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

Are we supposed to take the whimsical words of a political leader blurted out in crude language on a social media site at face value?&nbsp; The answer, if we were living in a time where leaders meant what they said and stuck to their words, would be a yes. But then we have a new normal in which the President of the United States, seen as the planet’s most powerful person, summarily describes the economies of Russia and India as “dead” and then in the same breath says the US will explore oil in Pakistan – with the outrageous -sounding prospect that it may sell oil to India someday in the future.&nbsp;&nbsp;While much of the global and media attention has been rightly on US president Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs and penalty on Indian goods ahead of an expected trade pact that potentially hurts India, for all we know, his talk of an oil hunt in Pakistan, so far dismissed as a fantasy in view of some ground realities, may be a red herring to divert attention from something potentially more serious.&nbsp;&nbsp;We know Trump as a negotiator who is willing to go back and forth from his whimsical and often strong positions on trade, inviting the tag of TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out). But it might make more sense if we do not take some of his other statements at face-value and try and figure out if there is a different intent behind his words.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The obvious may not be the real.&nbsp;&nbsp;My guess, given the geopolitical significance of the Arabian Sea for US foreign policy, is that the White House and the State Department may be setting the stage for increased American military presence in the region – because Washington is obviously mindful of the fact that both Iran and China, its prime adversaries on the global chessboard, are close to the scene of action.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <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;Recent US missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations in what seemed like a one-sided pounding may be a sign of things to come, rather than a done and dusted event. Even during the days of Democrat rule, Pakistan was a geopolitical ally of the US, although under pressure to be a democracy.&nbsp; But nothing has changed in the fact that Pakistan’s powerful army is looking for deals, locations and clients to further its interests – and we might just have swapped Iran for Afghanistan in the latest move.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those looking at hard, credible data are reading the tea leaves in the numbers surrounding crude oil reserves in Pakistan. Global energy data estimates Pakistan’s oil reserves at between 234 to 353 million barrels, compared to India, which holds about 5 billion barrels, which is 14 times larger. In global oil rankings, Pakistan is beyond 50 compared with India’s 20-odd in proven reserves. Pakistan’s daily output of 60,000 barrels per day is only a tenth of India’s estimated 600,000 barrels per day.&nbsp;&nbsp;That doesn’t quite add up, particularly when you consider that the world is trying to reduce the consumption of carbon-based fossil fuels amid the backdrop of frenetic growth in environmentally friendly energy sources such as solar, wind, and green hydrogen. A long-stretch explanation is that US energy authorities about a decade ago estimated Pakistan to have 9.1 billion barrels in shale oil resources, compared with India’s 3.8 billion barrels.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is true that the US has its own rich supplies of shale oil, which has helped soften global crude prices, and there are analysts, including consulting firm PriceWaterhouse, who believe this could ease global oil prices by as much as 40% by 2035.&nbsp;&nbsp;That does tally with the fact that Trump has pulled out of the Paris accord on climate change, which basically marks an aggressive push to retain economic advantage based on carbon fuels. On the very first day of his second term on January 20, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change that would have reduced fossil fuel consumption.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here’s where it does get tricky. On the one hand, US has its own shale oil supplies, and it will cost a lot of money to dig for oil in Pakistan. Is it worth it?&nbsp;&nbsp;The exact words of Trump on his Truth Social site might help: "We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Was Trump’s reference to “country of Pakistan” an implicit put-down of Balochistan’s separatists in the mineral-rich province? Mir Yar Baloch, a separatist leader from Balochistan, has written to Trump after the Truth Social post, saying “oil, natural gas, copper, lithium, uranium and rare earth minerals” are indeed present in his province, but in the “Republic of Balochistan” and not Pakistan.&nbsp;&nbsp;Whatever the nuance, it seems the US now has either a geo-economic or geopolitical foothold in Pakistan or nearabouts on the Arabian Sea, ably assisted by uniformed generals in Islamabad. This is being somewhat naively discounted or overlooked in media reports that emphasize more on the fact that Pakistan is a net oil importer (accounting for 85% of&nbsp; its crude consumption) and its oil reserves are exaggerated.&nbsp;&nbsp;A day after Trump’s ranting post, Pakistan’s Oil &amp; Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) announced an oil discovery in Sindh in a licence that signalled an output of 275 barrels of oil per day.&nbsp;&nbsp;But the number may be irrelevant and more like a red herring to divert attention from deeper truths. It seems all this is more about Balochistan separatists, a counter to neighbouring Iran and a long-shot attempt at containing China, which is lording over a critical port at Gwadar in Balochistan.&nbsp;&nbsp;Tensions have been brewing between the US and Iran for a while now especially after the October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel, followed by the Gaza (Palestine) crisis and the conflict involving Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.&nbsp; The US has military bases and warships across a West Asian swathe with an estimated presence of 40,000 troops in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and the UAE. But Balochistan is situated far away. America’s oil hunt may well be a proxy or excuse to for a foothold&nbsp; on or off Pakistan’s Sindh and/or the Balochistan coastline.&nbsp;&nbsp;China has a huge economic presence in Pakistan through its infrastructure-centred China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), involving investments estimated at $65 billion in 2022. But there is no Chinese military presence in Pakistan, though Beijing and Islamabad have had joint military exercises. Chinese personnel involved in CPEC &nbsp;projects have faced security threats. Since 2017, Pakistan’s Gwadar port has been handed over to a Chinese state company on a 40-year lease.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A US presence in Gwadar or its neighbourhood would thus give Washington a vital presence in the Arabian Sea.&nbsp;&nbsp;All that should help us connect some dots, including Trump’s stately White House luncheon for Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, even as India targeted him and Islamabad for backing terror attacks in Kashmir. We also need to weigh in the remark of a key US general that Pakistan is a “phenomenal partner” in Washington’s counter-terrorism efforts.&nbsp;&nbsp;In November last year, at least 32 people were killed in a suicide bombing claimed by the Balochistan Liberation Army at the railway station in Quetta, Balochistan’s capital city.&nbsp; On March 11 this year, BLA militants hijacked the Jaffar Express carrying 440 passengers in nine coaches on its way from Quetta to Peshawar, derailed it by using explosives near a mountainous tunnel mid-journey 160 km from Quetta. Pakistan’s army put the number of killed at 64, including 33 attackers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Weeks later, Munir spoke belligerently about Kashmir being critical for Pakistan, and on April 22, a terror attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir killed 25 Indian tourists and a Nepali visitor, possibly triggering a new chain of geopolitical events.&nbsp;&nbsp;The chronology suggests that Pakistan’s army wants a stronger grip on its neighbourhood and territories, including Balochistan. US-Iran frictions and Washington’s trade war with China only make it easier for the generals in Islamabad to extend a warm handshake to Uncle Sam with whom it has a rocky but long-standing arrangement to offer logistical and intelligence support. The oil hunt may thus well be a forerunner to offer a path for the US military that has no South Asian presence after its troops departed from Taliban-controlled Kabul in 2021.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the very least, the American oil hunt gives Pakistan’s army an expense account signed by the US Congress or oil companies to increase its influence amid a crisis in the local economy. A lot would now depend on how the Trump Administration juggles its multiple ends: trade wars, oil politics and a hunt for rare earth minerals in a shift to new industrial opportunities.&nbsp;

Given the geopolitical significance of the Arabian Sea for US foreign policy, is that the White House and the State Department may be setting the stage for increased American military presence in the region

