oil issue, highlights China 'threat' amid tariff war While Trump slapped a punitive tariff of 25 per cent on India, on top of a previously imposed 25 per cent, he gave China another 90-day pause to consider how to proceed with negotiations. The daunting 50 per cent tariffs on India are due to take effect next week, on August 27. Trade talks seeking to solve the impasse had been scheduled for two days from August 25 but were called off. No new date has been fixed. In the Washington Post (“biggest foreign policy mistake”), the political analyst Fareed Zakaria said Trump has “undone decades of painstaking work by US, diplomats” for Washington and Delhi to grew closer and for India to be key to preventing Chinese domination of Asia. Instead, India and China are drawing closer. Modi has hailed “steady progress’ in improving the bilateral relationship with China and will pay his first visit there in seven years at the end of the month at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two will meet at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit meeting. For experts on the geopolitics of Asia, the effect of Trump’s move came as no surprise. John Bolton, National Security Council advisor in the first Trump administration, said in a television interview that his former boss had made an “enormous mistake” by showing bias towards Beijing over New Delhi. Read More | Russia offers India 5% discount on crude oil to help tide over Trump tariffs Nikki Haley, America’s UN ambassador during Trump’s first term, warned that it would be a “massive mistake” to allow the tariff dispute to slide into an enduring rupture. “If that were to happen, the Chinese Communist Party would be quick to play India and the United States against one another.” The Foreign Affairs analysis agreed that Trump appears more eager to strike a deal with China than to relent on his tough stance on India. On what basis the volatile US president makes decisions is a perpetual guessing game in Washington. One theory offered by Carlos Versano, the editor of a daily newsletter by Newsweek, which made its debut today, pointed to a phenomenon which goes beyond geopolitics and tariffs. He wrote: “There is a deep undercurrent of anti-Indian settlement that runs through MAGA, which Trump is probably aware of. I spend entirely too much of my precious waking hours trawling through right-wing message boards and X threads to see what they are talking about…and the racism and xenophobia towards Indians is pretty shocking.” Read More | Why US imposed tariffs on India and not China? Trump's Treasury Secretary explains According to Versano, anti-Indian sentiment among Trump’s core loyalists is rooted in the belief that Indians are scamming the H-1B visa programme to take away jobs from Americans in the high-paying tech sectors in Silicon Valley and other technology centres. There is no way to know how valid this theory is but it IS known that Trump pays a lot of attention on the mood of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) followers who gave him the edge in the elections he won in 2024. Six months into Trump’s second term, no theory is too far-fetched to be ignored.

Trump’s harsh tariffs on India have sparked backlash from US foreign policy experts, who warn that it threatens decades of progress in ties. Critics say Trump favours China over India, with 50 per cent tariffs set to begin Aug 27.

Trump’s treatment of India draws fire from US foreign policy experts

Violence in politics, marked by slaps, shoe-throwing, and other assaults, has long cast a shadow over democratic societies. From the assault on Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa nearly five decades before India's independence in 1947 to the recent attack on Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, such acts of violence and animosityhave reverberated globally, targeting prominent leaders. In a democracy built on the principle of being of the people, by the people, and for the people, these incidents are wholly unacceptable. While the right to disagree or dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, physical violence has no place in a civilised setup and it could be largely seen as slapping on democracy in public discourse.&nbsp;The latest case involving Rekha Gupta unfolded during a public hearing, or "Jan Sunwai", at her official residence. A young man approached her, handed over some papers, and then allegedly attacked her like a bolt from the blue. The attacker was swiftly detained, and the Chief Minister was reportedly taken to hospital for medical checks. Leaders across political spectrum condemned the act, with the BJP voicing strong outrage over the incident. The Rekha Gupta government, in its first 100 days, has been steering Delhi towards inclusive and sustainable development under the "Viksit Delhi" vision matching the pace of PM Modi’s Viksit Bharat mission.&nbsp;Such safety-valve-eruption ofoutbursts do more than harm individuals; they shake the foundations of democratic systems and liberal ideals. They expose deep social fissuresas well as reflect frustration and intolerance among people as if they are sitting on a short fuse. Attacks on leaders erode public safety and order, pushing nations towards unrest. Research from the London School of Economics points to the "Black Sheep Effect", where individuals lash out at politicians seen as betraying group norms or threatening shared identities. These knee-jerk reactions often stem from perceived failures in policy or leadership that strike at personal or community concerns.&nbsp;The rise of artificial intelligence-driven deepfakes and unregulated social media content has, as experts opine, worsened the climate of political hostility. AI tools can flood platforms with misleading material that incites anger and pushes individuals towards extreme views, especially during high-stakes periods like elections. Reports warn that synthetic media, including deepfakes, could be weaponised to undermine trust in polls and fuel violence. With limited oversight, this trend heightens the risk of radicalisation, turning online grievances into real-world actions.&nbsp;High-profile attacks across globe In recent years, several high-profile cases of violence against politicians have grabbed global attention. On July 13, 2024, former US President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for the presidential race, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired shots from a nearby rooftop, grazing Trump’s ear. The incident sparked intense debates on security and polarisation in American politics.&nbsp;Indian leaders under fire Closer home, Indian leaders have faced similar shocks. In May 2019, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was slapped during a roadshow in Moti Nagar while campaigning for his party’s candidate. The attacker cited local grievances, showing how public discontent can spill into violence. In 2011, Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar was slapped by a 27-year-old auto driver, Harvinder Singh, who blamed the minister for rising prices. More recently, on June 6, 2024, BJP MP Kangana Ranaut alleged she was slapped by a CISF constable at Chandigarh airport amid tensions over farmer protests, leading to the officer’s suspension. In 2009, former Home Minister P Chidambaram faced a shoe-throwing incident at a press meet, with the journalist protesting his stance on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.&nbsp;Global episodes of political violence Beyond India, global leaders have not been spared. In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron was slapped during a public walkabout, an act that stunned viewers worldwide. In 2008, Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi hurled his shoes at then-US President George W. Bush during a Baghdad press conference, protesting the Iraq war. Italy’s former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suffered serious injuries in 2009 when struck with a metal statue in Milan, losing significant blood. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro was stabbed during his 2018 campaign, an attack that boosted his popularity and aided his victory. In 1991, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl clashed with protesters in eastern Germany after being pelted with eggs and paint, requiring security intervention.&nbsp;Lighter but disruptive attacks Some incidents, while less severe, remain disruptive. Britain’s former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott punched a protester in 2001 after an egg was thrown at him during an election event. Canada’s ex-Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf were hit with pies around 2000-2001, often by activists making a statement. UK politician Nigel Farage, known for his Brexit campaign, had a milkshake thrown at him in 2019, part of a wave of such protests against right-wing figures.&nbsp;Broader pattern, its impact These events, spanning continents, reveal a pattern where frustration meets opportunity, often amplified by media coverage. Data from tracking groups show over 300 cases of political violence in the US since 2021, with a rise in 2024 amid election fever. In Europe, threats to elected officials are climbing, linked to economic woes and ideological rifts. Such assaults breed fear among public figures, potentially discouraging capable individuals from entering politics. They also deepen societal divides, with sympathisers rallying around victims while critics downplay the acts. In India, where elections draw massive crowds, ensuring leader safety is a logistical challenge, as past lapses show.&nbsp;Strong legal action against perpetrators is crucial, but addressing root causes like inequality and misinformation is equally vital. Governments, educators, media, and civil society must collaborate to instil civic values and promote dialogue over discord. Youth, often at the forefront of such incidents, need guidance to channel dissent through peaceful means like voting or protests.&nbsp;&nbsp;Vibrant democracies thrive on debate, not violence. As the attack on Rekha Guptadeeply underlines the downfall of civility in society and political circle, ignoring this menace risks pushing nations towards instability. A collective commitment to non-violence is essential to preserve the essence of people-driven governance across the world.

AI tools can flood platforms with misleading material that incites anger and pushes individuals towards extreme views, especially during high-stakes periods like elections.

Violence in politics, marked by slaps, shoe-throwing, and other assaults, has long cast a shadow over democratic societies. From the assault on Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa nearly five decades before India's independence in 1947 to the recent attack on Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, such acts of violence and animosityhave reverberated globally, targeting prominent leaders. In a democracy built on the principle of being of the people, by the people, and for the people, these incidents are wholly unacceptable. While the right to disagree or dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, physical violence has no place in a civilised setup and it could be largely seen as slapping on democracy in public discourse. The latest case involving Rekha Gupta unfolded during a public hearing, or "Jan Sunwai", at her official residence. A young man approached her, handed over some papers, and then allegedly attacked her like a bolt from the blue. The attacker was swiftly detained, and the Chief Minister was reportedly taken to hospital for medical checks. Leaders across political spectrum condemned the act, with the BJP voicing strong outrage over the incident. The Rekha Gupta government, in its first 100 days, has been steering Delhi towards inclusive and sustainable development under the "Viksit Delhi" vision matching the pace of PM Modi’s Viksit Bharat mission. Such safety-valve-eruption ofoutbursts do more than harm individuals; they shake the foundations of democratic systems and liberal ideals. They expose deep social fissuresas well as reflect frustration and intolerance among people as if they are sitting on a short fuse. Attacks on leaders erode public safety and order, pushing nations towards unrest. Research from the London School of Economics points to the "Black Sheep Effect", where individuals lash out at politicians seen as betraying group norms or threatening shared identities. These knee-jerk reactions often stem from perceived failures in policy or leadership that strike at personal or community concerns. The rise of artificial intelligence-driven deepfakes and unregulated social media content has, as experts opine, worsened the climate of political hostility. AI tools can flood platforms with misleading material that incites anger and pushes individuals towards extreme views, especially during high-stakes periods like elections. Reports warn that synthetic media, including deepfakes, could be weaponised to undermine trust in polls and fuel violence. With limited oversight, this trend heightens the risk of radicalisation, turning online grievances into real-world actions. High-profile attacks across globe In recent years, several high-profile cases of violence against politicians have grabbed global attention. On July 13, 2024, former US President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for the presidential race, narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. A 20-year-old gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired shots from a nearby rooftop, grazing Trump’s ear. The incident sparked intense debates on security and polarisation in American politics. Indian leaders under fire Closer home, Indian leaders have faced similar shocks. In May 2019, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was slapped during a roadshow in Moti Nagar while campaigning for his party’s candidate. The attacker cited local grievances, showing how public discontent can spill into violence. In 2011, Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar was slapped by a 27-year-old auto driver, Harvinder Singh, who blamed the minister for rising prices. More recently, on June 6, 2024, BJP MP Kangana Ranaut alleged she was slapped by a CISF constable at Chandigarh airport amid tensions over farmer protests, leading to the officer’s suspension. In 2009, former Home Minister P Chidambaram faced a shoe-throwing incident at a press meet, with the journalist protesting his stance on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Global episodes of political violence Beyond India, global leaders have not been spared. In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron was slapped during a public walkabout, an act that stunned viewers worldwide. In 2008, Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi hurled his shoes at then-US President George W. Bush during a Baghdad press conference, protesting the Iraq war. Italy’s former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suffered serious injuries in 2009 when struck with a metal statue in Milan, losing significant blood. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro was stabbed during his 2018 campaign, an attack that boosted his popularity and aided his victory. In 1991, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl clashed with protesters in eastern Germany after being pelted with eggs and paint, requiring security intervention. Lighter but disruptive attacks Some incidents, while less severe, remain disruptive. Britain’s former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott punched a protester in 2001 after an egg was thrown at him during an election event. Canada’s ex-Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf were hit with pies around 2000-2001, often by activists making a statement. UK politician Nigel Farage, known for his Brexit campaign, had a milkshake thrown at him in 2019, part of a wave of such protests against right-wing figures. Broader pattern, its impact These events, spanning continents, reveal a pattern where frustration meets opportunity, often amplified by media coverage. Data from tracking groups show over 300 cases of political violence in the US since 2021, with a rise in 2024 amid election fever. In Europe, threats to elected officials are climbing, linked to economic woes and ideological rifts. Such assaults breed fear among public figures, potentially discouraging capable individuals from entering politics. They also deepen societal divides, with sympathisers rallying around victims while critics downplay the acts. In India, where elections draw massive crowds, ensuring leader safety is a logistical challenge, as past lapses show. Strong legal action against perpetrators is crucial, but addressing root causes like inequality and misinformation is equally vital. Governments, educators, media, and civil society must collaborate to instil civic values and promote dialogue over discord. Youth, often at the forefront of such incidents, need guidance to channel dissent through peaceful means like voting or protests. Vibrant democracies thrive on debate, not violence. As the attack on Rekha Guptadeeply underlines the downfall of civility in society and political circle, ignoring this menace risks pushing nations towards instability. A collective commitment to non-violence is essential to preserve the essence of people-driven governance across the world.

AI tools can flood platforms with misleading material that incites anger and pushes individuals towards extreme views, especially during high-stakes periods like elections.

‘Slapping Democracy’? Mahatma Gandhi, Rekha Gupta, Donald Trump & global politics of ATTACKS that deface humane civility

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday to talk about ending the war in Ukraine. Several European leaders also came to Washington, just days after Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which did not bring a ceasefire. Even though Trump sounded hopeful, and European leaders were more cautious, by Monday evening there were no clear promises of security guarantees or a peace deal.<h2>Here are the main points from the talks:</h2>1. A Putin-Zelensky meeting on the cards?After the summit, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he had called Putin to start planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Zelensky. Trump said that after this one-on-one meeting, there could be a three-way meeting where the US president would also join.A Putin adviser later said that Trump and Putin had spoken for 40 minutes on Monday. Before the European leaders met Trump in the East Room of the White House, a hot mic caught a private chat between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron. “I think he wants to make a deal. I think he wants to make a deal for me. You understand that? As crazy as that sounds,” Trump told Macron, speaking about Putin.&nbsp;(Here, Trump is suggesting that Putin might agree to talks mainly to give Trump the credit of being a peacemaker, rather than out of genuine interest in ending the war.) It is still uncertain how easy it will be to bring the two bitter enemies together at the negotiating table for the first time since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. For months, Zelensky has been asking to meet Putin, mainly to prove that Russia is not serious about peace, since he believes the Kremlin has no real interest in such talks. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of a Putin-Zelensky meeting. A Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, gave a noncommittal statement on Monday night, saying it might be “worthwhile” to “explore the possibility” of sending higher-level representatives from the Russian and Ukrainian delegations for talks.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-zelensky-meet-zelensky-said-thank-you-eight-times-in-oval-office-remarks-1755575931099/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-zelensky-meet-zelensky-said-thank-you-eight-times-in-oval-office-remarks-1755575931099/embed</a>&nbsp;2. Europeans push back as Trump backs away from ceasefireTrump suggested that a ceasefire might not be needed before starting peace talks to end the war.In the past, Ukraine has been clear that stopping the fighting is a must before any further talks with Russia, and before working on a long-term settlement. A ceasefire is usually easier to agree on than a full peace deal, which could take many months of negotiations, while Russia’s attacks would likely continue. “I don’t know that it’s necessary,” Trump said about a ceasefire. But European leaders pushed back, with the strongest response coming from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. (This means that while Trump was downplaying the need for a ceasefire, European leaders — especially Merz — strongly disagreed, insisting that stopping the fighting first is essential before any real peace talks can begin.) “I can’t imagine that the next meeting would happen without a ceasefire,” Merz said. “So, let’s work on that and let’s try to put pressure on Russia.” When asked to speak, Zelensky did not repeat his earlier calls for a ceasefire.&nbsp;3. Trump engaged in some shuttle diplomacy with PutinPresident Joseph R. Biden Jr. (the former US president before Trump’s return to office) once called Putin a “murderous dictator,” but Trump has always shown a more positive view of the Russian president. On Monday, Trump continued to present Putin as being serious about ending the war he had started. At one point, Trump even paused his meeting with the European leaders in the East Room of the White House to call the Russian leader. Afterward, Trump brought Zelensky and the European leaders into the Oval Office to explain his discussion with Putin, according to President Alexander Stubb of Finland, as reported by New York Times.&nbsp;

4. Trump hints at security guaranteesTrump told Zelensky that the US would help guarantee Ukraine’s security in any deal to end the war, though he did not say exactly how. The US president did not promise troops on the ground, but when reporters asked if the guarantees could include American military in Ukraine, Trump did not rule it out. He said Europe was the “first line of defence”, but added that “we’ll be involved.” (This means Trump believes Europe should take the lead in defending Ukraine, but the US will also play a role and not stay out completely.) “We’ll give them good protection,” the president said. This was the strongest statement yet from Trump on security guarantees, which are seen as crucial for any deal with Russia. He also said that during last week’s Alaska summit, Putin had agreed that there would be security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any peace deal. At a news conference after Monday’s meetings, Zelensky said that part of the security guarantee would include a $90 billion (₹7.83 lakh crore / £67 billion) arms deal between the US and Ukraine. He said this would include US weapons that Ukraine does not yet have, such as aviation systems, anti-missile systems, “and other things I will not disclose.” Zelensky also said the US would buy Ukrainian drones, which would help fund local production of these unmanned aircraft.The Ukrainian president told reporters that security guarantees for Kyiv would likely be finalised within 10 days.&nbsp;5. Zelensky launches charm offensiveAfter his tense visit to the Oval Office in February, the Ukrainian president made a big effort to impress his American hosts — even saying “thank you” six times in the first few minutes, according to BBC. During his last visit to the White House, Zelensky was scolded by Vice-President JD Vance for not showing enough gratitude for US support. This time, Zelensky wore a dark suit instead of his usual military uniform, which previously drew a joke from Trump that his guest was “all dressed up today.” Zelensky also tried to build personal ties during the meeting by giving Trump a letter from Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska to be passed on to US First Lady Melania Trump. “It’s not to you — [it’s] to your wife,” Zelensky told Trump. European leaders also increased their praise for Trump before their joint meeting, crediting him for bringing them together at the table. “I really want to thank you for your leadership,” said Nato chief Mark Rutte. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni said that earlier there was no sign Russia wanted peace, but now “something had changed” because of Trump. Despite the positive words, the Europeans also warned that they feel vulnerable to any future Russian aggression. French President Emmanuel Macron told the leaders: “When we talk about security guarantees, we are also talking about the security of the European continent.”