Are we supposed to take the whimsical words of a political leader blurted out in crude language on a social media site at face value? The answer, if we were living in a time where leaders meant what they said and stuck to their words, would be a yes. But then we have a new normal in which the President of the United States, seen as the planet’s most powerful person, summarily describes the economies of Russia and India as “dead” and then in the same breath says the US will explore oil in Pakistan – with the outrageous -sounding prospect that it may sell oil to India someday in the future. While much of the global and media attention has been rightly on US president Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs and penalty on Indian goods ahead of an expected trade pact that potentially hurts India, for all we know, his talk of an oil hunt in Pakistan, so far dismissed as a fantasy in view of some ground realities, may be a red herring to divert attention from something potentially more serious. We know Trump as a negotiator who is willing to go back and forth from his whimsical and often strong positions on trade, inviting the tag of TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out). But it might make more sense if we do not take some of his other statements at face-value and try and figure out if there is a different intent behind his words. The obvious may not be the real. My guess, given the geopolitical significance of the Arabian Sea for US foreign policy, is that the White House and the State Department may be setting the stage for increased American military presence in the region – because Washington is obviously mindful of the fact that both Iran and China, its prime adversaries on the global chessboard, are close to the scene of action. Also Read: Apache vs Prachand: The high-altitude battle that India's indigenous helicopter already won Recent US missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations in what seemed like a one-sided pounding may be a sign of things to come, rather than a done and dusted event. Even during the days of Democrat rule, Pakistan was a geopolitical ally of the US, although under pressure to be a democracy. But nothing has changed in the fact that Pakistan’s powerful army is looking for deals, locations and clients to further its interests – and we might just have swapped Iran for Afghanistan in the latest move. Those looking at hard, credible data are reading the tea leaves in the numbers surrounding crude oil reserves in Pakistan. Global energy data estimates Pakistan’s oil reserves at between 234 to 353 million barrels, compared to India, which holds about 5 billion barrels, which is 14 times larger. In global oil rankings, Pakistan is beyond 50 compared with India’s 20-odd in proven reserves. Pakistan’s daily output of 60,000 barrels per day is only a tenth of India’s estimated 600,000 barrels per day. That doesn’t quite add up, particularly when you consider that the world is trying to reduce the consumption of carbon-based fossil fuels amid the backdrop of frenetic growth in environmentally friendly energy sources such as solar, wind, and green hydrogen. A long-stretch explanation is that US energy authorities about a decade ago estimated Pakistan to have 9.1 billion barrels in shale oil resources, compared with India’s 3.8 billion barrels. It is true that the US has its own rich supplies of shale oil, which has helped soften global crude prices, and there are analysts, including consulting firm PriceWaterhouse, who believe this could ease global oil prices by as much as 40% by 2035. That does tally with the fact that Trump has pulled out of the Paris accord on climate change, which basically marks an aggressive push to retain economic advantage based on carbon fuels. On the very first day of his second term on January 20, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change that would have reduced fossil fuel consumption. Here’s where it does get tricky. On the one hand, US has its own shale oil supplies, and it will cost a lot of money to dig for oil in Pakistan. Is it worth it? The exact words of Trump on his Truth Social site might help: "We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves.” Was Trump’s reference to “country of Pakistan” an implicit put-down of Balochistan’s separatists in the mineral-rich province? Mir Yar Baloch, a separatist leader from Balochistan, has written to Trump after the Truth Social post, saying “oil, natural gas, copper, lithium, uranium and rare earth minerals” are indeed present in his province, but in the “Republic of Balochistan” and not Pakistan. Whatever the nuance, it seems the US now has either a geo-economic or geopolitical foothold in Pakistan or nearabouts on the Arabian Sea, ably assisted by uniformed generals in Islamabad. This is being somewhat naively discounted or overlooked in media reports that emphasize more on the fact that Pakistan is a net oil importer (accounting for 85% of its crude consumption) and its oil reserves are exaggerated. A day after Trump’s ranting post, Pakistan’s Oil & Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) announced an oil discovery in Sindh in a licence that signalled an output of 275 barrels of oil per day. But the number may be irrelevant and more like a red herring to divert attention from deeper truths. It seems all this is more about Balochistan separatists, a counter to neighbouring Iran and a long-shot attempt at containing China, which is lording over a critical port at Gwadar in Balochistan. Tensions have been brewing between the US and Iran for a while now especially after the October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel, followed by the Gaza (Palestine) crisis and the conflict involving Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The US has military bases and warships across a West Asian swathe with an estimated presence of 40,000 troops in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and the UAE. But Balochistan is situated far away. America’s oil hunt may well be a proxy or excuse to for a foothold on or off Pakistan’s Sindh and/or the Balochistan coastline. China has a huge economic presence in Pakistan through its infrastructure-centred China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), involving investments estimated at $65 billion in 2022. But there is no Chinese military presence in Pakistan, though Beijing and Islamabad have had joint military exercises. Chinese personnel involved in CPEC projects have faced security threats. Since 2017, Pakistan’s Gwadar port has been handed over to a Chinese state company on a 40-year lease. A US presence in Gwadar or its neighbourhood would thus give Washington a vital presence in the Arabian Sea. All that should help us connect some dots, including Trump’s stately White House luncheon for Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, even as India targeted him and Islamabad for backing terror attacks in Kashmir. We also need to weigh in the remark of a key US general that Pakistan is a “phenomenal partner” in Washington’s counter-terrorism efforts. In November last year, at least 32 people were killed in a suicide bombing claimed by the Balochistan Liberation Army at the railway station in Quetta, Balochistan’s capital city. On March 11 this year, BLA militants hijacked the Jaffar Express carrying 440 passengers in nine coaches on its way from Quetta to Peshawar, derailed it by using explosives near a mountainous tunnel mid-journey 160 km from Quetta. Pakistan’s army put the number of killed at 64, including 33 attackers. Weeks later, Munir spoke belligerently about Kashmir being critical for Pakistan, and on April 22, a terror attack in Pahalgam in Kashmir killed 25 Indian tourists and a Nepali visitor, possibly triggering a new chain of geopolitical events. The chronology suggests that Pakistan’s army wants a stronger grip on its neighbourhood and territories, including Balochistan. US-Iran frictions and Washington’s trade war with China only make it easier for the generals in Islamabad to extend a warm handshake to Uncle Sam with whom it has a rocky but long-standing arrangement to offer logistical and intelligence support. The oil hunt may thus well be a forerunner to offer a path for the US military that has no South Asian presence after its troops departed from Taliban-controlled Kabul in 2021. At the very least, the American oil hunt gives Pakistan’s army an expense account signed by the US Congress or oil companies to increase its influence amid a crisis in the local economy. A lot would now depend on how the Trump Administration juggles its multiple ends: trade wars, oil politics and a hunt for rare earth minerals in a shift to new industrial opportunities.

Given the geopolitical significance of the Arabian Sea for US foreign policy, is that the White House and the State Department may be setting the stage for increased American military presence in the region.

Reality check: American oil hunt in Pakistan may serve as cover for US military presence

The question isn't whether HAL's indigenous helicopters can compete with the legendary Apache AH-64E—it's whether we're asking the right question at all. As the first Apache helicopters finally touched down at India's Hindan Air Force Station last month after months of delays, and with India simultaneously committing ₹62,700 crore to 156 additional Prachand helicopters, the real story isn't about fierce competition but strategic complementarity.&nbsp;Yet beneath this pragmatic division of labor lies a profound shift that defense analysts worldwide should note: India's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter Prachand has achieved something the mighty Apache cannot—dominance in the world's highest battlefields.&nbsp;The Myth of Direct Competition&nbsp;The defense media loves a good versus story, but the HAL Rudra versus Apache narrative misses the mark entirely. The real competition has been between the newer LCH Prachand and the Apache, and it's already over in the domain that matters most for India's security: high-altitude warfare.&nbsp;Consider the stark operational reality: while the Apache has faced reported challenges in high-altitude conditions, the Prachand has been conducting routine operations at altitudes that would significantly limit most attack helicopters worldwide. This isn't just about technical specifications—it's about strategic autonomy in India's most critical theater.&nbsp;Where Physics Meets Geopolitics&nbsp;The physics are unforgiving at altitude. Engine performance and payload capacity drop dramatically in thin air, and what works at sea level becomes potentially lethal at 15,000 feet. While the Apache, despite its formidable reputation and powerful engines, has a service ceiling of around 6,400 meters (21,000 feet), the Prachand operates comfortably up to 6,500 meters (21,300 feet) and has demonstrated landing capabilities at 4,800 meters (15,800 feet) on the Siachen Glacier, which is the world's highest battleground.&nbsp;This isn't merely academic. In an era where India faces its most serious border tensions with China in decades, the ability to project power in the Himalayas isn't just advantageous—it's existential. The Prachand's unique capability to operate where no other attack helicopter can effectively function gives India an asymmetric advantage that money cannot buy from foreign suppliers.&nbsp;The Economics of Strategic Independence&nbsp;Beyond operational superiority in high-altitude warfare, the Prachand represents something equally important: proof that indigenous development can deliver world-class capabilities at a fraction of foreign costs. At approximately $50 million per unit (₹ 438 Crores) compared to the Apache's estimated $100 million(₹ 877 Crores) &nbsp;price tag, India can field twice as many Prachands for the same budget.&nbsp;But the true value proposition extends beyond unit costs. Indigenous production means indigenous control—over maintenance, upgrades, production timelines, and most critically, geopolitical independence. The reported Apache delays due to U.S. supply chain issues (such as the recent 15-month delay in the Army's Apache deliveries) serve as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in foreign dependency, especially for critical defense capabilities.&nbsp;Redefining Victory in Military Procurement&nbsp;The question of who "wins" between these platforms reveals outdated thinking about military competition. Modern warfare demands specialized solutions for specialized environments. The Apache remains unquestionably superior for desert tank warfare, urban operations, and conventional battlefields where its heavy firepower and proven systems shine. Its advanced systems like the Longbow radar and ability to control UAVs are significant advantages.&nbsp;However, in the specific context of India's strategic challenges—where high-altitude operations along disputed borders represent the most likely conflict scenarios—the Prachand doesn't just compete with the Apache; it surpasses it in the only arena that truly matters for Indian security.&nbsp;Lessons for Global Defense Strategy&nbsp;India's approach offers broader lessons for nations developing indigenous defense capabilities. Rather than attempting to replicate foreign systems wholesale, focus on solving unique national challenges that existing platforms cannot address effectively. The Prachand succeeded not by trying to be another Apache, but by being something the Apache could never be: a high-altitude attack helicopter optimized for Himalayan warfare.&nbsp;This specialization strategy is increasingly relevant as military technologies become more sophisticated and operational environments more diverse. The era of one-size-fits-all platforms is ending, replaced by mission-specific solutions that excel in particular domains.&nbsp;The Verdict&nbsp;In the fierce competition between indigenous innovation and proven foreign technology, there is no universal winner—only strategic relevance. The Apache remains the gold standard for global attack helicopter operations, with unmatched combat experience and raw firepower. But in the thin air of the Himalayas, where India's most critical security challenges await, the Prachand has already won a competition the Apache never truly entered.&nbsp;As geopolitical tensions continue to rise and supply chain vulnerabilities become national security concerns, India's success with the Prachand demonstrates that strategic independence isn't just about pride—it's about ensuring that when the stakes are highest, your military capabilities aren't dependent on someone else's decisions.&nbsp;The real competition isn't between helicopters—it's between dependence and autonomy. And in that competition, the Prachand's victory is complete. &nbsp;

Beyond operational superiority in high-altitude warfare, the Prachand represents something equally important: proof that indigenous development can deliver world-class capabilities at a fraction of foreign costs.

The question isn't whether HAL's indigenous helicopters can compete with the legendary Apache AH-64E—it's whether we're asking the right question at all. As the first Apache helicopters finally touched down at India's Hindan Air Force Station last month after months of delays, and with India simultaneously committing ₹62,700 crore to 156 additional Prachand helicopters, the real story isn't about fierce competition but strategic complementarity. Yet beneath this pragmatic division of labor lies a profound shift that defense analysts worldwide should note: India's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter Prachand has achieved something the mighty Apache cannot—dominance in the world's highest battlefields. The Myth of Direct Competition The defense media loves a good versus story, but the HAL Rudra versus Apache narrative misses the mark entirely. The real competition has been between the newer LCH Prachand and the Apache, and it's already over in the domain that matters most for India's security: high-altitude warfare. Consider the stark operational reality: while the Apache has faced reported challenges in high-altitude conditions, the Prachand has been conducting routine operations at altitudes that would significantly limit most attack helicopters worldwide. This isn't just about technical specifications—it's about strategic autonomy in India's most critical theater. Where Physics Meets Geopolitics The physics are unforgiving at altitude. Engine performance and payload capacity drop dramatically in thin air, and what works at sea level becomes potentially lethal at 15,000 feet. While the Apache, despite its formidable reputation and powerful engines, has a service ceiling of around 6,400 meters (21,000 feet), the Prachand operates comfortably up to 6,500 meters (21,300 feet) and has demonstrated landing capabilities at 4,800 meters (15,800 feet) on the Siachen Glacier, which is the world's highest battleground. This isn't merely academic. In an era where India faces its most serious border tensions with China in decades, the ability to project power in the Himalayas isn't just advantageous—it's existential. The Prachand's unique capability to operate where no other attack helicopter can effectively function gives India an asymmetric advantage that money cannot buy from foreign suppliers. The Economics of Strategic Independence Beyond operational superiority in high-altitude warfare, the Prachand represents something equally important: proof that indigenous development can deliver world-class capabilities at a fraction of foreign costs. At approximately $50 million per unit (₹ 438 Crores) compared to the Apache's estimated $100 million(₹ 877 Crores) price tag, India can field twice as many Prachands for the same budget. But the true value proposition extends beyond unit costs. Indigenous production means indigenous control—over maintenance, upgrades, production timelines, and most critically, geopolitical independence. The reported Apache delays due to U.S. supply chain issues (such as the recent 15-month delay in the Army's Apache deliveries) serve as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in foreign dependency, especially for critical defense capabilities. Redefining Victory in Military Procurement The question of who "wins" between these platforms reveals outdated thinking about military competition. Modern warfare demands specialized solutions for specialized environments. The Apache remains unquestionably superior for desert tank warfare, urban operations, and conventional battlefields where its heavy firepower and proven systems shine. Its advanced systems like the Longbow radar and ability to control UAVs are significant advantages. However, in the specific context of India's strategic challenges—where high-altitude operations along disputed borders represent the most likely conflict scenarios—the Prachand doesn't just compete with the Apache; it surpasses it in the only arena that truly matters for Indian security. Lessons for Global Defense Strategy India's approach offers broader lessons for nations developing indigenous defense capabilities. Rather than attempting to replicate foreign systems wholesale, focus on solving unique national challenges that existing platforms cannot address effectively. The Prachand succeeded not by trying to be another Apache, but by being something the Apache could never be: a high-altitude attack helicopter optimized for Himalayan warfare. This specialization strategy is increasingly relevant as military technologies become more sophisticated and operational environments more diverse. The era of one-size-fits-all platforms is ending, replaced by mission-specific solutions that excel in particular domains. The Verdict In the fierce competition between indigenous innovation and proven foreign technology, there is no universal winner—only strategic relevance. The Apache remains the gold standard for global attack helicopter operations, with unmatched combat experience and raw firepower. But in the thin air of the Himalayas, where India's most critical security challenges await, the Prachand has already won a competition the Apache never truly entered. As geopolitical tensions continue to rise and supply chain vulnerabilities become national security concerns, India's success with the Prachand demonstrates that strategic independence isn't just about pride—it's about ensuring that when the stakes are highest, your military capabilities aren't dependent on someone else's decisions. The real competition isn't between helicopters—it's between dependence and autonomy. And in that competition, the Prachand's victory is complete.

Beyond operational superiority in high-altitude warfare, the Prachand represents something equally important: proof that indigenous development can deliver world-class capabilities at a fraction of foreign costs.

Apache vs Prachand: The high-altitude battle that India's indigenous helicopter already won