Trump hosted European leaders after meeting Putin in Alaska. He proposed a Putin-Zelensky meeting and hinted at US security guarantees for Ukraine. Europeans insisted on a ceasefire first. Zelensky launched a charm offensive, while Trump engaged in direct talks with Putin.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday to talk about ending the war in Ukraine. Several European leaders also came to Washington, just days after Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, which did not bring a ceasefire. Even though Trump sounded hopeful, and European leaders were more cautious, by Monday evening there were no clear promises of security guarantees or a peace deal. Here are the main points from the talks: 1. A Putin-Zelensky meeting on the cards? After the summit, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he had called Putin to start planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Zelensky. Trump said that after this one-on-one meeting, there could be a three-way meeting where the US president would also join. A Putin adviser later said that Trump and Putin had spoken for 40 minutes on Monday. Before the European leaders met Trump in the East Room of the White House, a hot mic caught a private chat between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron. “I think he wants to make a deal. I think he wants to make a deal for me. You understand that? As crazy as that sounds,” Trump told Macron, speaking about Putin. (Here, Trump is suggesting that Putin might agree to talks mainly to give Trump the credit of being a peacemaker, rather than out of genuine interest in ending the war.) It is still uncertain how easy it will be to bring the two bitter enemies together at the negotiating table for the first time since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. For months, Zelensky has been asking to meet Putin, mainly to prove that Russia is not serious about peace, since he believes the Kremlin has no real interest in such talks. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of a Putin-Zelensky meeting. A Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, gave a noncommittal statement on Monday night, saying it might be “worthwhile” to “explore the possibility” of sending higher-level representatives from the Russian and Ukrainian delegations for talks. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-zelensky-meet-zelensky-said-thank-you-eight-times-in-oval-office-remarks-1755575931099/embed 2. Europeans push back as Trump backs away from ceasefire Trump suggested that a ceasefire might not be needed before starting peace talks to end the war. In the past, Ukraine has been clear that stopping the fighting is a must before any further talks with Russia, and before working on a long-term settlement. A ceasefire is usually easier to agree on than a full peace deal, which could take many months of negotiations, while Russia’s attacks would likely continue. “I don’t know that it’s necessary,” Trump said about a ceasefire. But European leaders pushed back, with the strongest response coming from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. (This means that while Trump was downplaying the need for a ceasefire, European leaders — especially Merz — strongly disagreed, insisting that stopping the fighting first is essential before any real peace talks can begin.) “I can’t imagine that the next meeting would happen without a ceasefire,” Merz said. “So, let’s work on that and let’s try to put pressure on Russia.” When asked to speak, Zelensky did not repeat his earlier calls for a ceasefire. 3. Trump engaged in some shuttle diplomacy with Putin President Joseph R. Biden Jr. (the former US president before Trump’s return to office) once called Putin a “murderous dictator,” but Trump has always shown a more positive view of the Russian president. On Monday, Trump continued to present Putin as being serious about ending the war he had started. At one point, Trump even paused his meeting with the European leaders in the East Room of the White House to call the Russian leader. Afterward, Trump brought Zelensky and the European leaders into the Oval Office to explain his discussion with Putin, according to President Alexander Stubb of Finland, as reported by New York Times.

Trump hosted European leaders after meeting Putin in Alaska. He proposed a Putin-Zelensky meeting and hinted at US security guarantees for Ukraine. Europeans insisted on a ceasefire first. Zelensky launched a charm offensive, while Trump engaged in direct talks with Putin.

The Washington Gambit: Trump juggles a Putin call, European doubts, and Zelensky’s hopes for a deal

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, much of the world thought that the war would end in weeks, if not days. However, this conflict has been ongoing for three and a half years.&nbsp;Several serious attempts were made by different parties to bring an end to costly hostilities, but to no avail. Now, the most high-profile and determined effort has been underway, conducted by US President Donald Trump since he re-entered the White House in January 2025. The Alaska summit between President Putin of Russia and him on 15 August was perhaps the most significant diplomatic initiative of the Trump presidency to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. Will it succeed in bringing peace to the combatants and Europe, thus easing the international political and economic situation?In the days leading to the summit in Alaska, optimists and pessimists were divided. The latter wrote it off as a publicity stunt and dismissed it as an attempt by Trump to buttress his credentials as a keen aspirant for the Nobel Peace Prize. Optimists, on the other hand, hoped that a ceasefire agreement would be achieved, ignoring the fact that both Ukraine and European governments had signalled to Washington clearly that it must refrain from negotiating on their behalf. The middle-of-the-roaders, like this author, predicted that the Alaska summit would secure “some progress.” This is what seems to have happened.&nbsp;<h2>Alaska outcome</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>Both leaders made positive remarks about their discussions at the summit, which lasted about three hours. The pomp and pageantry, the atmospherics and the body language, and the in-depth conversations in the presence of select advisers – all indicated the thoroughness of preparations and seriousness of purpose. What is even more important, the leaders did not reveal the contents or contours of their agreement or understanding, while pointing out that they agreed on many issues and disagreed on others. This was an imperative for Trump, for he was obliged to first debrief President Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders before sharing some outcome details with the public at large.In this light, a close look at the formal remarks by the two leaders before the media at Anchorage is advisable, even if they did not take questions from the press.President Putin made the longer statement. He stressed that the Russian and American leaders have had “good direct contact.” He praised Trump for his effort “to get to the crux of the matter.” The reference here was to Putin’s basic view that the fundamental threats to Russian security – or the root causes of the war – must be addressed. He conceded Trump’s point that “naturally, the security of Ukraine should be considered as well.” Putin added, “Naturally, we are prepared to work on that.”Putin seemed concerned about the future conduct of European governments and Ukraine. They, he hoped, would perceive the Alaska outcome “constructively and… won’t throw a wrench in the works.” He called the agreements reached in Alaska as “the starting point” for the solution of the Ukraine issue and the return of the US and Russia to “pragmatic relations.” In the last paragraph, he cleverly confirmed Trump’s oft-repeated claim that had the latter been the President in 2022, the war would not have broken out. Nothing would have pleased Trump more than listening to this from President Putin at a formal media conference watched by half of the world!Trump’s remarks were shorter. He concluded them by stressing that the killings – “1000s of people a week” – must be stopped and added, “President Putin wants to see that as much as I do.” His overall take on Alaska was presented in the first paragraph. It was “a very productive meeting,” he said, adding: “There were many points that we agreed on, most of them. I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven’t quite gotten there, but we have made some headway. So, there is no deal until there is a deal.” (Domain experts are busy deciphering the meaning and implications of these calculated and deliberately vague observations.)&nbsp;<h2>Assessment</h2>&nbsp;In this age of 24×7 television and social media, instantaneous judgements on world events can be treacherous. Ignoring months of quiet negotiations, weeks of careful preparations, and the utter complexity of issues, many observers quickly jumped to the conclusion that the summit was a failure because it did not produce a ceasefire agreement. A critic dismissed Alaska as “a beautifully choreographed non-event.”Such pronouncements are misleading. Critics must have been taken by surprise by what followed.First, Zelensky, following a detailed debrief by Trump, sent out a positive and supportive tweet, reaffirming Ukraine's “readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace.” He expressed support for Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the US, and Russia, and he also announced that he would visit Washington to meet Trump on 18 August. Several European leaders will accompany him in a gesture of solidarity and as insurance against a possible fiasco like the previous Trump-Zelensky encounter in the White House.&nbsp;Second, the European leaders of ‘the Coalition of the Willing’ articulated support for the US efforts, expressed themselves in favour of “a trilateral summit with European support,” and stressed the need for “ironclad security guarantees” for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.Third, many other nations have commented on the Alaska outcome in a positive vein. India’s statement was remarkably crisp and clear. Welcoming the Trump-Putin summit, it stated, “Their leadership in the pursuit of peace is highly commendable.” It reflected India’s appreciation for the progress made at the summit, and stressed New Delhi’s view that the way forward can only be through “dialogue and diplomacy.”The Alaska summit has started something significant and valuable – a serious effort to resolve the Ukraine conflict. However, a positive end of the process is, by no means, guaranteed. The road ahead will be difficult and torturous. But if the parties concerned are willing to undertake a fair ‘give and take’, this is a good time for them to go for it.The US President is working for international peace and his nation’s interests. To claim that his sole motivation is to win the Nobel Peace Prize is to betray one’s bias and an inadequate understanding of a highly complex and complicated matter.&nbsp;(Rajiv Bhatia is a Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House, a former Indian Ambassador with extensive diplomatic experience in regional and global groupings, and the author of three books on Indian foreign policy.)

The pomp and pageantry, the atmospherics and the body language, and the in-depth conversations in the presence of select advisers – all indicated the thoroughness of preparations and seriousness of purpose.

When Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, much of the world thought that the war would end in weeks, if not days. However, this conflict has been ongoing for three and a half years. Several serious attempts were made by different parties to bring an end to costly hostilities, but to no avail. Now, the most high-profile and determined effort has been underway, conducted by US President Donald Trump since he re-entered the White House in January 2025. The Alaska summit between President Putin of Russia and him on 15 August was perhaps the most significant diplomatic initiative of the Trump presidency to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. Will it succeed in bringing peace to the combatants and Europe, thus easing the international political and economic situation? In the days leading to the summit in Alaska, optimists and pessimists were divided. The latter wrote it off as a publicity stunt and dismissed it as an attempt by Trump to buttress his credentials as a keen aspirant for the Nobel Peace Prize. Optimists, on the other hand, hoped that a ceasefire agreement would be achieved, ignoring the fact that both Ukraine and European governments had signalled to Washington clearly that it must refrain from negotiating on their behalf. The middle-of-the-roaders, like this author, predicted that the Alaska summit would secure “some progress.” This is what seems to have happened. Alaska outcome Both leaders made positive remarks about their discussions at the summit, which lasted about three hours. The pomp and pageantry, the atmospherics and the body language, and the in-depth conversations in the presence of select advisers – all indicated the thoroughness of preparations and seriousness of purpose. What is even more important, the leaders did not reveal the contents or contours of their agreement or understanding, while pointing out that they agreed on many issues and disagreed on others. This was an imperative for Trump, for he was obliged to first debrief President Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders before sharing some outcome details with the public at large. In this light, a close look at the formal remarks by the two leaders before the media at Anchorage is advisable, even if they did not take questions from the press. President Putin made the longer statement. He stressed that the Russian and American leaders have had “good direct contact.” He praised Trump for his effort “to get to the crux of the matter.” The reference here was to Putin’s basic view that the fundamental threats to Russian security – or the root causes of the war – must be addressed. He conceded Trump’s point that “naturally, the security of Ukraine should be considered as well.” Putin added, “Naturally, we are prepared to work on that.” Putin seemed concerned about the future conduct of European governments and Ukraine. They, he hoped, would perceive the Alaska outcome “constructively and… won’t throw a wrench in the works.” He called the agreements reached in Alaska as “the starting point” for the solution of the Ukraine issue and the return of the US and Russia to “pragmatic relations.” In the last paragraph, he cleverly confirmed Trump’s oft-repeated claim that had the latter been the President in 2022, the war would not have broken out. Nothing would have pleased Trump more than listening to this from President Putin at a formal media conference watched by half of the world! Trump’s remarks were shorter. He concluded them by stressing that the killings – “1000s of people a week” – must be stopped and added, “President Putin wants to see that as much as I do.” His overall take on Alaska was presented in the first paragraph. It was “a very productive meeting,” he said, adding: “There were many points that we agreed on, most of them. I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven’t quite gotten there, but we have made some headway. So, there is no deal until there is a deal.” (Domain experts are busy deciphering the meaning and implications of these calculated and deliberately vague observations.) Assessment In this age of 24×7 television and social media, instantaneous judgements on world events can be treacherous. Ignoring months of quiet negotiations, weeks of careful preparations, and the utter complexity of issues, many observers quickly jumped to the conclusion that the summit was a failure because it did not produce a ceasefire agreement. A critic dismissed Alaska as “a beautifully choreographed non-event.” Such pronouncements are misleading. Critics must have been taken by surprise by what followed. First, Zelensky, following a detailed debrief by Trump, sent out a positive and supportive tweet, reaffirming Ukraine's “readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace.” He expressed support for Trump’s proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the US, and Russia, and he also announced that he would visit Washington to meet Trump on 18 August. Several European leaders will accompany him in a gesture of solidarity and as insurance against a possible fiasco like the previous Trump-Zelensky encounter in the White House. Second, the European leaders of ‘the Coalition of the Willing’ articulated support for the US efforts, expressed themselves in favour of “a trilateral summit with European support,” and stressed the need for “ironclad security guarantees” for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Third, many other nations have commented on the Alaska outcome in a positive vein. India’s statement was remarkably crisp and clear. Welcoming the Trump-Putin summit, it stated, “Their leadership in the pursuit of peace is highly commendable.” It reflected India’s appreciation for the progress made at the summit, and stressed New Delhi’s view that the way forward can only be through “dialogue and diplomacy.” The Alaska summit has started something significant and valuable – a serious effort to resolve the Ukraine conflict. However, a positive end of the process is, by no means, guaranteed. The road ahead will be difficult and torturous. But if the parties concerned are willing to undertake a fair ‘give and take’, this is a good time for them to go for it. The US President is working for international peace and his nation’s interests. To claim that his sole motivation is to win the Nobel Peace Prize is to betray one’s bias and an inadequate understanding of a highly complex and complicated matter. (Rajiv Bhatia is a Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House, a former Indian Ambassador with extensive diplomatic experience in regional and global groupings, and the author of three books on Indian foreign policy.)

The pomp and pageantry, the atmospherics and the body language, and the in-depth conversations in the presence of select advisers – all indicated the thoroughness of preparations and seriousness of purpose.