It took just six months from US President Donald Trump showering praise on his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, to berating him as the leader of a ‘dead economy” aligned with Russia.&nbsp;In February, Trump greeted 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.”&nbsp;Trump’s shower of praise did not end there. “He is a much tougher negotiator than me, and he is a much better negotiator than me. There is not even a contest.” &nbsp;&nbsp;Praise for the “tough negotiator” soon faded when efforts to forge a bilateral trade deal between the world’s biggest economy and the world’s most populous country ran into difficulties over a number of U.S. demands on which India refused to budge. They included opening agricultural markets and India halting imports of Russian oil.&nbsp;Doing so, Trump argued, would prop up the Russian economy and thus prolong the war of aggression President Vladimir Putin unleashed on Ukraine in February 2022. &nbsp;&nbsp;India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian oil prompted an angry Trump social media posting warning of a penalty on top of the 25 per cent tariff due to take effect this week, along with levies of different sizes on most countries.&nbsp;“I don’t care what India does with Russia,” he said in a posting on his Truth Social site on July 29, a day before the official start of his global trade war. “They can take their dead economies together, for all I care.”&nbsp;Exaggeration is the hallmark of the American president. India does not have a “dead economy”. On the contrary: The latest report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) singles India out as the world’s fastest-growing major economy, with GDP projected to grow 6.4 per cent both for the rest of 2025 and 2026.&nbsp;Some economists predict that India is on track to overtake Japan as the world’s fourth-largest economy. &nbsp;&nbsp;Trump has said that the US and India will continue negotiating a trade deal even after the August 1 deadline set for global tariffs. &nbsp;&nbsp;India has reacted calmly to Trump’s obvious anger, with a spokesman saying it had taken note of his statement and remained committed to concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial trade agreement. Another round of talks is scheduled for later this month. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;While American and Indian negotiators wrestled over points of contention, the Trump administration moved closer to Pakistan, concluding a deal to help develop what Trump called Pakistan’s “massive oil reserves” (experts scoff at the label “massive”).&nbsp;The US company that will lead the project is yet to be named, he said, adding mockingly, “maybe they’ll be selling oil to India some day.” The oil deal had an immediate effect on Pakistan: its tariffs, initially pegged at 29 percent, came down to 19 per cent.&nbsp;The oil agreement was preceded by a protocol-breaking visit to the White House in June by the Pakistani Army Chief, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir. It was a gesture clearly designed to irritate India -- and the first time a sitting US president had hosted the head of Pakistan’s army, which has long dominated the Pakistani political landscape.&nbsp;In theory, there is a set formula for the percentage of tariffs the United States applies to its trade partners around the globe. It is tied to America’s bilateral trade deficit – how much more the US imports from a country than exports to it. That gap is then divided in half to arrive at what the government calls “discounted reciprocal tariff.”&nbsp;In practice, Trump has been using tariffs in some cases as a tool of geopolitics. &nbsp;The most striking example is his decision to saddle Brazil with a 50 per cent rate despite the fact that the country has a trade surplus with the US The US leader explained the reason in an extraordinary letter to Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva.&nbsp;His predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, a close friend of Trump, is on trial, charged with leading an attempted coup to overturn the elections he lost. Trump called the trial a “witch hunt” and an international disgrace that should end immediately. The Supreme Court judge who handles the case reacted by ordering Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor and banning him from contact with foreign governments.&nbsp;&nbsp;The line between tariffs set by a formula and deals pleasing to Washington is also blurred by the ten per cent reduction granted to Pakistan after the announcement of the oil deal.&nbsp;India appears unfazed by the threat of a penalty for buying Russian oil. On Saturday, officials in Delhi told the Reuters news agency that India would keep purchasing Russian oil because it could not violate long-term contracts. &nbsp;&nbsp;The main buyers of Russian oil have been China and India, and their supply has propped up an economy weakened by the huge cost of the war against Ukraine.&nbsp;Trump originally set a 50-day deadline for Russia to reach a deal to end the war, but shortened it to 12 days – which would be next week. Failure to comply would result in so-called secondary sanctions – that could mean slapping 100 per cent tariffs on buyers of Russian oil. Experts say that would disrupt global oil supplies.&nbsp;China and the US are still wrangling over tariffs during a 90-day truce that expires on August 12. Washington rhetoric on China, its biggest trade partner, has been noticeably more restrained in recent days than criticism of India.&nbsp;The latest broadside against India came on Sunday from Steve Miller, one of Trump’s closest aides, who said in a television interview that “it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing oil from Russia.” He however, did not mention that China is buying more oil from Russia than India.&nbsp;

In February, Trump greeted Modi with a hug at the White House and described him as a “great friend” and a “tough negotiator”. However, the praise soon faded when efforts to forge a bilateral trade deal ran into difficulties over a number of US demands on which India refused to budge. 

It took just six months from US President Donald Trump showering praise on his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, to berating him as the leader of a ‘dead economy” aligned with Russia. In February, Trump greeted 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.” Trump’s shower of praise did not end there. “He is a much tougher negotiator than me, and he is a much better negotiator than me. There is not even a contest.” Praise for the “tough negotiator” soon faded when efforts to forge a bilateral trade deal between the world’s biggest economy and the world’s most populous country ran into difficulties over a number of U.S. demands on which India refused to budge. They included opening agricultural markets and India halting imports of Russian oil. Doing so, Trump argued, would prop up the Russian economy and thus prolong the war of aggression President Vladimir Putin unleashed on Ukraine in February 2022. India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian oil prompted an angry Trump social media posting warning of a penalty on top of the 25 per cent tariff due to take effect this week, along with levies of different sizes on most countries. “I don’t care what India does with Russia,” he said in a posting on his Truth Social site on July 29, a day before the official start of his global trade war. “They can take their dead economies together, for all I care.” Exaggeration is the hallmark of the American president. India does not have a “dead economy”. On the contrary: The latest report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) singles India out as the world’s fastest-growing major economy, with GDP projected to grow 6.4 per cent both for the rest of 2025 and 2026. Some economists predict that India is on track to overtake Japan as the world’s fourth-largest economy. Trump has said that the US and India will continue negotiating a trade deal even after the August 1 deadline set for global tariffs. India has reacted calmly to Trump’s obvious anger, with a spokesman saying it had taken note of his statement and remained committed to concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial trade agreement. Another round of talks is scheduled for later this month. While American and Indian negotiators wrestled over points of contention, the Trump administration moved closer to Pakistan, concluding a deal to help develop what Trump called Pakistan’s “massive oil reserves” (experts scoff at the label “massive”). The US company that will lead the project is yet to be named, he said, adding mockingly, “maybe they’ll be selling oil to India some day.” The oil deal had an immediate effect on Pakistan: its tariffs, initially pegged at 29 percent, came down to 19 per cent. The oil agreement was preceded by a protocol-breaking visit to the White House in June by the Pakistani Army Chief, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir. It was a gesture clearly designed to irritate India -- and the first time a sitting US president had hosted the head of Pakistan’s army, which has long dominated the Pakistani political landscape. In theory, there is a set formula for the percentage of tariffs the United States applies to its trade partners around the globe. It is tied to America’s bilateral trade deficit – how much more the US imports from a country than exports to it. That gap is then divided in half to arrive at what the government calls “discounted reciprocal tariff.” In practice, Trump has been using tariffs in some cases as a tool of geopolitics. The most striking example is his decision to saddle Brazil with a 50 per cent rate despite the fact that the country has a trade surplus with the US The US leader explained the reason in an extraordinary letter to Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva. His predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, a close friend of Trump, is on trial, charged with leading an attempted coup to overturn the elections he lost. Trump called the trial a “witch hunt” and an international disgrace that should end immediately. The Supreme Court judge who handles the case reacted by ordering Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor and banning him from contact with foreign governments. The line between tariffs set by a formula and deals pleasing to Washington is also blurred by the ten per cent reduction granted to Pakistan after the announcement of the oil deal. India appears unfazed by the threat of a penalty for buying Russian oil. On Saturday, officials in Delhi told the Reuters news agency that India would keep purchasing Russian oil because it could not violate long-term contracts. The main buyers of Russian oil have been China and India, and their supply has propped up an economy weakened by the huge cost of the war against Ukraine. Trump originally set a 50-day deadline for Russia to reach a deal to end the war, but shortened it to 12 days – which would be next week. Failure to comply would result in so-called secondary sanctions – that could mean slapping 100 per cent tariffs on buyers of Russian oil. Experts say that would disrupt global oil supplies. China and the US are still wrangling over tariffs during a 90-day truce that expires on August 12. Washington rhetoric on China, its biggest trade partner, has been noticeably more restrained in recent days than criticism of India. The latest broadside against India came on Sunday from Steve Miller, one of Trump’s closest aides, who said in a television interview that “it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing oil from Russia.” He however, did not mention that China is buying more oil from Russia than India.