War or peace – at Alaska and beyond

India’s transport sector is undergoing a rapid shift towards electric vehicles (EVs). Total EV sales in India topped two million units in 2024, up 25 per cent on the previous year, as government schemes and consumer interest fuel adoption. However, buses, especially intercity coaches have remained a small part of this growth. In FY2024 just 3,644 electric buses were sold (about 4 per cent of annual bus registrations).&nbsp;&nbsp;The vast majority of India’s 2.4 million buses are still diesel-powered, and some 93 per cent are privately operated. Public transit authorities have driven most of the fleet electrification so far, with state-run undertakings buying thousands of e-buses under subsidy schemes. But experts note that intercity coaches carry enormous passenger volumes, roughly 228 million travellers each day, nearly ten times Indian Rail’s patronage, so electrifying this segment could cut a large chunk of transport emissions.&nbsp;India’s Electric Bus Landscape&nbsp;The electric bus market in India has accelerated rapidly from a low base. In FY2024 sales jumped 81 per cent year-on-year, compared to modest growth for cars and motorbikes. Yet even after this surge, EV buses still account for only a few percent of new buses. For context, over the past decade 90–98 per cent of buses sold were diesel or petrol. Adoption is highly uneven: urban centres like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore lead, while many states have yet to see significant deployment. Maharashtra alone registered 2,423 new e-buses in FY24, versus just 600 in smaller markets.&nbsp;Government targets are ambitious. Phase II of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &amp;) Electric Vehicles (FAME) scheme (2019–24) envisaged incentives for 7,000 e-buses, and a recent policy aims to replace 800,000 diesel buses with EVs by 2030. The broader goal is 30 per cent EV adoption across the auto sector by 2030. India’s EV uptake in recent years has outpaced global averages; one analysis notes that EV adoption in India is three times the world rate, driven by falling battery costs and strong policy support. Total EV registrations (for cars, 2- and 3-wheelers, goods vehicles, etc.) reached over two million in 2024, roughly 7–8 per cent of all vehicles sold. In that mix, buses remain a minority: FY24 saw roughly 3,600 e-bus sales, after about 1,900 in FY23, itself an 85 per cent jump on the year before.&nbsp;To date, this expansion has largely been steered by public transport fleets and municipal undertakings. Under FAME Phase I (2015–19) only 425 e-buses received purchase subsidies, but Phase II (2019–24) approved about 7,120 buses. These incentives were available to state and city transport agencies, municipal corporations and other public bodies. In practice, a few major government orders have supplied thousands of buses: for example, by mid-2025 India’s Centre floated a tender for 10,900 e-buses for five big cities under the new PM e-Drive scheme. These tenders are often structured under the “Gross Cost Contract” model, where agencies pay operators per kilometre to run buses, which has accelerated sales of EV coaches to state undertakings.&nbsp;By contrast, private intercity operators have seen few incentives. Their market share (93 per cent of buses) makes them crucial for any mass shift, yet they were largely ineligible under past EV programs. Industry observers point out that only about 7 per cent of India’s buses are public transit, so focusing solely on those leaves a huge gap. In recognition, the government in 2024 launched PM e-Drive and PM e-Bus Sewa schemes to extend support. The PM e-Drive programme (Oct 2024–Mar 2026) has a Rs 10,900 crore outlay, of which Rs 4,391 crore is earmarked to subsidise 14,028 electric buses by March 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;A related PM e-Bus Sewa, Payment Security Mechanism (PSM) scheme (Rs 3,435 crore) aims to underwrite about 38,000 buses nationwide. Such measures have widened the net to include municipal and state-run city buses, but private intercity fleets currently get little direct capital subsidy. According to Sudhakar Chirra, an ordinary state-run corporation could claim FAME capex of Rs 55–85 lakh per bus, whereas private operators see no FAME benefit. They do, however, get some relief via permit and tax waivers – for example, exemption of the national transport permit fee (about Rs 3 lakh per bus per year) and relief from some local levies – roughly equating to Rs 10 lakh of annual support per bus.&nbsp;The Intercity Challenge: Range, Charging and Cost&nbsp;At the vanguard of this movement is Fresh Bus, a Bengaluru-based startup founded in 2019 by Sudhakar Chirra, former co-founder of the bus-aggregator AbhiBus. Chirra saw that while AbhiBus solved ticketing, customers still complained about “poor captain behaviour, lack of cleanliness, unsafe stopovers, and a confusing boarding process. Why isn’t there a unified intercity travel experience like we see in flights and trains?” he wondered.&nbsp;&nbsp;This question and the promise of lower costs drove him to launch Fresh Bus with an all-electric fleet. Fresh Bus currently operates some 85 EV coaches on seven intercity routes from Bengaluru, including to Tirupati, Chennai, Coimbatore and Mysuru, with Hyderabad launching soon. The company offers online ticketing, real-time tracking and even a loyalty programme, aiming to deliver a reliable, branded travel experience powered by clean energy.&nbsp;Electrifying intercity travel poses unique obstacles compared to city transit. Intra-city e-buses typically run short, looped routes and return to a depot each night, making overnight charging feasible. Intercity coaches, by contrast, must cover hundreds of kilometres between cities, often multiple trips a day. This creates acute range and charging demands. While talking to WION, Chirra explained, the “first challenge is range” – to cover most Indian intercity routes a bus needs either a 650 km single-charge range or very fast mid-journey charging. Current high-capacity electric buses can manage about 250–300 km on a charge, which covers roughly 40 per cent of typical intercity trips, but longer routes require infrastructure. Without 600+ km range, operators must “carefully select routes that fall within the current range,” which limits network design.&nbsp;Mid-route charging itself is technically and financially daunting. A heavy intercity bus needs chargers of 240 kW or more, some systems even trial 1.5 MW chargers to fast-charge in tens of minutes. Installing such high-power stations is “a tedious task”: it demands reinforced grid connections, transformers and dedicated distribution infrastructure, entailing huge capital outlays. Private operators with small fleets often cannot justify this. Most public EV chargers today are far lower power (typically 60 kW), far too slow for a bus turnaround – plugging into one would take hours. Fresh Bus therefore builds its own high-power depots. As Chirra noted, “we need to turn around a bus in about 40 minutes, so it makes sense for us to install our own charging capacity.” These stations are custom-designed to Fresh Bus’s routes: the company leases land at terminals and motorway stops, specifies the number of chargers needed, and partners with specialist CPOs (ChargeZone, Statiq, etc.) to install 1.5 MW chargers dedicated exclusively for its fleet.&nbsp;Cost is another consideration. Diesel coaches are cheaper to buy (roughly Rs 1.3 crore each) than fully electric intercity coaches (around Rs 1.7–1.8 crore). But fuel accounts for a huge fraction of diesel operations – for example, on a long route like Hyderabad–Bangalore, diesel could be Rs 7 lakh per month. By contrast, electricity for an EV coach costs roughly one-fifth as much. “Higher capex, lower opex,” as Chirra puts it. Over the lifecycle, studies show total cost of ownership for a modern AC e-bus is about 15–20 per cent less than an equivalent diesel bus. The savings on fuel and maintenance can therefore justify the premium, if utilisation is high. Fresh Bus’s strategy is to leverage data and tech to optimise routes, maximise passenger load factor and boost revenue, making the business case for the extra upfront investment.&nbsp;Operationally, running an EV fleet adds complexity. The company relies on partners for vehicle acquisition and infrastructure. Fresh Bus sources buses from established OEMs (e.g. Olectra-BYD, JBM, Exponent/Veera, Azad) with the largest battery packs available. Chirra has a strict rule of thumb: “1 kilowatt-hour gives us 1 kilometre of range,” so buses with at least 425 kWh battery are needed for 400 km routes. For example, Fresh Bus is deploying a new 13.5-metre sleeper coach (made by Exponent in partnership with Veera Vahana) with a 420 kWh battery, coupled to a 1.5 MW charger that can fill it in 15 minutes. This set-up lets the bus run up to 650 km per day by charging during brief layovers.&nbsp;Vehicle leasing is also part of Fresh Bus’s model. Rather than invest its own capital in the whole fleet, Fresh Bus works with financiers like Vertelo (a Macquarie platform) to buy buses which Fresh Bus then leases. The chargers and civil works are similarly financed in partnership with infrastructure firms. Chirra says this reduces risk and concentrates Fresh Bus on service quality and technology, rather than asset-heavy ownership.&nbsp;Fresh Bus: Innovating the Highway Journey&nbsp;Fresh Bus brings many innovations to the traditional coach experience. On-board, each EV bus has large picture windows and an LCD screen showing “My Journey View” a digital map and progress tracker for the trip. This synchronises with the Fresh Bus app and website so passengers always know where they are. The service emphasises comfort and professionalism: drivers and conductors (“captains” and “stewards”) are well-trained and incentivised, buses are kept clean, and routes have no unauthorised stops (a common issue on some private buses).&nbsp;Fundamentally, Fresh Bus’s core claim is economics. Chirra calculated early on that diesel fuel accounted for 55 per cent of operating costs for a conventional intercity bus, but only 12–13 per cent for an electric one. These savings allow Fresh Bus to offer perks, like fixed Wi-Fi and snacks, from the surplus. By reinvesting in customer experience and data-driven route planning, the startup aims to win market share and show that EV coaches can be commercially viable. “Electric buses combine better unit economics, enhanced customer experience, and tech-driven efficiency,” Chirra asserts, summarising Fresh Bus’s value proposition.&nbsp;The company’s early results are encouraging. As of mid-2025 it had 85 buses on the road and was adding vehicles at a rapid clip. Fresh Bus launched its first route (Bengaluru–Tirupati) to exploit existing charging facilities near Bangalore, then expanded to Chennai, Coimbatore and Mysuru, with Hyderabad coming soon. All told, the routes cover key pilgrimage and business corridors in the south. Passenger acceptance appears strong: many riders report appreciating the modern vehicles and convenient booking. Chirra notes that consistent, clean service, once a rarity, is attracting a loyal base.&nbsp;Investors have taken notice. In August 2024 Fresh Bus raised a Series A of $10.5 million (Rs 87.5 crore) led by Maniv Mobility with Shell Ventures, Alteria and Riverwalk. The funding was earmarked to add 15 new routes and deploy 150 more buses. In practical terms, it took Fresh Bus’s fleet from about 20 vehicles to roughly 100. The company has already signalled plans for a Series B of ~$30 million to continue scaling. “With this funding we are taking the count to 100 buses… The goal is to expand from 100 buses to approximately 1,000 buses within the next three years,” Chirra said in mid-2025. Such growth, if realised, would make Fresh Bus a major national operator.&nbsp;To meet its expansion plans, Fresh Bus will rely on continuing cost reductions in EV technology and strategic infrastructure. Each new bus adds charging demand, so the company is mapping highway stops and planning where to build more fast-charging depots. It is also exploring battery swapping or higher-density packs to extend range. Meanwhile, Fresh Bus’s data team analyses route profitability daily, tweaking schedules to boost occupancy. Chirra believes that with disciplined use of tech, the payback on an electric coach can be as short as 3–4 years. These figures align with industry studies showing that, over their lifetime, electric intercity buses can be more profitable than diesel due to fuel savings, once the initial hurdle is overcome.&nbsp;Emissions Savings and Environmental Impact&nbsp;Every electric coach on the road directly displaces pollution. Fresh Bus has publicised the scale: each of its buses is estimated to save over 90,000 litres of diesel per year, cutting roughly 200 tonnes of CO2 annually. If the company reaches 1,000 buses, that would equate to about 200,000 tonnes of CO2 avoided each year. By contrast, a single diesel bus emits over a hundred tonnes of CO2 per year just from fuel combustion. These savings contribute to India’s climate targets and air quality goals. India’s rural and intercity bus travel accounts for some 64 per cent of all bus vehicle-kilometres, so electrifying these routes would substantially reduce fossil fuel use and soot across large regions.&nbsp;Future Outlook: Intercity EVs and India’s Climate Goals&nbsp;India’s transportation policies now explicitly target a massive bus electrification. According to the Autocar analysis, the country’s ultimate goal is to replace 800,000 diesel buses by 2030, of which 550,000 would be privately operated coaches. Achieving even a fraction of that would dramatically reduce CO₂ emissions and oil imports. The first steps, funding a few tens of thousands of buses, have been taken with FAME, PM e-Drive and city tenders. But scaling to the hundreds of thousands will require bringing private operators like Fresh Bus onboard.&nbsp;Intercity EV adoption still faces hurdles. Charging infrastructure on highways must improve: shared charging hubs along key corridors would help small operators. Financing remains tight: private companies often struggle to obtain capital or credit for EV buses due to the high upfront cost. Experts have suggested interest subsidies or loan guarantees to bridge this gap. There is also a need for continued vehicle innovation, lighter buses, more energy-dense batteries, and perhaps on-the-fly charging solutions.&nbsp;Yet the momentum is unmistakable. Even under conservative projections, annual e-bus sales could exceed 17,000 units by FY2027 (about 15 per cent of total bus sales). This would bring electric buses into the mainstream.&nbsp;&nbsp;In conclusion, India’s intercity electric bus movement is still in its early chapters, but poised for growth. Fresh Bus’s journey highlights both the opportunities and challenges. Drawing on technology and customer focus, it demonstrates that EV coaches can operate profitably and cleanly on long-haul routes. As government policy broadens incentives and infrastructure catches up, more operators may follow suit. If India can indeed put hundreds of thousands of EV coaches on the road by 2030, the impact on emissions and energy security would be profound, a key step towards its climate and transport goals.

The electric bus market in India has accelerated rapidly from a low base. In FY2024 sales jumped 81 per cent year-on-year, compared to modest growth for cars and motorbikes. Yet even after this surge, EV buses still account for only a few percent of new buses. 

India’s transport sector is undergoing a rapid shift towards electric vehicles (EVs). Total EV sales in India topped two million units in 2024, up 25 per cent on the previous year, as government schemes and consumer interest fuel adoption. However, buses, especially intercity coaches have remained a small part of this growth. In FY2024 just 3,644 electric buses were sold (about 4 per cent of annual bus registrations). The vast majority of India’s 2.4 million buses are still diesel-powered, and some 93 per cent are privately operated. Public transit authorities have driven most of the fleet electrification so far, with state-run undertakings buying thousands of e-buses under subsidy schemes. But experts note that intercity coaches carry enormous passenger volumes, roughly 228 million travellers each day, nearly ten times Indian Rail’s patronage, so electrifying this segment could cut a large chunk of transport emissions. India’s Electric Bus Landscape The electric bus market in India has accelerated rapidly from a low base. In FY2024 sales jumped 81 per cent year-on-year, compared to modest growth for cars and motorbikes. Yet even after this surge, EV buses still account for only a few percent of new buses. For context, over the past decade 90–98 per cent of buses sold were diesel or petrol. Adoption is highly uneven: urban centres like Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore lead, while many states have yet to see significant deployment. Maharashtra alone registered 2,423 new e-buses in FY24, versus just 600 in smaller markets. Government targets are ambitious. Phase II of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles (FAME) scheme (2019–24) envisaged incentives for 7,000 e-buses, and a recent policy aims to replace 800,000 diesel buses with EVs by 2030. The broader goal is 30 per cent EV adoption across the auto sector by 2030. India’s EV uptake in recent years has outpaced global averages; one analysis notes that EV adoption in India is three times the world rate, driven by falling battery costs and strong policy support. Total EV registrations (for cars, 2- and 3-wheelers, goods vehicles, etc.) reached over two million in 2024, roughly 7–8 per cent of all vehicles sold. In that mix, buses remain a minority: FY24 saw roughly 3,600 e-bus sales, after about 1,900 in FY23, itself an 85 per cent jump on the year before. To date, this expansion has largely been steered by public transport fleets and municipal undertakings. Under FAME Phase I (2015–19) only 425 e-buses received purchase subsidies, but Phase II (2019–24) approved about 7,120 buses. These incentives were available to state and city transport agencies, municipal corporations and other public bodies. In practice, a few major government orders have supplied thousands of buses: for example, by mid-2025 India’s Centre floated a tender for 10,900 e-buses for five big cities under the new PM e-Drive scheme. These tenders are often structured under the “Gross Cost Contract” model, where agencies pay operators per kilometre to run buses, which has accelerated sales of EV coaches to state undertakings. By contrast, private intercity operators have seen few incentives. Their market share (93 per cent of buses) makes them crucial for any mass shift, yet they were largely ineligible under past EV programs. Industry observers point out that only about 7 per cent of India’s buses are public transit, so focusing solely on those leaves a huge gap. In recognition, the government in 2024 launched PM e-Drive and PM e-Bus Sewa schemes to extend support. The PM e-Drive programme (Oct 2024–Mar 2026) has a Rs 10,900 crore outlay, of which Rs 4,391 crore is earmarked to subsidise 14,028 electric buses by March 2026. A related PM e-Bus Sewa, Payment Security Mechanism (PSM) scheme (Rs 3,435 crore) aims to underwrite about 38,000 buses nationwide. Such measures have widened the net to include municipal and state-run city buses, but private intercity fleets currently get little direct capital subsidy. According to Sudhakar Chirra, an ordinary state-run corporation could claim FAME capex of Rs 55–85 lakh per bus, whereas private operators see no FAME benefit. They do, however, get some relief via permit and tax waivers – for example, exemption of the national transport permit fee (about Rs 3 lakh per bus per year) and relief from some local levies – roughly equating to Rs 10 lakh of annual support per bus. The Intercity Challenge: Range, Charging and Cost At the vanguard of this movement is Fresh Bus, a Bengaluru-based startup founded in 2019 by Sudhakar Chirra, former co-founder of the bus-aggregator AbhiBus. Chirra saw that while AbhiBus solved ticketing, customers still complained about “poor captain behaviour, lack of cleanliness, unsafe stopovers, and a confusing boarding process. Why isn’t there a unified intercity travel experience like we see in flights and trains?” he wondered. This question and the promise of lower costs drove him to launch Fresh Bus with an all-electric fleet. Fresh Bus currently operates some 85 EV coaches on seven intercity routes from Bengaluru, including to Tirupati, Chennai, Coimbatore and Mysuru, with Hyderabad launching soon. The company offers online ticketing, real-time tracking and even a loyalty programme, aiming to deliver a reliable, branded travel experience powered by clean energy. Electrifying intercity travel poses unique obstacles compared to city transit. Intra-city e-buses typically run short, looped routes and return to a depot each night, making overnight charging feasible. Intercity coaches, by contrast, must cover hundreds of kilometres between cities, often multiple trips a day. This creates acute range and charging demands. While talking to WION, Chirra explained, the “first challenge is range” – to cover most Indian intercity routes a bus needs either a 650 km single-charge range or very fast mid-journey charging. Current high-capacity electric buses can manage about 250–300 km on a charge, which covers roughly 40 per cent of typical intercity trips, but longer routes require infrastructure. Without 600+ km range, operators must “carefully select routes that fall within the current range,” which limits network design. Mid-route charging itself is technically and financially daunting. A heavy intercity bus needs chargers of 240 kW or more, some systems even trial 1.5 MW chargers to fast-charge in tens of minutes. Installing such high-power stations is “a tedious task”: it demands reinforced grid connections, transformers and dedicated distribution infrastructure, entailing huge capital outlays. Private operators with small fleets often cannot justify this. Most public EV chargers today are far lower power (typically 60 kW), far too slow for a bus turnaround – plugging into one would take hours. Fresh Bus therefore builds its own high-power depots. As Chirra noted, “we need to turn around a bus in about 40 minutes, so it makes sense for us to install our own charging capacity.” These stations are custom-designed to Fresh Bus’s routes: the company leases land at terminals and motorway stops, specifies the number of chargers needed, and partners with specialist CPOs (ChargeZone, Statiq, etc.) to install 1.5 MW chargers dedicated exclusively for its fleet. Cost is another consideration. Diesel coaches are cheaper to buy (roughly Rs 1.3 crore each) than fully electric intercity coaches (around Rs 1.7–1.8 crore). But fuel accounts for a huge fraction of diesel operations – for example, on a long route like Hyderabad–Bangalore, diesel could be Rs 7 lakh per month. By contrast, electricity for an EV coach costs roughly one-fifth as much. “Higher capex, lower opex,” as Chirra puts it. Over the lifecycle, studies show total cost of ownership for a modern AC e-bus is about 15–20 per cent less than an equivalent diesel bus. The savings on fuel and maintenance can therefore justify the premium, if utilisation is high. Fresh Bus’s strategy is to leverage data and tech to optimise routes, maximise passenger load factor and boost revenue, making the business case for the extra upfront investment. Operationally, running an EV fleet adds complexity. The company relies on partners for vehicle acquisition and infrastructure. Fresh Bus sources buses from established OEMs (e.g. Olectra-BYD, JBM, Exponent/Veera, Azad) with the largest battery packs available. Chirra has a strict rule of thumb: “1 kilowatt-hour gives us 1 kilometre of range,” so buses with at least 425 kWh battery are needed for 400 km routes. For example, Fresh Bus is deploying a new 13.5-metre sleeper coach (made by Exponent in partnership with Veera Vahana) with a 420 kWh battery, coupled to a 1.5 MW charger that can fill it in 15 minutes. This set-up lets the bus run up to 650 km per day by charging during brief layovers. Vehicle leasing is also part of Fresh Bus’s model. Rather than invest its own capital in the whole fleet, Fresh Bus works with financiers like Vertelo (a Macquarie platform) to buy buses which Fresh Bus then leases. The chargers and civil works are similarly financed in partnership with infrastructure firms. Chirra says this reduces risk and concentrates Fresh Bus on service quality and technology, rather than asset-heavy ownership. Fresh Bus: Innovating the Highway Journey Fresh Bus brings many innovations to the traditional coach experience. On-board, each EV bus has large picture windows and an LCD screen showing “My Journey View” a digital map and progress tracker for the trip. This synchronises with the Fresh Bus app and website so passengers always know where they are. The service emphasises comfort and professionalism: drivers and conductors (“captains” and “stewards”) are well-trained and incentivised, buses are kept clean, and routes have no unauthorised stops (a common issue on some private buses). Fundamentally, Fresh Bus’s core claim is economics. Chirra calculated early on that diesel fuel accounted for 55 per cent of operating costs for a conventional intercity bus, but only 12–13 per cent for an electric one. These savings allow Fresh Bus to offer perks, like fixed Wi-Fi and snacks, from the surplus. By reinvesting in customer experience and data-driven route planning, the startup aims to win market share and show that EV coaches can be commercially viable. “Electric buses combine better unit economics, enhanced customer experience, and tech-driven efficiency,” Chirra asserts, summarising Fresh Bus’s value proposition. The company’s early results are encouraging. As of mid-2025 it had 85 buses on the road and was adding vehicles at a rapid clip. Fresh Bus launched its first route (Bengaluru–Tirupati) to exploit existing charging facilities near Bangalore, then expanded to Chennai, Coimbatore and Mysuru, with Hyderabad coming soon. All told, the routes cover key pilgrimage and business corridors in the south. Passenger acceptance appears strong: many riders report appreciating the modern vehicles and convenient booking. Chirra notes that consistent, clean service, once a rarity, is attracting a loyal base. Investors have taken notice. In August 2024 Fresh Bus raised a Series A of $10.5 million (Rs 87.5 crore) led by Maniv Mobility with Shell Ventures, Alteria and Riverwalk. The funding was earmarked to add 15 new routes and deploy 150 more buses. In practical terms, it took Fresh Bus’s fleet from about 20 vehicles to roughly 100. The company has already signalled plans for a Series B of ~$30 million to continue scaling. “With this funding we are taking the count to 100 buses… The goal is to expand from 100 buses to approximately 1,000 buses within the next three years,” Chirra said in mid-2025. Such growth, if realised, would make Fresh Bus a major national operator. To meet its expansion plans, Fresh Bus will rely on continuing cost reductions in EV technology and strategic infrastructure. Each new bus adds charging demand, so the company is mapping highway stops and planning where to build more fast-charging depots. It is also exploring battery swapping or higher-density packs to extend range. Meanwhile, Fresh Bus’s data team analyses route profitability daily, tweaking schedules to boost occupancy. Chirra believes that with disciplined use of tech, the payback on an electric coach can be as short as 3–4 years. These figures align with industry studies showing that, over their lifetime, electric intercity buses can be more profitable than diesel due to fuel savings, once the initial hurdle is overcome. Emissions Savings and Environmental Impact Every electric coach on the road directly displaces pollution. Fresh Bus has publicised the scale: each of its buses is estimated to save over 90,000 litres of diesel per year, cutting roughly 200 tonnes of CO2 annually. If the company reaches 1,000 buses, that would equate to about 200,000 tonnes of CO2 avoided each year. By contrast, a single diesel bus emits over a hundred tonnes of CO2 per year just from fuel combustion. These savings contribute to India’s climate targets and air quality goals. India’s rural and intercity bus travel accounts for some 64 per cent of all bus vehicle-kilometres, so electrifying these routes would substantially reduce fossil fuel use and soot across large regions. Future Outlook: Intercity EVs and India’s Climate Goals India’s transportation policies now explicitly target a massive bus electrification. According to the Autocar analysis, the country’s ultimate goal is to replace 800,000 diesel buses by 2030, of which 550,000 would be privately operated coaches. Achieving even a fraction of that would dramatically reduce CO₂ emissions and oil imports. The first steps, funding a few tens of thousands of buses, have been taken with FAME, PM e-Drive and city tenders. But scaling to the hundreds of thousands will require bringing private operators like Fresh Bus onboard. Intercity EV adoption still faces hurdles. Charging infrastructure on highways must improve: shared charging hubs along key corridors would help small operators. Financing remains tight: private companies often struggle to obtain capital or credit for EV buses due to the high upfront cost. Experts have suggested interest subsidies or loan guarantees to bridge this gap. There is also a need for continued vehicle innovation, lighter buses, more energy-dense batteries, and perhaps on-the-fly charging solutions. Yet the momentum is unmistakable. Even under conservative projections, annual e-bus sales could exceed 17,000 units by FY2027 (about 15 per cent of total bus sales). This would bring electric buses into the mainstream. In conclusion, India’s intercity electric bus movement is still in its early chapters, but poised for growth. Fresh Bus’s journey highlights both the opportunities and challenges. Drawing on technology and customer focus, it demonstrates that EV coaches can operate profitably and cleanly on long-haul routes. As government policy broadens incentives and infrastructure catches up, more operators may follow suit. If India can indeed put hundreds of thousands of EV coaches on the road by 2030, the impact on emissions and energy security would be profound, a key step towards its climate and transport goals.