In February, Trump greeted Modi with a hug at the White House and described him as a “great friend” and a “tough negotiator”. However, the praise soon faded when efforts to forge a bilateral trade deal ran into difficulties over a number of US demands on which India refused to budge.&nbsp;

US-Indian tariff wrangling show limits of Trump’s art of the deal

On July 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping 25% tariff on Indian exports, effective August 1, alongside threats of penalties for India’s continued purchase of Russian oil and military hardware. Justified by Trump as retaliation for India’s “far too high” tariffs and “strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers,” this move severely disrupts an expanding trade partnership.&nbsp;More troubling is the proposed 100% secondary tariff on nations dealing in Russian oil—especially damaging for India, which sources around 35% of its crude from Russia. These measures risk entangling trade, energy security, and defence in a complex geopolitical crossfire. This opinion piece analyses the implications, the current trade dynamics, the potential sectoral impact, and India’s strategic responses.&nbsp;<h2>India–U.S. Trade Snapshot: Who Needs Whom?</h2>India is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner, and the U.S. is India’s largest export destination. In 2024, bilateral trade (per Indian sources) stood at $136.7 billion—with India exporting $91.2 billion and importing $45.5 billion, yielding a $45.7 billion surplus for India. U.S. data shows bilateral goods trade at $129.2 billion, with exports to India at $41.8 billion and imports from India at $87.4 billion.&nbsp;This trade imbalance remains a sore point for Washington. While Trump has dubbed India the “tariff king,” the actual weighted average tariff on U.S. imports is under 5%, well within WTO limits. However, India does levy higher duties on specific items like whiskey, wines, and automobiles—similar to protectionist policies adopted by many other nations, including the U.S. India’s major exports to the U.S. in 2024 included electrical and electronic equipment ($14.4 billion), pharmaceuticals ($12.73 billion), and precious metals and stones ($11.88 billion). Conversely, U.S. exports to India comprised mineral fuels ($12.6 billion), precious stones ($5.31 billion), and machinery ($3.29 billion), along with soybeans ($2.2 billion).&nbsp;<h2>Tariff Dynamics Before the Trump Shock</h2>Before Trump’s announcement, U.S. tariffs on Indian goods averaged 2.5%, while Indian duties ranged from 10% to 80% depending on the sector—with high rates on agricultural products like apples and rice. Non-tariff barriers, especially in agriculture and pharmaceuticals,have long frustrated U.S. businesses. Trump has used tariffs as a pressure tool to counter the trade deficit under the guise of protecting U.S. industries.&nbsp;From India’s perspective, the U.S. administration has ignored the significant American advantage in India’s services and education sectors. Furthermore, India’s obligations to safeguard farmers’ livelihoods, sensitivities regarding dairy products, ensure energy security, and maintain affordability restrict its capacity to yield to U.S. expectations.&nbsp;<h2>Fallout of 25% Tariff and Proposed Penalties</h2>The new 25% tariff raises average duties on Indian goods to 27%, affecting key sectors such as auto parts, electronics, steel, and aluminium. Even iPhones assembled in India may see price hikes. Projections suggest a 10% to 50% drop in Indian exports in these sectors—amounting to annual losses of up to $3 billion.&nbsp;India, with 1.4 billion people and the world’s fourth-largest economy, aims to double trade with the U.S. to $500 billion by 2030. However, Trump’s tariffs threaten this goal, potentially trimming 0.3–0.5% off India’s projected 6.5% GDP growth for 2025 (as per HSBC).&nbsp;For U.S. consumers, these tariffs will likely spark inflation, especially in healthcare affordability. Tariff revenues—estimated to constitute 5% of federal income in 2025—are intended to offset Trump’s tax cuts and support domestic manufacturing. Yet economists, including J.P. Morgan, predict a U.S. GDP slowdown to 1.6% and supply chain disruptions, given India’s crucial role in supplying generics, pharmaceuticals, and electronics.&nbsp;Strategically, these tariffs risk alienating a key Indo-Pacific partner, undermining U.S. efforts to counter China. The punitive measures could push India closer to the Russia-China-India (RIC) alignment. India imported $40 billion of Russian oil in 2024 (forming 35% of India’s energy imports). A 100% secondary tariff on this trade would spike India’s import bill, increase inflation, strain fuel subsidies, and derail fiscal targets—especially problematic in an election year. In defence, India’s 36% dependency on Russian arms (down from 55% in 2019) makes it vulnerable to U.S. sanctions, particularly regarding high-value systems like the S-400. While compliance compromises strategic autonomy, non-compliance risks further penalties. Given the perceived unreliability of U.S. foreign policy, India may be inclined to take calculated risks.&nbsp;<h2>A Web of Sticking Points</h2>Agriculture is India’s red line. U.S. demands greater access to India’s protected agricultural market, particularly in dairy and grains. But with 45% of the population reliant on farming, India faces high political costs in liberalising this sector.India is unlikely to emulate U.S. allies like Japan or the EU in offering zero-tariff concessions, owing to security dependencies. Indian exports of auto parts, steel, aluminium, and electronics face the steepest tariffs. Less-affected sectors like textiles and gems may still lose market share to Vietnam and Bangladesh. In retaliation, India could target U.S. exports such as soybeans and aircraft—although this could impact its aviation sector if the U.K. cannot meet shortfalls.&nbsp;<h2>Domestic Compulsions in India’s Trade Strategy: The Inflexible Realities</h2>India’s trade policy is constrained by domestic politics. Any concessions on agriculture risk electoral backlash, especially in a pre-election year. MSMEs, which drive Indian exports, would be severely impacted by higher U.S. tariffs. Energy security remains paramount, and Russian oil provides affordable options not easily replaceable.&nbsp;Strategic autonomy underpins India’s foreign policy. Aligning too closely with either Washington or Moscow would compromise this balance. Given Trump’s recent policy unpredictability, abandoning a reliable partner like Russia seems unjustified.&nbsp;<h2>India’s Balancing Act: Strategic Options</h2>Trump’s tariff blitz leaves India with limited but critical choices. These include:Negotiate a Selective Trade Deal: India may pursue a limited deal, lowering tariffs on non-sensitive imports like machinery, liquor, hydrocarbons, motorbikes, and soybeans, while resisting U.S. demands on agriculture and dairy. It must stand firm on energy affordability for its vast poor population.&nbsp;From August 1, 2025, India should absorb the tariffs temporarily without rushing into a disadvantageous deal. It should protect MSMEs, prioritise growth, and wait out the 10-day deadline on secondary tariffs, monitoring U.S.–China negotiations. This appears to be the most prudent approach.&nbsp;Diversify Markets: India should expand exports to ASEAN, the EU, and Africa. Deepening ties with BRICS nations can also cushion the impact. Though these markets lack the scale of the U.S., diversification reduces dependency and future coercion risks. Aggressive pursuit of FTAs and strategic partnerships is essential.&nbsp;Strategic Reduction in Russian Trade: India can gradually diversify oil imports to the Middle East or the U.S., and broaden arms sourcing to France, Israel, and others. However, higher costs and strong Russia ties complicate this transition. India can redirect exports to ASEAN, the EU, and Africa, though with smaller profit margins.&nbsp;Self-Reliance: Strengthening the Atmanirbhar Bharat campaign for defence and tech&nbsp;manufacturing is vital. Past disruptions, like COVID, have shown India’s capacity to localize supply chains—a trend that must accelerate.Controlled Retaliation: If unavoidable, India must retaliate proportionately with tariffs on high-profile U.S. goods like aircraft, oil, whiskey, and motorcycles. Such a move risks escalation but may be necessary to defend sovereignty and prevent future coercion.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-tariffs-us-president-slams-india-calls-economy-dead-criticizes-russia-ties-1754020784164">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-tariffs-us-president-slams-india-calls-economy-dead-criticizes-russia-ties-1754020784164</a>/embed<h2>BRICS: Can It Pose a United Front to the U.S.?</h2>BRICS nations face similar U.S. tariffs—34% on China, 50% on Brazil. The concept of a coordinated BRICS response is attractive but lacks momentum. India-China rivalry and Russia’s economic constraints limit cohesion. While alternate payment systems (e.g., rupee-ruble trade) are being explored, intra-BRICS trade ($700 billion) pales in comparison to their $5 trillion trade with the U.S.However, if Trump follows through with 100% tariffs on BRICS and 500% on countries trading with Russia, he may inadvertently force BRICS closer. This could catalyze a realignment toward the RIC format.&nbsp;<h2>Realistic Road Ahead: Strategic Patience Without Compromising National Interest</h2>India’s optimal response blends diplomacy, economic recalibration, and strategic signalling. A selective trade deal protecting sensitive sectors while retaining competitiveness is key. Simultaneously, India must diversify exports, reduce reliance on Russian oil and arms incrementally, and boost domestic manufacturing.Subsidies for impacted exporters and tax relief for MSMEs can cushion the blow. By reinforcing its role as a democratic counterweight to China, India can retain geopolitical leverage while defending long-term interests.Trump’s tariff offensive poses serious challenges—but India possesses considerable leverage. Through smart negotiation, diversification, and strategic patience, India can weather the storm and emerge stronger, with a more resilient and self-reliant economic framework. Diplomacy, reform, and national resolve will be India’s guiding tools in navigating this turbulent phase.

India is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner, and the U.S. is India’s largest export destination. In 2024, bilateral trade (per Indian sources) stood at $136.7 billion—with India exporting $91.2 billion and importing $45.5 billion.

On July 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping 25% tariff on Indian exports, effective August 1, alongside threats of penalties for India’s continued purchase of Russian oil and military hardware. Justified by Trump as retaliation for India’s “far too high” tariffs and “strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers,” this move severely disrupts an expanding trade partnership. More troubling is the proposed 100% secondary tariff on nations dealing in Russian oil—especially damaging for India, which sources around 35% of its crude from Russia. These measures risk entangling trade, energy security, and defence in a complex geopolitical crossfire. This opinion piece analyses the implications, the current trade dynamics, the potential sectoral impact, and India’s strategic responses. India–U.S. Trade Snapshot: Who Needs Whom? India is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner, and the U.S. is India’s largest export destination. In 2024, bilateral trade (per Indian sources) stood at $136.7 billion—with India exporting $91.2 billion and importing $45.5 billion, yielding a $45.7 billion surplus for India. U.S. data shows bilateral goods trade at $129.2 billion, with exports to India at $41.8 billion and imports from India at $87.4 billion. This trade imbalance remains a sore point for Washington. While Trump has dubbed India the “tariff king,” the actual weighted average tariff on U.S. imports is under 5%, well within WTO limits. However, India does levy higher duties on specific items like whiskey, wines, and automobiles—similar to protectionist policies adopted by many other nations, including the U.S. India’s major exports to the U.S. in 2024 included electrical and electronic equipment ($14.4 billion), pharmaceuticals ($12.73 billion), and precious metals and stones ($11.88 billion). Conversely, U.S. exports to India comprised mineral fuels ($12.6 billion), precious stones ($5.31 billion), and machinery ($3.29 billion), along with soybeans ($2.2 billion). Tariff Dynamics Before the Trump Shock Before Trump’s announcement, U.S. tariffs on Indian goods averaged 2.5%, while Indian duties ranged from 10% to 80% depending on the sector—with high rates on agricultural products like apples and rice. Non-tariff barriers, especially in agriculture and pharmaceuticals, have long frustrated U.S. businesses. Trump has used tariffs as a pressure tool to counter the trade deficit under the guise of protecting U.S. industries. From India’s perspective, the U.S. administration has ignored the significant American advantage in India’s services and education sectors. Furthermore, India’s obligations to safeguard farmers’ livelihoods, sensitivities regarding dairy products, ensure energy security, and maintain affordability restrict its capacity to yield to U.S. expectations. Fallout of 25% Tariff and Proposed Penalties The new 25% tariff raises average duties on Indian goods to 27%, affecting key sectors such as auto parts, electronics, steel, and aluminium. Even iPhones assembled in India may see price hikes. Projections suggest a 10% to 50% drop in Indian exports in these sectors—amounting to annual losses of up to $3 billion. India, with 1.4 billion people and the world’s fourth-largest economy, aims to double trade with the U.S. to $500 billion by 2030. However, Trump’s tariffs threaten this goal, potentially trimming 0.3–0.5% off India’s projected 6.5% GDP growth for 2025 (as per HSBC). For U.S. consumers, these tariffs will likely spark inflation, especially in healthcare affordability. Tariff revenues—estimated to constitute 5% of federal income in 2025—are intended to offset Trump’s tax cuts and support domestic manufacturing. Yet economists, including J.P. Morgan, predict a U.S. GDP slowdown to 1.6% and supply chain disruptions, given India’s crucial role in supplying generics, pharmaceuticals, and electronics. Strategically, these tariffs risk alienating a key Indo-Pacific partner, undermining U.S. efforts to counter China. The punitive measures could push India closer to the Russia-China-India (RIC) alignment. India imported $40 billion of Russian oil in 2024 (forming 35% of India’s energy imports). A 100% secondary tariff on this trade would spike India’s import bill, increase inflation, strain fuel subsidies, and derail fiscal targets—especially problematic in an election year. In defence, India’s 36% dependency on Russian arms (down from 55% in 2019) makes it vulnerable to U.S. sanctions, particularly regarding high-value systems like the S-400. While compliance compromises strategic autonomy, non-compliance risks further penalties. Given the perceived unreliability of U.S. foreign policy, India may be inclined to take calculated risks. A Web of Sticking Points Agriculture is India’s red line. U.S. demands greater access to India’s protected agricultural market, particularly in dairy and grains. But with 45% of the population reliant on farming, India faces high political costs in liberalising this sector. India is unlikely to emulate U.S. allies like Japan or the EU in offering zero-tariff concessions, owing to security dependencies. Indian exports of auto parts, steel, aluminium, and electronics face the steepest tariffs. Less-affected sectors like textiles and gems may still lose market share to Vietnam and Bangladesh. In retaliation, India could target U.S. exports such as soybeans and aircraft—although this could impact its aviation sector if the U.K. cannot meet shortfalls. Domestic Compulsions in India’s Trade Strategy: The Inflexible Realities India’s trade policy is constrained by domestic politics. Any concessions on agriculture risk electoral backlash, especially in a pre-election year. MSMEs, which drive Indian exports, would be severely impacted by higher U.S. tariffs. Energy security remains paramount, and Russian oil provides affordable options not easily replaceable. Strategic autonomy underpins India’s foreign policy. Aligning too closely with either Washington or Moscow would compromise this balance. Given Trump’s recent policy unpredictability, abandoning a reliable partner like Russia seems unjustified. India’s Balancing Act: Strategic Options Trump’s tariff blitz leaves India with limited but critical choices. These include: Negotiate a Selective Trade Deal: India may pursue a limited deal, lowering tariffs on non-sensitive imports like machinery, liquor, hydrocarbons, motorbikes, and soybeans, while resisting U.S. demands on agriculture and dairy. It must stand firm on energy affordability for its vast poor population. From August 1, 2025, India should absorb the tariffs temporarily without rushing into a disadvantageous deal. It should protect MSMEs, prioritise growth, and wait out the 10-day deadline on secondary tariffs, monitoring U.S.–China negotiations. This appears to be the most prudent approach. Diversify Markets: India should expand exports to ASEAN, the EU, and Africa. Deepening ties with BRICS nations can also cushion the impact. Though these markets lack the scale of the U.S., diversification reduces dependency and future coercion risks. Aggressive pursuit of FTAs and strategic partnerships is essential. Strategic Reduction in Russian Trade: India can gradually diversify oil imports to the Middle East or the U.S., and broaden arms sourcing to France, Israel, and others. However, higher costs and strong Russia ties complicate this transition. India can redirect exports to ASEAN, the EU, and Africa, though with smaller profit margins. Self-Reliance: Strengthening the Atmanirbhar Bharat campaign for defence and tech manufacturing is vital. Past disruptions, like COVID, have shown India’s capacity to localize supply chains—a trend that must accelerate. Controlled Retaliation: If unavoidable, India must retaliate proportionately with tariffs on high-profile U.S. goods like aircraft, oil, whiskey, and motorcycles. Such a move risks escalation but may be necessary to defend sovereignty and prevent future coercion. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-tariffs-us-president-slams-india-calls-economy-dead-criticizes-russia-ties-1754020784164/embed BRICS: Can It Pose a United Front to the U.S.? BRICS nations face similar U.S. tariffs—34% on China, 50% on Brazil. The concept of a coordinated BRICS response is attractive but lacks momentum. India-China rivalry and Russia’s economic constraints limit cohesion. While alternate payment systems (e.g., rupee-ruble trade) are being explored, intra-BRICS trade ($700 billion) pales in comparison to their $5 trillion trade with the U.S. However, if Trump follows through with 100% tariffs on BRICS and 500% on countries trading with Russia, he may inadvertently force BRICS closer. This could catalyze a realignment toward the RIC format. Realistic Road Ahead: Strategic Patience Without Compromising National Interest India’s optimal response blends diplomacy, economic recalibration, and strategic signalling. A selective trade deal protecting sensitive sectors while retaining competitiveness is key. Simultaneously, India must diversify exports, reduce reliance on Russian oil and arms incrementally, and boost domestic manufacturing. Subsidies for impacted exporters and tax relief for MSMEs can cushion the blow. By reinforcing its role as a democratic counterweight to China, India can retain geopolitical leverage while defending long-term interests. Trump’s tariff offensive poses serious challenges—but India possesses considerable leverage. Through smart negotiation, diversification, and strategic patience, India can weather the storm and emerge stronger, with a more resilient and self-reliant economic framework. Diplomacy, reform, and national resolve will be India’s guiding tools in navigating this turbulent phase.