The electric bus market in India has accelerated rapidly from a low base. In FY2024 sales jumped 81 per cent year-on-year, compared to modest growth for cars and motorbikes. Yet even after this surge, EV buses still account for only a few percent of new buses.&nbsp;

Cars are getting electric! Are e-buses the next big leap? Inside India’s push for carbon-free transit

The much-hyped Alaska meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded with no ceasefire, no agreement, and no concrete pathway toward ending the Russia–Ukraine war. For all the showmanship—a warm tarmac greeting, twin handshakes, and a joint limo ride—the summit produced little more than vague assurances, cryptic references to “progress,” and a reminder that when it comes to this war, “there’s no deal until there’s a deal.”<h2>Outcome: All Optics, No Substance</h2>After nearly three hours behind closed doors, Trump conceded, “We didn’t get there,” before exiting without taking questions. His earlier claim that there was only a “25% chance” of failure now looks like a self-inflicted blow to his credibility as a self-styled peacemaker and dealmaker.&nbsp;&nbsp;Putin described himself as “sincerely interested” in ending what he called a “tragedy,” but offered no specifics. He warned against “sabotage” by Ukraine and Europe and insisted that “primary causes” of the conflict must be addressed—Kremlin code for its longstanding demands on arresting NATO expansion and ensuring territorial recognition of the territory gained. Apparently, Putin did not compromise on any of his demands, handled Trump with his vast diplomatic experience, leaving a window for further talks. &nbsp;&nbsp;Trump, for his part, said “many points were agreed to” but admitted that “one significant” disagreement remained, without disclosing what it was. His pledge to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders “soon” was small consolation to Kyiv, which had been excluded from the talks. Putin’s parting words—“Next time in Moscow”—hinted at a possible sequel, but there’s no sign of a trilateral summit involving Ukraine.<h2>War Aims and Strategic Calculus</h2>Russia’s goals have been consistent since the beginning and were not compromised, namely: solidify territorial control over captured regions, prevent NATO’s eastward expansion, no NATO membership for Ukraine, no militarisation of Ukraine and secure sanctions relief. The Alaska summit was an opportunity to appear diplomatic without making binding concessions. &nbsp;Kyiv insisted on restoring territorial integrity and rejecting any “land-for-peace” swaps. Zelensky will find some consolation there as his land was not swapped, although no agreement on ceasefire will not reduce his pain.Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home. The optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal nor increased diplomatic leverage.<h2>Pre-Negotiation Positions</h2>Russia entered willing to talk ceasefire terms, but only under conditions preserving military gains. It exhibited strategic maturity by not responding to President Trump’s rhetoric of ‘Severe Consequences if no ceasefire’ but stuck to its position. Ukraine was opposed to any talks that exclude Kyiv and refused concessions on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which made the ceasefire prospects near impossible. &nbsp;US pursued exploratory diplomacy, with Trump hinting at creative solutions—including unspecified compromises—that alarmed some allies. During pre-negotiation stage Trump’s stance was inconsistent between pragmatism, rhetoric, influence of US deep state and last day pressure from European counterparts and Ukraine. Putin thus entered the negotiations from position of strength with clarity on outcome.<h2>Implications of Failure</h2>For Ukraine, the inconclusive outcome is a mixed blessing—no dangerous unilateral deal, but also no relief from daily shelling. For Russia, the meeting offered propaganda value: Putin stood beside the US president as an equal, reinforcing his legitimacy on the world stage. For Trump, the optics of coming home empty-handed after promising a breakthrough will sting. The “25% failure” threshold he set has become a self-own, inviting criticism from both allies and adversaries. Internationally, the summit leaves the war right where it was—grinding on in the trenches—while signalling that Washington is willing to engage Moscow directly, even without Ukraine in the room. That precedent could shape future diplomacy in ways that European members of NATO and Kyiv may find troubling.&nbsp;<h2>What’s Next?</h2>The Summit outcome doesn’t stop Putin from continuing Russian aggression to improve ground position in his favour. Outcome could see intermittent back-channel talks, and another high-profile but low-yield summit. The absence of a flawed deal could keep NATO unity intact with renewed pressure on sanctions and tariffs. The risk remains that repeated summits without progress may erode US credibility and give Moscow breathing space to regroup militarily.The dissatisfied NATO and Ukraine will expect President Trump to act on secondary tariffs, sanctions and military support to Ukraine, but that might jeopardise any undeclared gains in the Alaska Summit for President Trump, if there are any. Putin’s confidence in this summit is a direct reflection of his strong position on the battlefield, which gives him more leverage than NATO. Ukraine or Europe don’t hold any card to dictate terms to Russia and their position is unlikely to change without full support of USA. &nbsp;<h2>Conclusion</h2>The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. Trump’s showmanship produced good optics but no substance, Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the side-lines. In diplomacy, sometimes no deal is better than a bad one—but for battered Ukraine, “no deal” also means no relief. The danger now is that repeated inconclusive engagements will normalize a frozen conflict, giving Moscow an edge earned by battlefield successes. For countries affected by secondary tariffs/sanctions the risk remains!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Alaska summit remained a carefully choreographed non-event, produced good optics but no substance. Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the side-lines.

The much-hyped Alaska meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded with no ceasefire, no agreement, and no concrete pathway toward ending the Russia–Ukraine war. For all the showmanship—a warm tarmac greeting, twin handshakes, and a joint limo ride—the summit produced little more than vague assurances, cryptic references to “progress,” and a reminder that when it comes to this war, “there’s no deal until there’s a deal.” Outcome: All Optics, No Substance After nearly three hours behind closed doors, Trump conceded, “We didn’t get there,” before exiting without taking questions. His earlier claim that there was only a “25% chance” of failure now looks like a self-inflicted blow to his credibility as a self-styled peacemaker and dealmaker. Putin described himself as “sincerely interested” in ending what he called a “tragedy,” but offered no specifics. He warned against “sabotage” by Ukraine and Europe and insisted that “primary causes” of the conflict must be addressed—Kremlin code for its longstanding demands on arresting NATO expansion and ensuring territorial recognition of the territory gained. Apparently, Putin did not compromise on any of his demands, handled Trump with his vast diplomatic experience, leaving a window for further talks. Trump, for his part, said “many points were agreed to” but admitted that “one significant” disagreement remained, without disclosing what it was. His pledge to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders “soon” was small consolation to Kyiv, which had been excluded from the talks. Putin’s parting words—“Next time in Moscow”—hinted at a possible sequel, but there’s no sign of a trilateral summit involving Ukraine. War Aims and Strategic Calculus Russia’s goals have been consistent since the beginning and were not compromised, namely: solidify territorial control over captured regions, prevent NATO’s eastward expansion, no NATO membership for Ukraine, no militarisation of Ukraine and secure sanctions relief. The Alaska summit was an opportunity to appear diplomatic without making binding concessions. Kyiv insisted on restoring territorial integrity and rejecting any “land-for-peace” swaps. Zelensky will find some consolation there as his land was not swapped, although no agreement on ceasefire will not reduce his pain. Trump sought a personal win—a headline-grabbing breakthrough he could sell at home. The optics were managed to portray warmth and progress, but in substance, he leaves Alaska with neither a deal nor increased diplomatic leverage. Pre-Negotiation Positions Russia entered willing to talk ceasefire terms, but only under conditions preserving military gains. It exhibited strategic maturity by not responding to President Trump’s rhetoric of ‘Severe Consequences if no ceasefire’ but stuck to its position. Ukraine was opposed to any talks that exclude Kyiv and refused concessions on sovereignty and territorial integrity, which made the ceasefire prospects near impossible. US pursued exploratory diplomacy, with Trump hinting at creative solutions—including unspecified compromises—that alarmed some allies. During pre-negotiation stage Trump’s stance was inconsistent between pragmatism, rhetoric, influence of US deep state and last day pressure from European counterparts and Ukraine. Putin thus entered the negotiations from position of strength with clarity on outcome. Implications of Failure For Ukraine, the inconclusive outcome is a mixed blessing—no dangerous unilateral deal, but also no relief from daily shelling. For Russia, the meeting offered propaganda value: Putin stood beside the US president as an equal, reinforcing his legitimacy on the world stage. For Trump, the optics of coming home empty-handed after promising a breakthrough will sting. The “25% failure” threshold he set has become a self-own, inviting criticism from both allies and adversaries. Internationally, the summit leaves the war right where it was—grinding on in the trenches—while signalling that Washington is willing to engage Moscow directly, even without Ukraine in the room. That precedent could shape future diplomacy in ways that European members of NATO and Kyiv may find troubling. What’s Next? The Summit outcome doesn’t stop Putin from continuing Russian aggression to improve ground position in his favour. Outcome could see intermittent back-channel talks, and another high-profile but low-yield summit. The absence of a flawed deal could keep NATO unity intact with renewed pressure on sanctions and tariffs. The risk remains that repeated summits without progress may erode US credibility and give Moscow breathing space to regroup militarily. The dissatisfied NATO and Ukraine will expect President Trump to act on secondary tariffs, sanctions and military support to Ukraine, but that might jeopardise any undeclared gains in the Alaska Summit for President Trump, if there are any. Putin’s confidence in this summit is a direct reflection of his strong position on the battlefield, which gives him more leverage than NATO. Ukraine or Europe don’t hold any card to dictate terms to Russia and their position is unlikely to change without full support of USA. Conclusion The Alaska summit was billed as a possible turning point in the Russia–Ukraine war; instead, it was a carefully choreographed non-event. Trump’s showmanship produced good optics but no substance, Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the side-lines. In diplomacy, sometimes no deal is better than a bad one—but for battered Ukraine, “no deal” also means no relief. The danger now is that repeated inconclusive engagements will normalize a frozen conflict, giving Moscow an edge earned by battlefield successes. For countries affected by secondary tariffs/sanctions the risk remains!

The Alaska summit remained a carefully choreographed non-event, produced good optics but no substance. Putin pocketed the legitimacy boost without paying in concessions, and Ukraine was left to watch from the side-lines.

Alaska without a deal: The Trump–Putin summit and the war that won’t end

Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s recent nuclear threats against India, made at a private event on U.S. soil, raise the risk of another crisis in South Asia and undermine efforts to keep the post-May 2025 calm. According to The Print report, Munir said that Pakistan, as a nuclear state, facing an existential threat from India, would “take half the world down”. He also warned that Pakistan would destroy any Indian dam under the Indus Waters system “with ten missiles.” These are not normal talking points, but highly irresponsible threats coming from the most powerful person in Pakistan, who is a known religious hardliner in addition to the country’s army chief. Munir’s statements turn nuclear deterrence from a last-resort guarantee into public political signaling, and they do so at a time when India-Pakistan crisis management mechanisms are still fragile.&nbsp;The timing matters for India. The four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan in May followed the Pahalgam massacre and saw exchanges of missiles, drones, and artillery before both sides halted operations. Afterward, the United States claimed credit for brokering peace between the two South Asian countries, while India publicly pushed back, saying the ceasefire resulted from direct military channels and India’s own decision to pause after meeting its operational objectives. The disagreement over “who deterred whom” creates a blurry narrative, which invites tougher public signaling in the next crisis. Munir’s nuclear sabre-rattling fits that pattern and makes India’s operating environment less stable.&nbsp;India should treat Munir’s remarks as a serious data point because Pakistan’s conventional outcomes in May were, at best, mixed. After the initial exchanges, Pakistan caused “virtually no observable damage” to Indian military infrastructure or facilities beyond what New Delhi acknowledged. On the other hand, India’s retaliatory strikes targeted key airbases and air defense systems of Pakistan, causing significant damage. Therefore, since Pakistan cannot claim conventional leverage over India, its temptation to restore coercive credibility with nuclear rhetoric has increased since the May crisis, especially for domestic audiences and to pressure the international community. That shift is dangerous because it drags the nuclear option into the early days of a military conflict rather than keeping it as the last rung on the ladder.&nbsp;Furthermore, Munir linked future conflict to two triggers that directly concern India. The first is water. In April, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty on national security grounds after the Pahalgam terror attack. In his recent remarks, Munir gave a specific warning that Pakistan would destroy any dam India tries to build on the IWT rivers. The language suggests Pakistan’s military now considers civilian infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir a legitimate target and water disputes a valid cause for escalation with India. This creates a new escalation path separate from traditional border skirmishes, where Pakistan could target vulnerable civilian infrastructure in Indian territory, which could then be justified as a retaliation for the IWT abeyance.&nbsp;The second trigger is narrative: accusing India of supporting terrorism in Pakistan. Islamabad has long used this false claim to garner sympathy and to divert international attention from cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. These efforts have increased in recent months since Pakistan began its two-year term as a UN Security Council non-permanent member earlier this year. Linking the false terror claim with water-dispute rhetoric gives Pakistan flexible excuses to take early action when the next crisis occurs. This flexibility has stretched previous flare-ups into longer conflicts. For India, the message is clear: expect more pressure from Pakistan through increased cross-border terrorist activities in J&amp;K, along with more explicit conventional and nuclear threats.&nbsp;Along with Munir’s escalatory remarks, the ongoing rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad has added another layer to the India-Pakistan dynamics. Munir’s June visit to the U.S. included a White House lunch with President Trump and warm public messaging from Washington about Pakistan’s role in “ending the war.” That visible thaw may lead Rawalpindi to assume that the United States will again step in to limit escalation, encouraging early risk-taking, while Delhi, having rejected claims of U.S. mediation, will dismiss American influence in the next crisis. However, the idea that a sitting Pakistani army chief can threaten nuclear escalation on U.S. soil and face no reputational cost sends a wrong signal in New Delhi, which considers Washington a strategic partner. It suggests that Islamabad’s nuclear brinkmanship is possibly tolerated in Washington’s corridors. As a result, future crisis management between India and Pakistan led by the U.S. will be more difficult if Washington normalizes this kind of dangerous rhetoric.&nbsp;What happens if this rhetoric goes unchallenged is not necessarily an immediate war but a crisis system ready for faster escalation. Terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir will likely rise because it is the cheapest way for Pakistan to keep pressure on India. Additionally, Munir’s ideologically radical stance toward India reduces the chances for de-escalation in future crises. In April, he revived the ‘two-nation’ theory and called Kashmir Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” highlighting sharp civilizational differences with Hindus. A few days after this speech, Pakistan-based The Resistance Front (TRF), a local proxy of Lashkar-i-Tayyaba (LeT), carried out the Pahalgam massacre, killing 26 civilians. Therefore, India cannot take Munir’s recent threats lightly and must prepare appropriate responses.&nbsp;India’s response should be resolute, disciplined, and aimed at preventing Pakistan from gaining any advantage from nuclear posturing. The first priority is maintaining conventional readiness for quick, decisive responses to incidents like terrorism or water disputes, enabling New Delhi to act swiftly on its own terms while avoiding escalation. The second is maintaining information discipline: proactively collecting verifiable imagery and third-party assessments of battlefield effects, and refraining from public or media exaggerations. The third is pursuing targeted diplomacy that quietly engages partners with genuine influence over Pakistan’s decisions, especially Gulf states with financial leverage, while preserving open military-to-military channels with the United States for de-escalation, without ceding any ground on core issues.&nbsp;Following Operation Sindoor, New Delhi signaled a firmer policy on Pakistan: any cross-border terror attack on Indian territory will be considered ‘an act of war.’ This stance, along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that India has only paused military action and will respond on its own terms if attacked again, aims to clarify deterrence and reduce space for coercive narratives from Pakistan.&nbsp;On the other hand, as a strategic partner, the United States also has a significant role to play in the India-Pakistan military conflict. If the U.S. seeks credibility as a crisis manager, then nuclear brinkmanship by Munir, a serving Pakistani army chief, should face public and private opposition, not indifference. Normalizing such dangerous rhetoric on U.S. soil suggests that nuclear threats are tolerated in Washington, allowing Pakistan to continue its nuclear sabre-rattling with little consequence. This creates a poor foundation for any future U.S. role in the military crisis between India and Pakistan.&nbsp;India’s main goal is to take Munir’s threats seriously, not just dismiss them. To maintain stable deterrence, it must bridge the gap between Pakistan’s words and the real consequences it would face if it escalates. The alternative is a South Asia where nuclear rhetoric becomes routine, and every lull after a crisis turns into a preview of the next conflict. India can and should break this cycle by adopting an assertive military posture, implementing a strong information warfare strategy, and conducting discreet yet firm diplomacy with aligned partners. That is how New Delhi can protect its interests, minimize misunderstandings, and keep the region safe from Munir’s self-destructive tactics.