India is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner, and the U.S. is India’s largest export destination. In 2024, bilateral trade (per Indian sources) stood at $136.7 billion—with India exporting $91.2 billion and importing $45.5 billion.

Trump’s tariff barrage on India: Navigating the storm

The world, on Wednesday, July 30, awoke to chaos as a massive 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula, the strongest in the region since 1952. Hours later, tsunami waves up to 4 metres high crashed into the coasts of Russia and Japan, triggering evacuations and causing structural damage. The tremors’ ripple effects were felt as far away as the U.S. West Coast, where rising water levels and strong currents sparked alarm. This natural disaster, reminiscent of the catastrophic 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 230,000 people across 14 countries, underscores the indiscriminate fury of nature. As geopolitical tensions, from the Ukraine war to U.S.-Russia rivalries, dominate global discourse, the earthquake and tsunami serve as a grim reminder that climate change and natural calamities are humanity’s true common enemies, demanding urgent, united action.&nbsp;The Kamchatka earthquake, centered off Russia’s eastern coast, unleashed waves that battered coastal towns, uprooting infrastructure and forcing thousands to flee to higher ground. Japan, no stranger to seismic activity, activated its early warning systems, evacuating coastal areas in Hokkaido and Tohoku. The Japan Meteorological Agency reported minor injuries but no fatalities, though damaged buildings and disrupted power lines painted a picture of disarray. Across the Pacific, the U.S. National Tsunami Warning Center issued alerts for California, Oregon, and Washington, as tidal surges caused flooding in low-lying areas. The U.S. Geological Survey noted that the quake’s transcontinental impact highlights the interconnectedness of global geophysical systems, a reality often overshadowed by political rivalries.&nbsp;The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, triggered by a 9.1–9.3-magnitude quake near Sumatra, remains a haunting benchmark. It devastated coastal communities in Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and beyond, displacing millions and exposing the vulnerability of densely populated coastlines. India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Tamil Nadu bore heavy losses, with over 12,000 deaths. The 2025 Kamchatka event, while less deadly, reignites fears of such catastrophes, particularly as climate change amplifies their severity. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and destabilized coastal sediments—driven by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions—make tsunamis more destructive. In countries like Japan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and coastal India, even a modest 0.5-meter sea-level rise can double the impact of tsunami surges, according to a 2023 UN Climate Report.&nbsp;Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a present crisis, disrupting economies and lives across every continent. The Paris Agreement, effective since November 4, 2016, urges nations to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, to mitigate climate impacts. Yet, global emissions continue to climb, with 2024 recording a 1.3 percent increase in CO2 levels, per the International Energy Agency. Changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, and extreme events like heatwaves and floods are now commonplace. In India, erratic monsoons and coastal erosion threaten livelihoods, with 40 percent of the population living in vulnerable coastal areas, as per the Ministry of Environment. The Kamchatka tsunami underscores how climate factors, such as warming oceans, intensify natural disasters, making them more frequent and far-reaching.&nbsp;The irony is stark: while nations like the US and Russia remain locked in geopolitical tussles—evident in the ongoing Ukraine conflict and Cold War-era rivalries—they face a shared adversary in climate-induced disasters. The US, despite its economic might, saw its Pacific coast rattled by the Kamchatka quake’s aftershocks. Russia, grappling with its own economic sanctions, now faces reconstruction costs in Kamchatka. “Nature spares no one, not even superpowers,” noted environmentalist Sunita Narain, emphasizing the need for global cooperation. The UN has repeatedly called for collective action to curb emissions, yet major powers remain distracted by arms races and trade wars, diverting resources from climate resilience.&nbsp;India, too, is at a crossroads. Its 7,500-km coastline, home to bustling ports and tourist hubs, is increasingly at risk. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has invested in early warning systems since 2004, saving lives in events like Cyclone Amphan in 2020. However, rising sea levels threaten cities like Mumbai and Chennai, with a 2024 World Bank study estimating USD 1.2 trillion in potential losses by 2050 if climate measures falter. India’s push for renewable energy, targeting 500 GW by 2030, is commendable, but it must accelerate adaptation strategies like mangrove restoration and coastal defenses to mitigate tsunami risks.&nbsp;Notably, the India-UK Free Trade Agreement, signed on July 24, 2025, offers a silver lining. By promoting sustainable trade practices and green technology exchanges, the FTA can bolster India’s climate resilience. UK expertise in offshore wind and India’s solar advancements could drive joint projects, reducing emissions and strengthening coastal infrastructure. “Global challenges like climate change demand partnerships beyond borders,” said Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, highlighting the FTA’s role in supporting India’s green goals. Collaborative efforts could fund early warning systems and disaster-preparedness programs, critical for vulnerable regions.&nbsp;The Kamchatka disaster is a wake-up call. While nations bicker over boundaries, climate change unites them in vulnerability. The Paris Agreement’s goals remain elusive without concerted action. India, with its Viksit Bharat vision, must lead by example, investing its Rs. 2,541.06 crore tourism budget to build climate-resilient hospitality infrastructure. Globally, redirecting defence budgets—estimated at USD 2.24 trillion in 2024 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(SIPRI)—towards climate mitigation could save millions from disasters like tsunamis. As the world grapples with nature’s fury, it’s time to set aside geopolitical rivalries and fight the real enemy: climate change.

As geopolitical tensions, from the Ukraine war to U.S.-Russia rivalries, dominate global discourse, the earthquake and tsunami serve as a grim reminder that climate change and natural calamities are humanity’s true common enemies, demanding urgent, united action.