Along with Munir’s escalatory remarks, the ongoing rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad has added another layer to the India-Pakistan dynamics.

Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s recent nuclear threats against India, made at a private event on U.S. soil, raise the risk of another crisis in South Asia and undermine efforts to keep the post-May 2025 calm. According to The Print report, Munir said that Pakistan, as a nuclear state, facing an existential threat from India, would “take half the world down”. He also warned that Pakistan would destroy any Indian dam under the Indus Waters system “with ten missiles.” These are not normal talking points, but highly irresponsible threats coming from the most powerful person in Pakistan, who is a known religious hardliner in addition to the country’s army chief. Munir’s statements turn nuclear deterrence from a last-resort guarantee into public political signaling, and they do so at a time when India-Pakistan crisis management mechanisms are still fragile. The timing matters for India. The four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan in May followed the Pahalgam massacre and saw exchanges of missiles, drones, and artillery before both sides halted operations. Afterward, the United States claimed credit for brokering peace between the two South Asian countries, while India publicly pushed back, saying the ceasefire resulted from direct military channels and India’s own decision to pause after meeting its operational objectives. The disagreement over “who deterred whom” creates a blurry narrative, which invites tougher public signaling in the next crisis. Munir’s nuclear sabre-rattling fits that pattern and makes India’s operating environment less stable. India should treat Munir’s remarks as a serious data point because Pakistan’s conventional outcomes in May were, at best, mixed. After the initial exchanges, Pakistan caused “virtually no observable damage” to Indian military infrastructure or facilities beyond what New Delhi acknowledged. On the other hand, India’s retaliatory strikes targeted key airbases and air defense systems of Pakistan, causing significant damage. Therefore, since Pakistan cannot claim conventional leverage over India, its temptation to restore coercive credibility with nuclear rhetoric has increased since the May crisis, especially for domestic audiences and to pressure the international community. That shift is dangerous because it drags the nuclear option into the early days of a military conflict rather than keeping it as the last rung on the ladder. Furthermore, Munir linked future conflict to two triggers that directly concern India. The first is water. In April, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty on national security grounds after the Pahalgam terror attack. In his recent remarks, Munir gave a specific warning that Pakistan would destroy any dam India tries to build on the IWT rivers. The language suggests Pakistan’s military now considers civilian infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir a legitimate target and water disputes a valid cause for escalation with India. This creates a new escalation path separate from traditional border skirmishes, where Pakistan could target vulnerable civilian infrastructure in Indian territory, which could then be justified as a retaliation for the IWT abeyance. The second trigger is narrative: accusing India of supporting terrorism in Pakistan. Islamabad has long used this false claim to garner sympathy and to divert international attention from cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. These efforts have increased in recent months since Pakistan began its two-year term as a UN Security Council non-permanent member earlier this year. Linking the false terror claim with water-dispute rhetoric gives Pakistan flexible excuses to take early action when the next crisis occurs. This flexibility has stretched previous flare-ups into longer conflicts. For India, the message is clear: expect more pressure from Pakistan through increased cross-border terrorist activities in J&K, along with more explicit conventional and nuclear threats. Along with Munir’s escalatory remarks, the ongoing rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad has added another layer to the India-Pakistan dynamics. Munir’s June visit to the U.S. included a White House lunch with President Trump and warm public messaging from Washington about Pakistan’s role in “ending the war.” That visible thaw may lead Rawalpindi to assume that the United States will again step in to limit escalation, encouraging early risk-taking, while Delhi, having rejected claims of U.S. mediation, will dismiss American influence in the next crisis. However, the idea that a sitting Pakistani army chief can threaten nuclear escalation on U.S. soil and face no reputational cost sends a wrong signal in New Delhi, which considers Washington a strategic partner. It suggests that Islamabad’s nuclear brinkmanship is possibly tolerated in Washington’s corridors. As a result, future crisis management between India and Pakistan led by the U.S. will be more difficult if Washington normalizes this kind of dangerous rhetoric. What happens if this rhetoric goes unchallenged is not necessarily an immediate war but a crisis system ready for faster escalation. Terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir will likely rise because it is the cheapest way for Pakistan to keep pressure on India. Additionally, Munir’s ideologically radical stance toward India reduces the chances for de-escalation in future crises. In April, he revived the ‘two-nation’ theory and called Kashmir Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” highlighting sharp civilizational differences with Hindus. A few days after this speech, Pakistan-based The Resistance Front (TRF), a local proxy of Lashkar-i-Tayyaba (LeT), carried out the Pahalgam massacre, killing 26 civilians. Therefore, India cannot take Munir’s recent threats lightly and must prepare appropriate responses. India’s response should be resolute, disciplined, and aimed at preventing Pakistan from gaining any advantage from nuclear posturing. The first priority is maintaining conventional readiness for quick, decisive responses to incidents like terrorism or water disputes, enabling New Delhi to act swiftly on its own terms while avoiding escalation. The second is maintaining information discipline: proactively collecting verifiable imagery and third-party assessments of battlefield effects, and refraining from public or media exaggerations. The third is pursuing targeted diplomacy that quietly engages partners with genuine influence over Pakistan’s decisions, especially Gulf states with financial leverage, while preserving open military-to-military channels with the United States for de-escalation, without ceding any ground on core issues. Following Operation Sindoor, New Delhi signaled a firmer policy on Pakistan: any cross-border terror attack on Indian territory will be considered ‘an act of war.’ This stance, along with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that India has only paused military action and will respond on its own terms if attacked again, aims to clarify deterrence and reduce space for coercive narratives from Pakistan. On the other hand, as a strategic partner, the United States also has a significant role to play in the India-Pakistan military conflict. If the U.S. seeks credibility as a crisis manager, then nuclear brinkmanship by Munir, a serving Pakistani army chief, should face public and private opposition, not indifference. Normalizing such dangerous rhetoric on U.S. soil suggests that nuclear threats are tolerated in Washington, allowing Pakistan to continue its nuclear sabre-rattling with little consequence. This creates a poor foundation for any future U.S. role in the military crisis between India and Pakistan. India’s main goal is to take Munir’s threats seriously, not just dismiss them. To maintain stable deterrence, it must bridge the gap between Pakistan’s words and the real consequences it would face if it escalates. The alternative is a South Asia where nuclear rhetoric becomes routine, and every lull after a crisis turns into a preview of the next conflict. India can and should break this cycle by adopting an assertive military posture, implementing a strong information warfare strategy, and conducting discreet yet firm diplomacy with aligned partners. That is how New Delhi can protect its interests, minimize misunderstandings, and keep the region safe from Munir’s self-destructive tactics.

Along with Munir’s escalatory remarks, the ongoing rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad has added another layer to the India-Pakistan dynamics.

Nuclear threat from US soil: Why Asim Munir’s threats imperil South Asian stability

The forthcoming visit of Australian Army Chief Lieutenant General Simon Stuart to India, scheduled from 10–14 August 2025, comes at a moment when the land-domain relationship between New Delhi and Canberra is emerging as a decisive pillar of Indo-Pacific security. Far from being a ceremonial exchange, this visit signals the consolidation of an Army-to-Army partnership that has matured into a strategic enabler for both nations.&nbsp;In a region defined by shifting power balances and unconventional threats, building operational trust between land forces offers a form of resilience that neither geography nor diplomacy alone can guarantee.&nbsp;<h2>Land Forces: The Overlooked Foundation of Indo-Pacific Stability</h2>Discussions about Indo-Pacific security tend to revolve around naval deployments and maritime chokepoints. Yet, the stability of this vast region also depends on the ability of land forces to deter, respond, and adapt. Humanitarian assistance, stabilisation in grey-zone environments, counter-insurgency, and counter-terrorism are all areas where armies provide capabilities that are both unique and irreplaceable.&nbsp;India and Australia, as continental powers with expeditionary reach, share this understanding. Their approach to the Indo-Pacific recognises that sustainable security must be anchored in credible land-domain capacity, and that capacity is best developed through enduring military-to-military cooperation.&nbsp;<h2>AUSTRAHIND: Building Interoperability Through Realism</h2>The joint exercise AUSTRAHIND is the most visible manifestation of this partnership. Initiated in 2016, it has steadily expanded from counter-terrorism drills to comprehensive tactical scenarios involving close-quarter battle, combined manoeuvre, and interoperability in diverse environments.&nbsp;The 2025 edition, to be held in Australia, will challenge soldiers from both armies to operate together in jungle terrain, urban settings, and contested zones, simulating the kind of multi-domain conditions they could face in real-world missions. Such exercises not only refine tactical skills but also accelerate the development of shared operating procedures.&nbsp;<h2>Dialogue Mechanisms That Deliver</h2>Below the surface of these exercises is a structured network of institutional engagements. The Army-to-Army Staff Talks, which have been held annually since 2016, now function as operational planning forums, addressing doctrine alignment, capability development, and mission coordination.&nbsp;These linkages connect directly into broader bilateral formats such as the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue and the Defence Policy Talks, ensuring that land-domain priorities feed into the overall strategic agenda. This integrated approach means that lessons from an exercise or a tactical exchange can quickly be translated into joint planning for humanitarian relief, disaster recovery, or regional capacity-building.&nbsp;<h2>Collaboration between Think Tanks: MoU with CLAWS</h2>The intellectual foundation of this relationship has been reinforced by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), the Indian Army’s autonomous think tank. India and Australia have collaborated with CLAWS before, and the forthcoming Memorandum of Understanding will take this to a new level.&nbsp;The agreement envisages joint studies on land warfare, counter-terrorism, and operational innovation, informed by each nation’s combat experiences. It will also open pathways for scenario-gaming exercises, strategic roundtables, and reciprocal scholar exchanges. Participation in key events such as the Chanakya Defence Dialogue, organised by CLAWS for the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Army, will allow Australian scholars and officers to engage directly with India’s strategic community.&nbsp;By embedding intellectual collaboration alongside tactical engagement, the two armies are aligning their thinking as much as their manoeuvres.&nbsp;<h2>Developing the Next Generation of Commanders</h2>Another standout initiative is the Young Officers Exchange Programme, conceived by the late General Bipin Rawat and launched in 2022. This programme embeds junior officers within each other’s formations, exposing them to different command styles, operational doctrines, and field realities early in their careers.&nbsp;Over time, this creates a cadre of leaders who can instinctively work together in coalition settings — whether during a UN peacekeeping mission, a humanitarian crisis, or a deterrence deployment in a volatile theatre.&nbsp;<h2>From Training Grounds to the Workshop Floor</h2>The Army partnership is also driving industrial cooperation. Indian companies have supplied Australia with tactical ISR systems, protected mobility vehicles, and other battlefield platforms. Collaborative development between India’s Army Design Bureau and Australia’s Digger Works is under consideration, with the goal of producing affordable, combat-tested solutions suited to contemporary battlefield requirements.&nbsp;This blend of operational and industrial synergy could become a model for broader Indo-Pacific defence cooperation.&nbsp;<h2>An Anchor in Uncertain Waters</h2>Lieutenant General Stuart’s visit underlines the reality that land-force collaboration is no longer a supplementary track in India–Australia defence relations — it is a core pillar. By combining realistic training, doctrinal exchange, industrial linkages, and strategic dialogue, the two armies are building a relationship that can adapt to the unpredictability of the Indo-Pacific.&nbsp;In an era where alliances are tested and the nature of threats is evolving, this partnership stands out for its pragmatism, mutual respect, and ability to convert operational cooperation into strategic influence. Grounded in trust and shaped by shared purpose, it is helping to ensure that the Indo-Pacific remains free, stable, and multipolar.&nbsp;

In a region defined by shifting power balances and unconventional threats, building operational trust between land forces offers a form of resilience that neither geography nor diplomacy alone can guarantee.



The forthcoming visit of Australian Army Chief Lieutenant General Simon Stuart to India, scheduled from 10–14 August 2025, comes at a moment when the land-domain relationship between New Delhi and Canberra is emerging as a decisive pillar of Indo-Pacific security. Far from being a ceremonial exchange, this visit signals the consolidation of an Army-to-Army partnership that has matured into a strategic enabler for both nations. In a region defined by shifting power balances and unconventional threats, building operational trust between land forces offers a form of resilience that neither geography nor diplomacy alone can guarantee. Land Forces: The Overlooked Foundation of Indo-Pacific Stability Discussions about Indo-Pacific security tend to revolve around naval deployments and maritime chokepoints. Yet, the stability of this vast region also depends on the ability of land forces to deter, respond, and adapt. Humanitarian assistance, stabilisation in grey-zone environments, counter-insurgency, and counter-terrorism are all areas where armies provide capabilities that are both unique and irreplaceable. India and Australia, as continental powers with expeditionary reach, share this understanding. Their approach to the Indo-Pacific recognises that sustainable security must be anchored in credible land-domain capacity, and that capacity is best developed through enduring military-to-military cooperation. AUSTRAHIND: Building Interoperability Through Realism The joint exercise AUSTRAHIND is the most visible manifestation of this partnership. Initiated in 2016, it has steadily expanded from counter-terrorism drills to comprehensive tactical scenarios involving close-quarter battle, combined manoeuvre, and interoperability in diverse environments. The 2025 edition, to be held in Australia, will challenge soldiers from both armies to operate together in jungle terrain, urban settings, and contested zones, simulating the kind of multi-domain conditions they could face in real-world missions. Such exercises not only refine tactical skills but also accelerate the development of shared operating procedures. Dialogue Mechanisms That Deliver Below the surface of these exercises is a structured network of institutional engagements. The Army-to-Army Staff Talks, which have been held annually since 2016, now function as operational planning forums, addressing doctrine alignment, capability development, and mission coordination. These linkages connect directly into broader bilateral formats such as the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue and the Defence Policy Talks, ensuring that land-domain priorities feed into the overall strategic agenda. This integrated approach means that lessons from an exercise or a tactical exchange can quickly be translated into joint planning for humanitarian relief, disaster recovery, or regional capacity-building. Collaboration between Think Tanks: MoU with CLAWS The intellectual foundation of this relationship has been reinforced by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), the Indian Army’s autonomous think tank. India and Australia have collaborated with CLAWS before, and the forthcoming Memorandum of Understanding will take this to a new level. The agreement envisages joint studies on land warfare, counter-terrorism, and operational innovation, informed by each nation’s combat experiences. It will also open pathways for scenario-gaming exercises, strategic roundtables, and reciprocal scholar exchanges. Participation in key events such as the Chanakya Defence Dialogue, organised by CLAWS for the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Army, will allow Australian scholars and officers to engage directly with India’s strategic community. By embedding intellectual collaboration alongside tactical engagement, the two armies are aligning their thinking as much as their manoeuvres. Developing the Next Generation of Commanders Another standout initiative is the Young Officers Exchange Programme, conceived by the late General Bipin Rawat and launched in 2022. This programme embeds junior officers within each other’s formations, exposing them to different command styles, operational doctrines, and field realities early in their careers. Over time, this creates a cadre of leaders who can instinctively work together in coalition settings — whether during a UN peacekeeping mission, a humanitarian crisis, or a deterrence deployment in a volatile theatre. From Training Grounds to the Workshop Floor The Army partnership is also driving industrial cooperation. Indian companies have supplied Australia with tactical ISR systems, protected mobility vehicles, and other battlefield platforms. Collaborative development between India’s Army Design Bureau and Australia’s Digger Works is under consideration, with the goal of producing affordable, combat-tested solutions suited to contemporary battlefield requirements. This blend of operational and industrial synergy could become a model for broader Indo-Pacific defence cooperation. An Anchor in Uncertain Waters Lieutenant General Stuart’s visit underlines the reality that land-force collaboration is no longer a supplementary track in India–Australia defence relations — it is a core pillar. By combining realistic training, doctrinal exchange, industrial linkages, and strategic dialogue, the two armies are building a relationship that can adapt to the unpredictability of the Indo-Pacific. In an era where alliances are tested and the nature of threats is evolving, this partnership stands out for its pragmatism, mutual respect, and ability to convert operational cooperation into strategic influence. Grounded in trust and shaped by shared purpose, it is helping to ensure that the Indo-Pacific remains free, stable, and multipolar.

In a region defined by shifting power balances and unconventional threats, building operational trust between land forces offers a form of resilience that neither geography nor diplomacy alone can guarantee.

Forging strategic ties: How India–Australia army cooperation shapes the Indo-Pacific

India’s Jammu and Kashmir has banned 25 books for allegedly ‘promoting secessionism and a false narrative,’ about the alleged human rights atrocities committed in the disputed region. Manoj Sinha, the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory issued the order which banned prominent books by historians and academics. The most famous of the banned books is&nbsp;Azadi, by Arundhati Roy which includes essays about thousands of people allegedly killed by the Indian armed forces during conflict. The ban also includes <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/asian-studies/colonizing-kashmir">Colonizing Kashmir</a>: State-building Under Indian Occupation&nbsp;by the US-based academic Hafsa Kanjwal and Contested Lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus and Sri Lanka&nbsp;by Sumantra Bose.&nbsp;&nbsp;This has prompted raids of bookstores across the region to cease the banned books. The irony is that throughout history, banning a book has put the spotlight on it and granted it more readership than ever before.<h2>A Brief Historical Perspective&nbsp;</h2>Many beloved books were banned at some point of time. The english version of the Bible&nbsp;was banned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1524, as it was claimed that the text should only be read in Latin.&nbsp;Similarly, Shakespeare’s Richard II&nbsp;was banned in 1597, as it contained a scene in which the monarch is deposed from his throne, inviting the ire of Queen Elisabeth I.&nbsp;&nbsp;More recently and famously, Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses&nbsp;was banned in 1988, as Islamic clerics declared it blasphemous and copies of it were widely burnt throughout the world, including in India. Oddly, the much loved Harry Potter&nbsp;series by JK Rowling also came under fire in 2019 as some people demanded that it contained mentions of witchcraft and occult practices and thus should be banned. The war against people’s right to read has been a long and global one. But it is fraught with many in-your-face ironies.<h2>Tempting Taboos</h2>Books, once banned, become taboo and forbidden fruit and much like Adam, readers are often compelled to read these texts to see what blasphemies they hold. The Satanic Verses, once it was unbanned in India, saw people queuing up at bookstores to get a copy.More importantly, book bans might have worked in the pre-internet era. But in this digital age, nothing is truly ever banned. Books are easily pirated and downloaded off the Internet and can be read on smartphones and laptops without the country or government ever coming to know. Book bans create interest in often ordinary and previously un-noteworthy works and thus the blasphemy and seditious content finds a wider readership after the banning.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3>Political Overtones</h3>Just like the Kashmir book ban, banning of literature has always had political reasons. Such A Long Journey&nbsp;by Rohinton Mistry was withdrawn from the University of Mumbai’s syllabus after politician Adtiya Thackeray claimed that the books demeaned his grandfather Balasaheb Thackeray and the Marathi culture as a whole. &nbsp;Similarly, India Independent&nbsp;by Charles Bettelheim was banned in 1976 by the Indira Gandhi government for criticising the ruling party’s policies post India’s independence. Sometimes, even business interests seem to justify banning. In 1988, The Polyester Prince by Hamish McDonald was banned for allegedly being a ‘shoddy’ biography of business tycoon Dhirubai Ambani, the father of Asia’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani.&nbsp;<h3>Don’t go down the Raj way</h3>During British rule, many books, now central to India’s freedom struggle, were banned. The Indian Struggle&nbsp;by Subhash Chandra Bose and Hind Swaraj&nbsp;by our father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, were banned as being seditious. This created quite a stir then and governments of today would do well to understand how sedition then and sedition now is essentially the same, a muzzling of contrary opinions and a silencing of dissenting voices. The right to read must be central to our society and culture. Dissenting and differing voices must be heard to avoid the creation of sycophantic echo chambers. The act of banning books, however controversial they may be, is similar to banning mirrors just because we don’t like our own faces.

India's Jammu and Kashmir has banned 25 books for 'promoting a false narrative.' But banning books never works and is like trying to ban the right to breathe. 

India’s Jammu and Kashmir has banned 25 books for allegedly ‘promoting secessionism and a false narrative,’ about the alleged human rights atrocities committed in the disputed region. Manoj Sinha, the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory issued the order which banned prominent books by historians and academics. The most famous of the banned books is Azadi, by Arundhati Roy which includes essays about thousands of people allegedly killed by the Indian armed forces during conflict. The ban also includes Colonizing Kashmir: State-building Under Indian Occupation by the US-based academic Hafsa Kanjwal and Contested Lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus and Sri Lanka by Sumantra Bose. This has prompted raids of bookstores across the region to cease the banned books. The irony is that throughout history, banning a book has put the spotlight on it and granted it more readership than ever before. A Brief Historical Perspective Many beloved books were banned at some point of time. The english version of the Bible was banned by the Roman Catholic Church in 1524, as it was claimed that the text should only be read in Latin. Similarly, Shakespeare’s Richard II was banned in 1597, as it contained a scene in which the monarch is deposed from his throne, inviting the ire of Queen Elisabeth I. More recently and famously, Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was banned in 1988, as Islamic clerics declared it blasphemous and copies of it were widely burnt throughout the world, including in India. Oddly, the much loved Harry Potter series by JK Rowling also came under fire in 2019 as some people demanded that it contained mentions of witchcraft and occult practices and thus should be banned. The war against people’s right to read has been a long and global one. But it is fraught with many in-your-face ironies. Tempting Taboos Books, once banned, become taboo and forbidden fruit and much like Adam, readers are often compelled to read these texts to see what blasphemies they hold. The Satanic Verses, once it was unbanned in India, saw people queuing up at bookstores to get a copy. More importantly, book bans might have worked in the pre-internet era. But in this digital age, nothing is truly ever banned. Books are easily pirated and downloaded off the Internet and can be read on smartphones and laptops without the country or government ever coming to know. Book bans create interest in often ordinary and previously un-noteworthy works and thus the blasphemy and seditious content finds a wider readership after the banning. Political Overtones Just like the Kashmir book ban, banning of literature has always had political reasons. Such A Long Journey by Rohinton Mistry was withdrawn from the University of Mumbai’s syllabus after politician Adtiya Thackeray claimed that the books demeaned his grandfather Balasaheb Thackeray and the Marathi culture as a whole. Similarly, India Independent by Charles Bettelheim was banned in 1976 by the Indira Gandhi government for criticising the ruling party’s policies post India’s independence. Sometimes, even business interests seem to justify banning. In 1988, The Polyester Prince by Hamish McDonald was banned for allegedly being a ‘shoddy’ biography of business tycoon Dhirubai Ambani, the father of Asia’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani. Don’t go down the Raj way During British rule, many books, now central to India’s freedom struggle, were banned. The Indian Struggle by Subhash Chandra Bose and Hind Swaraj by our father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, were banned as being seditious. This created quite a stir then and governments of today would do well to understand how sedition then and sedition now is essentially the same, a muzzling of contrary opinions and a silencing of dissenting voices. The right to read must be central to our society and culture. Dissenting and differing voices must be heard to avoid the creation of sycophantic echo chambers. The act of banning books, however controversial they may be, is similar to banning mirrors just because we don’t like our own faces.

India's Jammu and Kashmir has banned 25 books for 'promoting a false narrative.' But banning books never works and is like trying to ban the right to breathe.&nbsp;

Banning books is like banning the right to breathe. It never works. Here’s why!

Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, reportedly told a private gathering in Tampa, Florida, that Pakistan would “take half the world down” if it was going down—and that Indian dams could be “finished with 10 missiles.” These lines were relayed by attendees of a closed-door dinner; there’s no public video or official transcript, but multiple outlets carried the account on 10–11 August. Treat the quotes as reported, not proven. Still, the message is clear: open nuclear brinkmanship, delivered on American soil.Why say this in the US, and why now?&nbsp;Three reasons stand out. First, timing: Munir’s remarks coincided with the US Central Command’s change-of-command ceremony in Tampa on 10 August, where Gen Michael E Kurilla handed charge to Adm Brad Cooper. The event drew senior American brass and global attention, giving Munir a big stage on the sidelines. Second, access: his visit included meetings with top US military leaders, keeping Pakistan in Washington’s line of sight during a period when Islamabad worries about fading influence. Third, audience: speaking in Florida let him rally the Pakistani diaspora and signal to US policymakers that Pakistan is still “too risky to ignore.” That’s classic “weaponising instability”—reminding the world that isolation could be costly.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-s-second-u-s-visit-after-june-1754881143466/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-s-second-u-s-visit-after-june-1754881143466/embed</a>&nbsp;Now to capability versus rhetoric. Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state with an estimated triple-digit arsenal and a broad missile mix—short-range systems like Nasr/Ababeel for battlefield roles and medium-range systems like Shaheen and Ghauri able to reach anywhere in India. That is real deterrent power. But the claim of “taking down half the world” is theatre. Pakistan has no publicly known intercontinental-range system in service; its credible reach is regional, not global. So, while the threat is frightening, it is not a realistic description of worldwide strike ability. (This is why many observers see the Tampa lines as psychological pressure, not a war plan.)What about the “10 missiles for Indian dams” line? Hitting large dams is not just a military act—it is ecological warfare with mass-casualty potential downstream on the Indus system. The point of saying it aloud is to frighten, raise crisis costs, and deter India from building leverage after New Delhi held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance post-crisis. But again, saying it in the US is the real tactic: to broadcast risk before American ears and nudge Washington to lean on India.India’s response space is broader than it was a decade ago. In July–August, Indian officials and experts have spoken more openly about the tools used in May’s crisis response—BrahMos leading precision strikes and Akashteer guarding the skies. This isn’t chest-thumping; it is quiet signalling that India has credible conventional options and an improving defensive shield. Politically too, the ruling coalition has framed Operations Sindoor/Mahadev as a “new normal” of proportionate but firm action after terror attacks, which supports continued investment in readiness.On the defensive side, India fields layered measures: long-range detection networks, quick-reaction surface-to-air systems, and high-end imports like the S-400 integrated with indigenous command-and-control (e.g., Akashteer). None of this makes India invulnerable—missile defence never offers a 100% wall—but it raises the bar for any attacker and preserves decision-time for leaders in a fast-moving crisis. The message to any “10 missiles” talk is simple: some will be shot down, and any strike invites a calibrated and punishing response.On the nuclear side, India’s doctrine remains centred on credible minimum deterrence and a strong retaliatory capability, historically paired with no-first-use language. Pakistan’s habit of speaking loosely about nuclear use to shield sub-conventional actions is meant to narrow India’s choices. But the pattern since early May shows India using precise conventional force, information discipline, and political signalling rather than rushing up the nuclear ladder. That mix preserves deterrence while denying Pakistan an easy escalatory narrative.So, what was the context in July and August that pushed Munir toward such talk? Three threads:• US stagecraft: With a CENTCOM handover in Tampa, Pakistan’s top general had a rare, concentrated American audience. Loud words travel fast in that setting.• Narrative contest post-crisis: India has been publicly detailing the professionalism and indigenous content behind its May response. That undercuts Pakistan’s old script that India will self-deter. The Tampa rhetoric tries to restore fear.• Diaspora leverage: Closed-door diaspora events are ideal for fund-raising, lobbying, and message seeding. A dramatic line—“half the world”—gets headlines back home and pressure points abroad.Where does this leave India? First, do not overreact to bluster. Treat the Tampa quotes as reported but unverified; respond to the risk, not the noise. Second, keep strengthening the conventional edge—more standoff precision, better air defence coverage, faster decision loops. Third, continue clear political signalling: India will hit back proportionately after terrorism—without taking the bait of reckless rhetoric. Recent government and industry messaging in August shows exactly that balance.Finally, a word on American optics. The US military just shifted CENTCOM leadership, and Washington’s bandwidth is divided across theatres. Munir’s aim in Tampa was to force attention—by linking Pakistan’s fate to global catastrophe. The better answer—for India, the US, and the region—is to refuse nuclear blackmail as a diplomatic tool, maintain channels for crisis management, and keep building India’s credible, layered deterrence so that threats about “half the world” stay where they belong: in the realm of desperate talk, not doable action. &nbsp;

Asim Munir's claim of “taking down half the world” is theatre. Pakistan has no publicly known intercontinental-range system in service; its credible reach is regional, not global

Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, reportedly told a private gathering in Tampa, Florida, that Pakistan would “take half the world down” if it was going down—and that Indian dams could be “finished with 10 missiles.” These lines were relayed by attendees of a closed-door dinner; there’s no public video or official transcript, but multiple outlets carried the account on 10–11 August. Treat the quotes as reported, not proven. Still, the message is clear: open nuclear brinkmanship, delivered on American soil. Why say this in the US, and why now? Three reasons stand out. First, timing: Munir’s remarks coincided with the US Central Command’s change-of-command ceremony in Tampa on 10 August, where Gen Michael E Kurilla handed charge to Adm Brad Cooper. The event drew senior American brass and global attention, giving Munir a big stage on the sidelines. Second, access: his visit included meetings with top US military leaders, keeping Pakistan in Washington’s line of sight during a period when Islamabad worries about fading influence. Third, audience: speaking in Florida let him rally the Pakistani diaspora and signal to US policymakers that Pakistan is still “too risky to ignore.” That’s classic “weaponising instability”—reminding the world that isolation could be costly. https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-s-second-u-s-visit-after-june-1754881143466/embed Now to capability versus rhetoric. Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state with an estimated triple-digit arsenal and a broad missile mix—short-range systems like Nasr/Ababeel for battlefield roles and medium-range systems like Shaheen and Ghauri able to reach anywhere in India. That is real deterrent power. But the claim of “taking down half the world” is theatre. Pakistan has no publicly known intercontinental-range system in service; its credible reach is regional, not global. So, while the threat is frightening, it is not a realistic description of worldwide strike ability. (This is why many observers see the Tampa lines as psychological pressure, not a war plan.) What about the “10 missiles for Indian dams” line? Hitting large dams is not just a military act—it is ecological warfare with mass-casualty potential downstream on the Indus system. The point of saying it aloud is to frighten, raise crisis costs, and deter India from building leverage after New Delhi held the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance post-crisis. But again, saying it in the US is the real tactic: to broadcast risk before American ears and nudge Washington to lean on India. India’s response space is broader than it was a decade ago. In July–August, Indian officials and experts have spoken more openly about the tools used in May’s crisis response—BrahMos leading precision strikes and Akashteer guarding the skies. This isn’t chest-thumping; it is quiet signalling that India has credible conventional options and an improving defensive shield. Politically too, the ruling coalition has framed Operations Sindoor/Mahadev as a “new normal” of proportionate but firm action after terror attacks, which supports continued investment in readiness. On the defensive side, India fields layered measures: long-range detection networks, quick-reaction surface-to-air systems, and high-end imports like the S-400 integrated with indigenous command-and-control (e.g., Akashteer). None of this makes India invulnerable—missile defence never offers a 100% wall—but it raises the bar for any attacker and preserves decision-time for leaders in a fast-moving crisis. The message to any “10 missiles” talk is simple: some will be shot down, and any strike invites a calibrated and punishing response. On the nuclear side, India’s doctrine remains centred on credible minimum deterrence and a strong retaliatory capability, historically paired with no-first-use language. Pakistan’s habit of speaking loosely about nuclear use to shield sub-conventional actions is meant to narrow India’s choices. But the pattern since early May shows India using precise conventional force, information discipline, and political signalling rather than rushing up the nuclear ladder. That mix preserves deterrence while denying Pakistan an easy escalatory narrative. So, what was the context in July and August that pushed Munir toward such talk? Three threads: • US stagecraft: With a CENTCOM handover in Tampa, Pakistan’s top general had a rare, concentrated American audience. Loud words travel fast in that setting. • Narrative contest post-crisis: India has been publicly detailing the professionalism and indigenous content behind its May response. That undercuts Pakistan’s old script that India will self-deter. The Tampa rhetoric tries to restore fear. • Diaspora leverage: Closed-door diaspora events are ideal for fund-raising, lobbying, and message seeding. A dramatic line—“half the world”—gets headlines back home and pressure points abroad. Where does this leave India? First, do not overreact to bluster. Treat the Tampa quotes as reported but unverified; respond to the risk, not the noise. Second, keep strengthening the conventional edge—more standoff precision, better air defence coverage, faster decision loops. Third, continue clear political signalling: India will hit back proportionately after terrorism—without taking the bait of reckless rhetoric. Recent government and industry messaging in August shows exactly that balance. Finally, a word on American optics. The US military just shifted CENTCOM leadership, and Washington’s bandwidth is divided across theatres. Munir’s aim in Tampa was to force attention—by linking Pakistan’s fate to global catastrophe. The better answer—for India, the US, and the region—is to refuse nuclear blackmail as a diplomatic tool, maintain channels for crisis management, and keep building India’s credible, layered deterrence so that threats about “half the world” stay where they belong: in the realm of desperate talk, not doable action.

Asim Munir's claim of “taking down half the world” is theatre. Pakistan has no publicly known intercontinental-range system in service; its credible reach is regional, not global

A Theatre of Fear: Why Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir's 'Half the World' gambit finds an unimpressed audience in India.

Every victorious team in sport or cricket, for that matter, will always have that one individual who seldom gets a mention or gets an equal amount of limelight just because their contribution gets overshadowed by their peers’.&nbsp;&nbsp;Years after their swansong performance, that individual or player would make it into the folklore as unsung heroes with pundits, experts and fans alike debating how that player hung-in there by biding his time, grinding his way out of the muddle to make life slightly easier for his contemporaries who go on to achieve glory and bring laurels to themselves and the team.&nbsp;&nbsp;Whilst much has been written and said about Yashasvi Jaiswal’s swashbuckling centuries and Rishabh Pant’s courage and fortitude at Old Trafford and Shubman Gill cementing his legacy at the fancied number four position, KL Rahul’s performance has gone under the radar in the recently concluded Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy.&nbsp;&nbsp;Averaging over 53 with a strike rate of just under 50, Rahul amassed 532 runs with two tons and two half-centuries, making him the third-highest run-scorer after Gill and Joe Root. The right-handed batter has been the linchpin of the Indian batting, especially in the third Test at Lord’s when India lost Rishabh Pant following a run out by England captain Ben Stokes. Rahul ensured that his hundred took India to safer shores by clearing the deficit and also gave the bowlers something to defend.&nbsp;&nbsp;With Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli bidding adieu to Test Cricket, Rahul has seamlessly transitioned himself as the senior statesman who can chew up all the pressure and navigate the team out of any impasse.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, will this defiant performance reap him a place in the Indian T20I squad for the Asia Cup that is set to begin in September?&nbsp; Reports have emerged that Gill and Jaiswal might make a return to the Asia Cup squad. The report also states Pant may not be available for the Asia Cup owing to his toe fracture. So the question arises as to who will be India’s first-choice wicketkeeper?&nbsp;The last time KL Rahul played a T20I was way back in the 2022 T20 World Cup semi-final in Australia, where India lost to England by 10 wickets. If Rahul is still in contention, then he would most probably play at No.4 or 5 at the very best. The wicketkeeper-batter has also been one of the top ten highest run scorers in IPL 2025, where he scored a plethora of runs at no.4. The right-handed batter finished with an average of just about 54 and a strike rate of 149.72.&nbsp;&nbsp;&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;Furthermore, the Asia Cup is taking place in the UAE, a place that is not alien to Rahul. Earlier this year, Rahul scored an important 42 against Australia in the semi-final of the 2025 Champions Trophy that ensured India a berth in the final. His string of 30s and 40s during that tournament helped the Men in Blue get over the finish line more than once.&nbsp;The 33-year-old batter also has a keen eye for taking DRS calls when he dons the wicket-keeping gloves, much better than Pant and some of his younger peers.&nbsp;&nbsp;But Rahul might be overlooked as selectors would look to bolster India’s batting and may not give too much impetus to this one aspect alone. This means that Jitesh Sharma, Sanju Samson and Ishan Kishan might be in the thick of things as selectors look for specialists in the shortest format.&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.

Whilst much has been written and said about Yashasvi Jaiswal’s centuries and Rishabh Pant’s performance at Old Trafford and Shubman Gill cementing his legacy at number four position, KL Rahul’s performance has gone under the radar in the recently concluded Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. 

Every victorious team in sport or cricket, for that matter, will always have that one individual who seldom gets a mention or gets an equal amount of limelight just because their contribution gets overshadowed by their peers’. Years after their swansong performance, that individual or player would make it into the folklore as unsung heroes with pundits, experts and fans alike debating how that player hung-in there by biding his time, grinding his way out of the muddle to make life slightly easier for his contemporaries who go on to achieve glory and bring laurels to themselves and the team. Whilst much has been written and said about Yashasvi Jaiswal’s swashbuckling centuries and Rishabh Pant’s courage and fortitude at Old Trafford and Shubman Gill cementing his legacy at the fancied number four position, KL Rahul’s performance has gone under the radar in the recently concluded Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. Averaging over 53 with a strike rate of just under 50, Rahul amassed 532 runs with two tons and two half-centuries, making him the third-highest run-scorer after Gill and Joe Root. The right-handed batter has been the linchpin of the Indian batting, especially in the third Test at Lord’s when India lost Rishabh Pant following a run out by England captain Ben Stokes. Rahul ensured that his hundred took India to safer shores by clearing the deficit and also gave the bowlers something to defend. With Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli bidding adieu to Test Cricket, Rahul has seamlessly transitioned himself as the senior statesman who can chew up all the pressure and navigate the team out of any impasse. However, will this defiant performance reap him a place in the Indian T20I squad for the Asia Cup that is set to begin in September? Reports have emerged that Gill and Jaiswal might make a return to the Asia Cup squad. The report also states Pant may not be available for the Asia Cup owing to his toe fracture. So the question arises as to who will be India’s first-choice wicketkeeper? The last time KL Rahul played a T20I was way back in the 2022 T20 World Cup semi-final in Australia, where India lost to England by 10 wickets. If Rahul is still in contention, then he would most probably play at No.4 or 5 at the very best. The wicketkeeper-batter has also been one of the top ten highest run scorers in IPL 2025, where he scored a plethora of runs at no.4. The right-handed batter finished with an average of just about 54 and a strike rate of 149.72. ALSO READ | From Rohit Sharma to Virat Kohli, 5 Indian batters with most runs in Asia Cup (ODIs + T20Is) Furthermore, the Asia Cup is taking place in the UAE, a place that is not alien to Rahul. Earlier this year, Rahul scored an important 42 against Australia in the semi-final of the 2025 Champions Trophy that ensured India a berth in the final. His string of 30s and 40s during that tournament helped the Men in Blue get over the finish line more than once. The 33-year-old batter also has a keen eye for taking DRS calls when he dons the wicket-keeping gloves, much better than Pant and some of his younger peers. But Rahul might be overlooked as selectors would look to bolster India’s batting and may not give too much impetus to this one aspect alone. This means that Jitesh Sharma, Sanju Samson and Ishan Kishan might be in the thick of things as selectors look for specialists in the shortest format. 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.

Whilst much has been written and said about Yashasvi Jaiswal’s centuries and Rishabh Pant’s performance at Old Trafford and Shubman Gill cementing his legacy at number four position, KL Rahul’s performance has gone under the radar in the recently concluded Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy.&nbsp;

Will KL Rahul’s resilience reward him a place in the Indian squad for Asia Cup 2025?

In the age of hyper-connectivity, truth moves swiftly — but lies move swifter. A tweet, a doctored photo, or even a single misleading statement can cascade on social media, stir emotions, and create narratives ahead of the facts catching up. Geopolitical crises and wars have never not been information wars, but now, with Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and TikTok, speed, reach, and impact of disinformation have never been higher.&nbsp;We are an age where a tweet can either destroy or make a career. The stakes are enormous — not only for public individuals, but for regular folks whose lives can be irreparably altered by a viral lie. And the conflicts of our times — India–Pakistan tensions, the Iran–Israel conflict, the Russia–Ukraine war — have demonstrated just how perilous this online wildfire can be.<h2>Why social media is a misinformation machine?</h2>The design of social media itself is based on virality, not verification. Instant reach, no vetting: Anybody can share anything, and it could be seen by millions in minutes — without being checked. Algorithms amplify outrage: Material that evokes high emotions gets promoted to the top of a feed. Sadly, false or misleading information tends to be more emotive than accurate news. Echo chambers make the belief stronger: Individuals often follow those who share their view, and this makes misinformation "common knowledge" in those circles.&nbsp;This is fatal during times of war or crisis, when emotions are already high and people are eager to get updates.<h2>Case Studies: Misinformation in contemporary conflicts</h2>India–Pakistan: At the time of high-tension Indian–Pakistani military confrontations, manipulated videos and Photoshopped images have consistently gone viral. In 2019, during the Balakot airstrikes incident, random footage of old military operations was shared as "breaking news." Memes, fabricated quotes, and attributed statements fueled public opinion on both sides and added to the hostilities.&nbsp;Iran–Israel: When the tensions between Iran and Israel escalated, social media overflowed with mistranslations, doctored photographs, and even AI-composed "battlefield" pictures. Some of them were tweeted by popular handles and even caught by minor news websites before being corrected. When the misinformation propagated, the retractions hardly reached a quarter of the initial crowd.&nbsp;Russia–Ukraine: Few, if any, wars in the modern era have witnessed the weaponisation of disinformation as extensively as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Political figures were duped with deepfake videos, footage of past combat being recycled as "current" incidents, and made-up casualty figures were circulated extensively. These were intentionally designed by state or state-sponsored actors to manipulate narratives and shape global opinion.<h2>The reputation impact</h2>It's not only governments and militaries that are impacted. One post here can ruin a reputation in a night. Reporters have been trolled, threatened, and discredited from out-of-context screenshots or doctored quotes. Celebrities and public figures have been hammered for comments they never made — simply because someone uploaded a realistic fake. Average citizens have been "doxxed" or hassled after being mistakenly identified in viral war videos. In such a weather, silence is sometimes more secure than voice — but even silence may be seen as taking sides.<h2>The bottom line</h2>Social media is not evil by nature — but it is by nature susceptible to being manipulated. In times of war, the truth tends to get destroyed first, and algorithms that prioritise speed over accuracy only make that poorer. The world we now inhabit requires a new type of literacy: the capacity to filter fact from fiction at the pace of a scroll. Whether you are a reporter, an elected official, or simply a regular user, one post can destroy or solidify your credibility. Caveat emptor — because in this digital space, the ill-advised line at the wrong time can alter everything.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The dangerous virality: How social media fuels misinformation in times of war

In the age of hyper-connectivity, truth moves swiftly — but lies move swifter. A tweet, a doctored photo, or even a single misleading statement can cascade on social media, stir emotions, and create narratives ahead of the facts catching up. Geopolitical crises and wars have never not been information wars, but now, with Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and TikTok, speed, reach, and impact of disinformation have never been higher. We are an age where a tweet can either destroy or make a career. The stakes are enormous — not only for public individuals, but for regular folks whose lives can be irreparably altered by a viral lie. And the conflicts of our times — India–Pakistan tensions, the Iran–Israel conflict, the Russia–Ukraine war — have demonstrated just how perilous this online wildfire can be. Why social media is a misinformation machine? The design of social media itself is based on virality, not verification. Instant reach, no vetting: Anybody can share anything, and it could be seen by millions in minutes — without being checked. Algorithms amplify outrage: Material that evokes high emotions gets promoted to the top of a feed. Sadly, false or misleading information tends to be more emotive than accurate news. Echo chambers make the belief stronger: Individuals often follow those who share their view, and this makes misinformation "common knowledge" in those circles. This is fatal during times of war or crisis, when emotions are already high and people are eager to get updates. Case Studies: Misinformation in contemporary conflicts India–Pakistan: At the time of high-tension Indian–Pakistani military confrontations, manipulated videos and Photoshopped images have consistently gone viral. In 2019, during the Balakot airstrikes incident, random footage of old military operations was shared as "breaking news." Memes, fabricated quotes, and attributed statements fueled public opinion on both sides and added to the hostilities. Iran–Israel: When the tensions between Iran and Israel escalated, social media overflowed with mistranslations, doctored photographs, and even AI-composed "battlefield" pictures. Some of them were tweeted by popular handles and even caught by minor news websites before being corrected. When the misinformation propagated, the retractions hardly reached a quarter of the initial crowd. Russia–Ukraine: Few, if any, wars in the modern era have witnessed the weaponisation of disinformation as extensively as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Political figures were duped with deepfake videos, footage of past combat being recycled as "current" incidents, and made-up casualty figures were circulated extensively. These were intentionally designed by state or state-sponsored actors to manipulate narratives and shape global opinion. The reputation impact It's not only governments and militaries that are impacted. One post here can ruin a reputation in a night. Reporters have been trolled, threatened, and discredited from out-of-context screenshots or doctored quotes. Celebrities and public figures have been hammered for comments they never made — simply because someone uploaded a realistic fake. Average citizens have been "doxxed" or hassled after being mistakenly identified in viral war videos. In such a weather, silence is sometimes more secure than voice — but even silence may be seen as taking sides. The bottom line Social media is not evil by nature — but it is by nature susceptible to being manipulated. In times of war, the truth tends to get destroyed first, and algorithms that prioritise speed over accuracy only make that poorer. The world we now inhabit requires a new type of literacy: the capacity to filter fact from fiction at the pace of a scroll. Whether you are a reporter, an elected official, or simply a regular user, one post can destroy or solidify your credibility. Caveat emptor — because in this digital space, the ill-advised line at the wrong time can alter everything. 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 design of social media itself is based on virality, not verification. Instant reach, no vetting: Anybody can share anything, and it could be seen by millions in minutes — without being checked

The chequered history of antagonistic stances during the decades-long USA-Soviet Union Cold War and subsequent détente, which brought Capitol Hill and Raisina Hill closer, shaped by geopolitical power balances between the world’s oldest and youngest democratic countries, is a tell-tale sign of the complexity and dynamics of their relationship. A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically. At a time when the US is already deeply entrenched in a tech and trade cold war with China, the feasibility of sustaining another trade conflict, particularly with a strategic partner like India, appears both impractical and unwise. Such a conflict could overshadow the efforts of former US presidents like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who extended an olive branch to Delhi to work together on common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change.&nbsp;The trade war between the United States and China, initiated under the Trump administration and continued with nuanced strategies by President Joe Biden, has disrupted global supply chains, increased tariffs, and led to decoupling in key sectors like semiconductors, AI, 5G, and pharmaceuticals. This rivalry is not just about economics but also technology supremacy, national security, and ideological competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance.&nbsp;The US is now actively working to "de-risk" from China, which includes encouraging Chian Plus One strategy, manufacturing relocations, forming trade partnerships with democratic nations, and controlling Chinese access to cutting-edge technologies. In this strategic calculus, India has emerged as a natural partner—not only because of its shared democratic values, but also due to its economic potential, strategic location, and growing technological prowess.&nbsp;India, with a population of over 1.4 billion and a GDP nearing USD 4 trillion, is the world's fastest-growing major economy, placing it behind the United States with a GDP of USD 30.51 trillion, China at USD19.23 trillion, and Germany at USD 4.74 trillion. It is projected to become the third-largest economy by 2030. More importantly, it is a robust democracy, unlike China, and has a young, digitally enabled consumer base.&nbsp;Over the years, successive Indian governments—whether led by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have nurtured deeper ties with the United States. From the civil nuclear deal during the Manmohan Singh-Bush era to the strengthening of QUAD and signing of key defense agreements under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden, bilateral ties have touched new heights. "Howdy Modi" and "Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar," the reverberations of which are still echoing around the world, have cemented India-US relations with an emotional bond between PM Modi and Trump.&nbsp;The US now sees India as a central pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at counterbalancing Chinese influence in the region. From military cooperation and joint exercises like Malabar to investments in critical technologies and semiconductors, India’s positioning with the US has become more strategic than transactional.<h2>Can the US Sustain Strained Ties with India?</h2>&nbsp;Engaging in a trade war with India, especially in the current geopolitical climate, could be counterproductive for the United States. Here are five compelling reasons WHY:&nbsp;1. India as a Consumer Powerhouse&nbsp;India is one of the largest markets for American companies in sectors like technology, defense, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and energy. US giants such as Apple, Amazon, Boeing, and Tesla see India as a critical growth destination. Restricting trade or imposing tariffs would directly impact US corporate interests.&nbsp;Moreover, India’s increasing emphasis on local manufacturing (Make in India, PLI schemes) is creating opportunities for American investments in electronics, green energy, and EVs. Disrupting this potential through a trade war could push India toward alternative partners such as Russia or the EU.&nbsp;2. A Reliable Democratic Ally in Asia&nbsp;As the US seeks to strengthen global democracies and build resilient supply chains, India remains the only large, stable, and democratic counterweight to China in Asia. Its neutral stance in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war has also demonstrated India's commitment to strategic autonomy, a quality the US respects.&nbsp;India’s G20 presidency and leadership role in the Global South further enhance its diplomatic influence. Isolating or antagonizing such a partner could weaken the US's broader goals of forming a rules-based global order.&nbsp;3. Economic Interdependence&nbsp;In the fiscal year 2024–25, India–US trade reached USD 131.8 billion, comprising USD 86.5 billion in exports from India and USD 45.3 billion in imports, making the US India’s largest trading partner. This shows a strong and robust strategic economic relationship between the two countries. Nearly 2,000 American companies operate in India, while Indian firms have invested over USD 40 billion in the US, creating around 425,000 jobs that is documented in a report titled "Indian Roots, American Soil”. This economic interdependence serves as a buffer against abrupt policy shifts or trade hostilities.&nbsp;4. Geopolitical Timing Matters&nbsp;With tensions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Ukraine-Russia conflict still unresolved, the US cannot afford to lose India as a regional ally. Unlike Cold War times, today’s conflicts are multipolar and multidimensional—ranging from cyberspace to climate diplomacy. India’s cooperation is crucial in areas like AI regulation, global data flows, cybersecurity, and space exploration.&nbsp;5. India-US for Global PeaceIndia and the US, united, can ensure global peace, prosperity, and stability. India, once counted among the 'Fragile Five' nations, as coined by investment firm Morgan Stanley, today finds itself among the 'Fabulous Five' economies of the world. The strong base of the Indian diaspora in the US works with honesty and dedication, in line with the spirit of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The World is One Family). The India-America partnership operates on the principle of promoting global peace.<h3>Pragmatism Over Provocation</h3>&nbsp;Of course, India and the US have their share of trade disputes—ranging from tariffs on agricultural products and medical devices to data localization policies and digital taxation. But these should be addressed through dialogue and negotiation mechanisms such as the US-India Trade Policy Forum, rather than retaliatory measures. Both nations are members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and have begun collaborating on semiconductor supply chains, critical minerals, and AI governance. These positive developments must be leveraged to create a roadmap for sustainable, balanced trade rather than indulging in protectionist impulses.&nbsp;In an era where alliances are being redrawn and global order is in flux, the US must tread carefully. Engaging in a trade war with India would not only harm American business interests but also erode the foundation of a strategic partnership that is essential to its Indo-Pacific vision. India, with its demographic dividend, economic momentum, and democratic stability, is not just another trade partner—it is a strategic necessity for the United States. It worth mentioned the famous quote of former US president Barack Obama, “India is not simply an emerging power; it is already a world power, and a natural partner of the United States.” So, instead of trade conflict, collaboration should guide the next phase of India-US relations, Donald Trump must rethink.

 A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically.

The chequered history of antagonistic stances during the decades-long USA-Soviet Union Cold War and subsequent détente, which brought Capitol Hill and Raisina Hill closer, shaped by geopolitical power balances between the world’s oldest and youngest democratic countries, is a tell-tale sign of the complexity and dynamics of their relationship. A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically. At a time when the US is already deeply entrenched in a tech and trade cold war with China, the feasibility of sustaining another trade conflict, particularly with a strategic partner like India, appears both impractical and unwise. Such a conflict could overshadow the efforts of former US presidents like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who extended an olive branch to Delhi to work together on common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change. The trade war between the United States and China, initiated under the Trump administration and continued with nuanced strategies by President Joe Biden, has disrupted global supply chains, increased tariffs, and led to decoupling in key sectors like semiconductors, AI, 5G, and pharmaceuticals. This rivalry is not just about economics but also technology supremacy, national security, and ideological competition between democratic and authoritarian models of governance. The US is now actively working to "de-risk" from China, which includes encouraging Chian Plus One strategy, manufacturing relocations, forming trade partnerships with democratic nations, and controlling Chinese access to cutting-edge technologies. In this strategic calculus, India has emerged as a natural partner—not only because of its shared democratic values, but also due to its economic potential, strategic location, and growing technological prowess. India, with a population of over 1.4 billion and a GDP nearing USD 4 trillion, is the world's fastest-growing major economy, placing it behind the United States with a GDP of USD 30.51 trillion, China at USD19.23 trillion, and Germany at USD 4.74 trillion. It is projected to become the third-largest economy by 2030. More importantly, it is a robust democracy, unlike China, and has a young, digitally enabled consumer base. Over the years, successive Indian governments—whether led by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have nurtured deeper ties with the United States. From the civil nuclear deal during the Manmohan Singh-Bush era to the strengthening of QUAD and signing of key defense agreements under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Biden, bilateral ties have touched new heights. "Howdy Modi" and "Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar," the reverberations of which are still echoing around the world, have cemented India-US relations with an emotional bond between PM Modi and Trump. The US now sees India as a central pillar of its Indo-Pacific strategy, aimed at counterbalancing Chinese influence in the region. From military cooperation and joint exercises like Malabar to investments in critical technologies and semiconductors, India’s positioning with the US has become more strategic than transactional. Can the US Sustain Strained Ties with India? Engaging in a trade war with India, especially in the current geopolitical climate, could be counterproductive for the United States. Here are five compelling reasons WHY: 1. India as a Consumer Powerhouse India is one of the largest markets for American companies in sectors like technology, defense, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and energy. US giants such as Apple, Amazon, Boeing, and Tesla see India as a critical growth destination. Restricting trade or imposing tariffs would directly impact US corporate interests. Moreover, India’s increasing emphasis on local manufacturing (Make in India, PLI schemes) is creating opportunities for American investments in electronics, green energy, and EVs. Disrupting this potential through a trade war could push India toward alternative partners such as Russia or the EU. 2. A Reliable Democratic Ally in Asia As the US seeks to strengthen global democracies and build resilient supply chains, India remains the only large, stable, and democratic counterweight to China in Asia. Its neutral stance in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war has also demonstrated India's commitment to strategic autonomy, a quality the US respects. India’s G20 presidency and leadership role in the Global South further enhance its diplomatic influence. Isolating or antagonizing such a partner could weaken the US's broader goals of forming a rules-based global order. 3. Economic Interdependence In the fiscal year 2024–25, India–US trade reached USD 131.8 billion, comprising USD 86.5 billion in exports from India and USD 45.3 billion in imports, making the US India’s largest trading partner. This shows a strong and robust strategic economic relationship between the two countries. Nearly 2,000 American companies operate in India, while Indian firms have invested over USD 40 billion in the US, creating around 425,000 jobs that is documented in a report titled "Indian Roots, American Soil”. This economic interdependence serves as a buffer against abrupt policy shifts or trade hostilities. 4. Geopolitical Timing Matters With tensions in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and Ukraine-Russia conflict still unresolved, the US cannot afford to lose India as a regional ally. Unlike Cold War times, today’s conflicts are multipolar and multidimensional—ranging from cyberspace to climate diplomacy. India’s cooperation is crucial in areas like AI regulation, global data flows, cybersecurity, and space exploration. 5. India-US for Global Peace India and the US, united, can ensure global peace, prosperity, and stability. India, once counted among the 'Fragile Five' nations, as coined by investment firm Morgan Stanley, today finds itself among the 'Fabulous Five' economies of the world. The strong base of the Indian diaspora in the US works with honesty and dedication, in line with the spirit of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (The World is One Family). The India-America partnership operates on the principle of promoting global peace. Pragmatism Over Provocation Of course, India and the US have their share of trade disputes—ranging from tariffs on agricultural products and medical devices to data localization policies and digital taxation. But these should be addressed through dialogue and negotiation mechanisms such as the US-India Trade Policy Forum, rather than retaliatory measures. Both nations are members of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and have begun collaborating on semiconductor supply chains, critical minerals, and AI governance. These positive developments must be leveraged to create a roadmap for sustainable, balanced trade rather than indulging in protectionist impulses. In an era where alliances are being redrawn and global order is in flux, the US must tread carefully. Engaging in a trade war with India would not only harm American business interests but also erode the foundation of a strategic partnership that is essential to its Indo-Pacific vision. India, with its demographic dividend, economic momentum, and democratic stability, is not just another trade partner—it is a strategic necessity for the United States. It worth mentioned the famous quote of former US president Barack Obama, “India is not simply an emerging power; it is already a world power, and a natural partner of the United States.” So, instead of trade conflict, collaboration should guide the next phase of India-US relations, Donald Trump must rethink.

&nbsp;A high-voltage trade war between the United States and India could have far-reaching consequences—not just economically, but also diplomatically and strategically.

Can US afford trade war with India amid evolving geopolitics? 5 must-know geopolitical realities

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach?&nbsp;Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen.&nbsp;&nbsp;Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy?&nbsp;Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was everyexpectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations.&nbsp;How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs?&nbsp;Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions.&nbsp;Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically?&nbsp;Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well.&nbsp;Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan?&nbsp;Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah.&nbsp;In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory?&nbsp;Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that.&nbsp;On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

What are your thoughts on the overall economy so far? From your perspective as a scholar, how do you see the current situation? Specifically, with the US prioritising tariffs and placing itself first, what is your opinion on this approach? Yeah, look, I mean, at one level, this reflects a kind of view taken by the administration and by this president, that the U.S., for a very long time, has borne the costs of global public goods, right? So, setting up the WTO or the United Nations, or whatever it is, and that the U.S. has not earned the proportionate return from having borne those costs. So this is a perspective. There are many who would disagree with that perspective and push back, saying that in fact the U.S. has done extremely well, and that the kind of post-World War II, postwar trading regime or geopolitical system that was in place has actually served U.S. interests and the U.S. economy very well. But be that as it may, right? So this idea that America has to be first, and that other countries are exploiting the United States and so on, is a particular type of view, and the view that, for example, trade deficits the U.S. is experiencing, or has experienced for many decades now, reflect some sort of exploitative intent by other countries toward the United States. I personally disagree with that, but that's where the thinking is, and that's where the policy is emanating from in Washington, right? So very clearly, it's led to a very high degree of economic uncertainty, a very high degree of geoeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. And where this all ends, we’ll see. We're still very much in a stage of transition. And, as I’m sure you’ve noticed as well, just over the last three or four months, even under this administration, there have been tons of announcements: the recalls of the tariffs, delayed tariffs, changes in tariffs. And so, you know, where all this actually settles, and what finally is implemented, I guess, is yet to be seen. Do you think the Indian diaspora in the U.S. views Trump’s tariffs as a setback to the growing U.S.-India trade partnership or just part of a tough negotiation strategy? Yeah, but given the very positive trajectory of U.S.–India trade relations both in an economic sense and a geopolitical sense over the last several decades, I think there was certainly an expectation that this would be continued, and maybe even improved, under the new Trump administration, especially given the apparently friendly relationship between the two leaders, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump. So there was every expectation going into this that there would be continuity or even an improvement in that trajectory. So, in a certain sense, then, the tariff announcements and the trade negotiations are, in fact, a setback. But let's be careful, I mean, the dust really hasn’t settled on this issue. The tariffs announced for India, even they are not permanent; they can be changed anytime, really. And as I understand it, at least, negotiations are still ongoing. So we’ll wait and see where things finally settle. Maybe this is just a tough negotiation strategy. Maybe it’s going to be the case that the eventual outcome is a trade deal that leaves both countries in a better position than where they are today. That’s entirely conceivable. And so, that’s yet to be seen. I think most people are just still taking in the news. In terms of the diaspora, I don’t think they’ve really had a chance to fully process what it is that’s going on. That being said, I’m sure that there are many who are surprised, and maybe a bit disappointed, by the toughness of the statement from the White House with respect to India, right? So this stance taken in these negotiations seems to focus very narrowly on the issue of international trade, trade deficits, and business, and doesn’t seem to give any allowance or room for the broader goal of improving economic and geopolitical linkages between the two countries. So I think there’s some element of surprise there, that the kind of positive connection that was building, and where the momentum had been growing over the past many years, including very recently, I would add, that somehow, that seems to have been set aside. And these negotiations are on a kind of track that seems to have their own momentum, independent of those broader considerations. How do you see these tariffs affecting that mission and the broader sentiment among Indian-American entrepreneurs? Yeah, current tariffs will certainly lower trade. And this is especially consequential because, on the one hand, one of the dominant themes of the last decade or at least the last half-decade has been this U.S. attempt to pivot away from overreliance on China. The so-called “China plus one” strategy, where you have China as a key supplier of goods to the U.S., but you’re also looking for other partners. And India was certainly one of the countries mentioned very often in that context, as a possible alternative platform for manufacturing particularly for the kinds of goods the U.S. needs to import. So that was an interesting window of opportunity, both for Indian businesspeople and for entrepreneurs in the U.S. And some of those opportunities were taken some very high-profile, including Apple setting up shop and opening a plant in India to manufacture iPhones and so on. So that, too, was something on a positive trajectory. But that becomes harder when there’s friction in the flow of goods between the two countries whether it’s Indian goods being exported to the U.S., or U.S. goods going to India, or U.S. companies setting up manufacturing plants and sending intermediate inputs from the U.S. to be processed and finalized, then sent back to the States. All of this type of exchange starts to become more problematic in the presence of tariffs. And so, if the tariffs are implemented and stay in place for some time, I’m sure there will be negative impacts on businesses on both sides of the border, and there’s bound to be some apprehension about that. That being said, I still think there’s an opportunity for India and the U.S. to work out a better trade arrangement even given the particular concerns expressed by the White House. I think there’s room for India to look at its own tariff regime, which is undoubtedly characterized by high tariffs in some manufacturing and other sectors, and ask some tough questions about what type of liberalization it can realistically undertake. One that could, on the one hand, satisfy American demands, and on the other, actually help the Indian economy itself. So this shouldn’t be seen purely as a concession to the United States. These are tariff reductions that could help Indian consumers, and also Indian producers especially if these are intermediate inputs coming in from the U.S. that would aid domestic production. In many ways, these goals are actually joint goals. If you think about Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” aspiration and President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with its emphasis on manufacturing these two goals can be reconciled. I still believe a trade negotiation and deal could achieve both. And so I’m optimistic about that. I’m sure the business community remains optimistic as well. That being said, there’s no doubt we’re in a period of great uncertainty about policy. I expect this will hurt business sentiment and likely freeze, or at least pause, some investment plans and new business ideas that people were thinking about. And overall, when the whole concept was first introduced by the administration, they were proud to announce that everything was going to be “made in America.” But from an economic standpoint, we understand that importing goods from countries like China and others with cheaper labor and inputs often makes more sense than trying to build something like an iPhone entirely within America. Because at the end of the day, the costs of that approach are going to be felt by consumers. And ultimately, it all comes down to the consumer being affected by the cost of these decisions. Many in the diaspora identify as both proud Americans and proud Indians. How are they navigating this moment where the two countries may appear at odds economically? Yeah, let me take both of these slightly separately, right? So your first point about the benefits of international trade you're a good student of international trade, and so you know there are benefits to mutual exchange and so on. And I think that’s obvious, that’s visible. By and large, I would think that public sentiment in the United States as well as political sentiment over many decades has been broadly in support of free trade. And that’s reflected in the fact that the U.S. is a relatively open economy I’d say a very significantly open economy and has been for many decades. That being said, I think this kind of increasing concern in the U.S. is not completely unjustified when it applies to specific issues. So, if you reach a point where you're over-reliant on a particular country for crucial imports imports that may have national security implications then it’s very natural to recalibrate and rethink: how reliant are we on, say, China? We’re not talking about the import of Barbies and Kendalls here. If it’s rare earths, semiconductors, communications devices, and so on, I think it’s reasonable for a country to ask itself: what can we do to ensure our national security interests aren't threatened? Now, whether the response that’s actually come out of the White House is the right one to that concern I think it’s been too broad in its sweep. Alongside chips and sensitive technologies, the policy also targets everything else plastic toys, razor blades, every other goddamn thing in the world. So, it seems poorly targeted, if you will. So that’s the question about international trade the benefits of trade versus concerns about over-concentration which, again, I’d summarize as legitimate, but perhaps not adequately or efficiently addressed by the current policy. On the Indian diaspora I’m sure there’s a wide range of views and reactions to recent developments. Some are hoping this is temporary and will get resolved. Others are more pensive, not just about what this means for international trade relations, but also for broader relations between India and the U.S., and even the U.S. and the rest of the world. There are immigration concerns; people are worried about the way the U.S. is engaging the world and the shift that appears to be taking place. So yes, there are many different concerns. But I think one important thing to recognize in the midst of all this and it’s important for your readership as well is that it’s not as if India has been specifically singled out by this administration. India has not been uniquely targeted. Very close allies of the U.S. like the European Union, Japan, NATO countries, South Korea, Mexico, Canada have all been in similar positions. These are strong military and economic allies, many of whom are part of long-standing trade agreements like NAFTA, and even they have been targeted by high tariffs and have gone through tough negotiations with the U.S., many of which remain unresolved. So from the standpoint of proud Indians and proud Indian Americans, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not something specific to India it reflects a broader policy shift. Of course, we can remain disappointed with the policy that’s valid but this should not be viewed as an action aimed solely at India. I’m sure everyone wishes for a smooth resolution that addresses the core interests of both countries to mutual benefit. And I remain optimistic about that as well. Pakistan has proven conventional crude oil reserves estimated at around 200 to 300 million barrels and is ranked as the 50th largest oil importer in the world. Given this, what are your thoughts on the new oil pact between the USA and Pakistan? Frankly, I was surprised to see that announcement as I think many others were. I didn’t know that Pakistan had major oil reserves. Maybe someone unearthed reserves that we were previously unaware of, and we’ll just have to wait for future announcements on that. And I’ll just leave it at that, right? Of course, if there are oil reserves and there’s interest in developing them, the U.S. is free to engage in those businesses as it sees fit and so is Pakistan. So I don’t know much more about the Pakistan issue, especially with respect to oil reserves. Yeah. In closing, how do you foresee this evolving in the future? Is there potential for additional tariffs to be implemented, and could we see a further increase in figures for the United States and India? The current 25% rate may well rise. What is your perspective on this trajectory? Look, my thoughts on this operate at two or three different levels. One, purely from the perspective of just going into the U.S. or India or any other country lowering tariffs would be a good thing, right? There’s a very long economic history of the world that shows the benefits of international trade, the benefits of freer international trade, and that really can’t be ignored. And right now, we seem to be going against that experience. So I hope, at some point, that what we’re seeing is just the positioning and posturing that comes with negotiations and that once those are complete, we’ll return to more reasonable levels of tariffs that support global commerce in the way it has done so effectively in the past. Trade has helped generate prosperity and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past few decades. All of that has been supported by a relatively open international trading system, and I hope we can return to that. On the other hand, I’m actually concerned and I say this as someone who works in international economics and trade, and who has spent time thinking about the global trade system, the WTO, and so on. This kind of unilateral action by the United States, as I see it, violates many of the rules and norms of the WTO. And that has left the WTO in a very weak position. It clearly cannot enforce its own rules when one of its most powerful members chooses to act outside them. That weakens the overall structure of international trade law the rules that countries have broadly followed since the GATT and the WTO came into existence. It wasn’t a perfect system far from it but there was a framework. And now we have to ask: What is the future of that system, if countries can just decide, with little notice, to pull back from it or violate its principles, and do so without consequence? If the U.S. can do it, so can others. And if arbitrariness becomes the norm, then a lot of countries facing economic or political difficulties may start to do the same. That’s a real concern, one of the potentially lasting consequences of these recent developments. This is an old point but one that economists and students of international trade know well: It is to remind your readers that when a country imposes tariffs, the cost is largely borne by that country itself. Sure, some of that cost may be passed on to the exporting country, because they might lower their prices to stay competitive. But for the most part, and there are many quantitative studies to support this the cost falls on the importing country. Even with the tariffs the U.S. imposed on China in recent years, studies have shown that 90% of the cost was borne by the U.S. by U.S. consumers.

Pravin Krishna, Intl Economics Prof, Johns Hopkins SAIS, spoke to WION's Dhruv Goyal and shared insights on the evolving US-India trade relationship. He emphasised the importance of strategic partnership, mutual respect, and optimism for a balanced resolution despite tariff war.

US–India trade at a crossroads: An expert’s take on tariffs and diplomacy in Trump's world

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

Putin's Hug, Xi's Smile: Modi's message to Trump's America

A Brahmin Blunder: Navarro’s weaponised misunderstanding of caste and class

Trump 2.0 – A revealing message on a red hat

PM Modi in Japan, on a larger Asia mission

From ‘Mera Joota Hai Japani’ to ‘Make for the World’, Modi's push for stability

Bigg Boss' Tanya Mittal is the final boss of 'Pick me'

Why India still can’t build its own jet engine – even after 40 years

Scourge of dowry in India—How 'log kya kahenge?' ensures the practice never ends

Online Gaming: PM Modi’s Push for Esports Rooted in Ethical Entertainment

When Mysore' young maharaja made India fly: Forgotten hero of our aviation story

Trump’s treatment of India draws fire from US foreign policy experts

‘Slapping Democracy’? Global politics of ATTACKS that deface humane civility

Trump juggles a Putin call, European doubts, and Zelensky’s hopes for a deal

War or peace – at Alaska and beyond

Cars are getting electric! Are e-buses the next big leap?

Alaska without a deal: The Trump–Putin summit and the war that won’t end

Nuke threat from US soil: Why Asim Munir’s threats imperil South Asian stability

Forging strategic ties: How India–Australia army cooperation shapes Indo-Pacific

Banning books is like banning the right to breathe. It never works. Here’s why!

A Theatre of Fear: Why Pakistan's 'Half the World' gambit does not impress India

Will KL Rahul’s resilience reward him a place in the Indian squad for Asia Cup?

The dangerous virality: How social media fuels misinformation in times of war

Can US afford trade war with India amid evolving geopolitics? 5 realities here

US–India trade at a crossroads: An expert’s take on tariffs and diplomacy