The world, on Wednesday, July 30, awoke to chaos as a massive 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula, the strongest in the region since 1952. Hours later, tsunami waves up to 4 metres high crashed into the coasts of Russia and Japan, triggering evacuations and causing structural damage. The tremors’ ripple effects were felt as far away as the U.S. West Coast, where rising water levels and strong currents sparked alarm. This natural disaster, reminiscent of the catastrophic 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 230,000 people across 14 countries, underscores the indiscriminate fury of nature. As geopolitical tensions, from the Ukraine war to U.S.-Russia rivalries, dominate global discourse, the earthquake and tsunami serve as a grim reminder that climate change and natural calamities are humanity’s true common enemies, demanding urgent, united action. The Kamchatka earthquake, centered off Russia’s eastern coast, unleashed waves that battered coastal towns, uprooting infrastructure and forcing thousands to flee to higher ground. Japan, no stranger to seismic activity, activated its early warning systems, evacuating coastal areas in Hokkaido and Tohoku. The Japan Meteorological Agency reported minor injuries but no fatalities, though damaged buildings and disrupted power lines painted a picture of disarray. Across the Pacific, the U.S. National Tsunami Warning Center issued alerts for California, Oregon, and Washington, as tidal surges caused flooding in low-lying areas. The U.S. Geological Survey noted that the quake’s transcontinental impact highlights the interconnectedness of global geophysical systems, a reality often overshadowed by political rivalries. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, triggered by a 9.1–9.3-magnitude quake near Sumatra, remains a haunting benchmark. It devastated coastal communities in Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and beyond, displacing millions and exposing the vulnerability of densely populated coastlines. India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Tamil Nadu bore heavy losses, with over 12,000 deaths. The 2025 Kamchatka event, while less deadly, reignites fears of such catastrophes, particularly as climate change amplifies their severity. Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and destabilized coastal sediments—driven by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions—make tsunamis more destructive. In countries like Japan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and coastal India, even a modest 0.5-meter sea-level rise can double the impact of tsunami surges, according to a 2023 UN Climate Report. Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a present crisis, disrupting economies and lives across every continent. The Paris Agreement, effective since November 4, 2016, urges nations to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, to mitigate climate impacts. Yet, global emissions continue to climb, with 2024 recording a 1.3 percent increase in CO2 levels, per the International Energy Agency. Changing weather patterns, rising sea levels, and extreme events like heatwaves and floods are now commonplace. In India, erratic monsoons and coastal erosion threaten livelihoods, with 40 percent of the population living in vulnerable coastal areas, as per the Ministry of Environment. The Kamchatka tsunami underscores how climate factors, such as warming oceans, intensify natural disasters, making them more frequent and far-reaching. The irony is stark: while nations like the US and Russia remain locked in geopolitical tussles—evident in the ongoing Ukraine conflict and Cold War-era rivalries—they face a shared adversary in climate-induced disasters. The US, despite its economic might, saw its Pacific coast rattled by the Kamchatka quake’s aftershocks. Russia, grappling with its own economic sanctions, now faces reconstruction costs in Kamchatka. “Nature spares no one, not even superpowers,” noted environmentalist Sunita Narain, emphasizing the need for global cooperation. The UN has repeatedly called for collective action to curb emissions, yet major powers remain distracted by arms races and trade wars, diverting resources from climate resilience. India, too, is at a crossroads. Its 7,500-km coastline, home to bustling ports and tourist hubs, is increasingly at risk. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has invested in early warning systems since 2004, saving lives in events like Cyclone Amphan in 2020. However, rising sea levels threaten cities like Mumbai and Chennai, with a 2024 World Bank study estimating USD 1.2 trillion in potential losses by 2050 if climate measures falter. India’s push for renewable energy, targeting 500 GW by 2030, is commendable, but it must accelerate adaptation strategies like mangrove restoration and coastal defenses to mitigate tsunami risks. Notably, the India-UK Free Trade Agreement, signed on July 24, 2025, offers a silver lining. By promoting sustainable trade practices and green technology exchanges, the FTA can bolster India’s climate resilience. UK expertise in offshore wind and India’s solar advancements could drive joint projects, reducing emissions and strengthening coastal infrastructure. “Global challenges like climate change demand partnerships beyond borders,” said Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, highlighting the FTA’s role in supporting India’s green goals. Collaborative efforts could fund early warning systems and disaster-preparedness programs, critical for vulnerable regions. The Kamchatka disaster is a wake-up call. While nations bicker over boundaries, climate change unites them in vulnerability. The Paris Agreement’s goals remain elusive without concerted action. India, with its Viksit Bharat vision, must lead by example, investing its Rs. 2,541.06 crore tourism budget to build climate-resilient hospitality infrastructure. Globally, redirecting defence budgets—estimated at USD 2.24 trillion in 2024 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(SIPRI)—towards climate mitigation could save millions from disasters like tsunamis. As the world grapples with nature’s fury, it’s time to set aside geopolitical rivalries and fight the real enemy: climate change.

As geopolitical tensions, from the Ukraine war to U.S.-Russia rivalries, dominate global discourse, the earthquake and tsunami serve as a grim reminder that climate change and natural calamities are humanity’s true common enemies, demanding urgent, united action.

Earthquake rocks Russia, ripples reach US; will climate change end geopolitical wars?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently the hot topic, but do we truly understand what it is? This technology simulates human intelligence and is programmed to perform complex tasks, analyse large amounts of data, identify patterns and models at speeds that surpass human capabilities. AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. From art to education to politics, AI's influence is vast. The real challenge with such technology lies in understanding its impact across various industries and establishing smart, tailored rules.In the entertainment industry, whether it is Hollywood or Bollywood, AI is actively shaping content. It goes beyond scriptwriting and design; AI-generated performances are becoming increasingly mainstream. A great example of Computer-generated imagery (CGI) being used in Hollywood is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), where CGI digitally recreated Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, decades after the actor's death. While some viewers, like @heyjpk on Threads, praised this, "I have ZERO problem with CGI Grand Moff Tarkin…recasting would have been dumb", others criticised newer CGI edits on Disney Plus as "unbelievably bad" and jarring (@ninthhostage on X).This raises ethical questions: Should we recreate the images and voices of deceased actors?Similarly, AI voice cloning is gaining traction on social media platforms. On TikTok, @ghostwriter977 posted a song, "Heart On My Sleeve," featuring clones of Drake and The Weeknd. Audiences liked it, Reddit user @galaxy_rae commented, "Umm, does not feel right," highlighting the uneasy grey area AI creates in music authenticity."AI is like any tool—it can empower artists without access to expensive studios, but it can also be misused. AI helps demos, but cannot replace real human emotion. I would not want my voice cloned for final releases," &nbsp;says Musician Raj Pandit , who has worked with artists like Salim-Sulaiman and Shreya Ghoshal."An app created a full song in 30 seconds based on prompts. I began to cry—what happens to songwriters who study the craft of emotional composition? How do they compete with something instant?" asks Grammy-winning artist Falu (Falguni Shah) echoing similar concerns.Currently, entertainment laws are struggling to catch up. Artists and labels are advocating for stronger policies on consent and compensation, but until clear rules are established, creators should approach AI with caution.AI's role extends further beyond entertainment. In India, actor Amitabh Bachchan secured legal protection under copyright law to control the use of his image and voice after they were misused in scams and fake advertisements.During India's 2024 electoral season, deepfake videos featuring celebrities and politicians like Ranveer Singh, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi circulated, spreading false messages they never promoted.Similarly, in the U.S., AI voice cloning also made headlines. New York City Mayor Eric Adams utilised AI to communicate in multiple native languages, demonstrating an effective and inclusive approach to the technology. However, a survey I conducted reveals mixed feelings; people like the idea, but many were unsure about its authenticity and worried whether their voices would be truly heard or replaced.Now AI's powers can be used in any industry, both as a tool and also as a weapon, given that it can accelerate misinformation faster than most fact-checkers can respond. Some governments mandate labelling AI-generated political content; however, enforcement of this is slightly behind, especially given the stakes and the scale of its influence.In the U.S., laws like Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024) protect personal traits and likenesses. Federal bills like the NO FAKES Act and No AI FRAUD Act are proposed. India has seen court recognition of personality rights in a 2024 case protecting singer Arijit Singh's voice and likeness from unauthorized AI use. This has raised further questions: when AI replicates your voice or face, who owns your identity? Could it be considered identity theft?AI is transforming education as well. Many Indian ed-tech companies utilize LLMs to transition from passive lectures to active learning, enabling the generation of lesson plans, quizzes, and engaging content.Maithreya Chakravarthula, a Consumer AI Expert, warns about literacy and accountability. "It matters what materials AI was trained on and whether educators understand how it works," he said. "If professors rely on AI but cannot identify errors or biases, we risk falling into the 'black-box dilemma' where AI's inner workings are opaque. Without transparency, there is no accountability, opening doors to misinformation and unmet educational goals."He applies a framework called CLASS: Context, Literacy, Accountability, Safety, and Sustainability to evaluate AI's use across industries. "Human nature favours ease and convenience without considering long-term effects. Education must teach people to question deeply and consistently why and how we use AI," Maithreya tells WION."An AI tool should admit when it does not know something. If it cannot say 'I do not know,' it is probably hallucinating," Chakravarthula concludes that the strongest safeguard is the ability to question deeply and practically. &nbsp;AI's impact is profound and spans various industries, including entertainment and music, as well as politics and education. While the technology offers immense potential, it also presents complex ethical, legal and societal challenges.Understanding this will help support the creation of tailored rules, strong education on AI literacy and transparent policies, as they are essential to tackle AI's benefits without compromising identity, creativity, or trust.AI is not just a tool; it is a force that is reshaping how we live and communicate. With responsibility and informed use, we can shape this revolution to ensure a better, more responsible future for the technology.&nbsp;

AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot.

Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently the hot topic, but do we truly understand what it is? This technology simulates human intelligence and is programmed to perform complex tasks, analyse large amounts of data, identify patterns and models at speeds that surpass human capabilities. AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily. From art to education to politics, AI's influence is vast. The real challenge with such technology lies in understanding its impact across various industries and establishing smart, tailored rules. In the entertainment industry, whether it is Hollywood or Bollywood, AI is actively shaping content. It goes beyond scriptwriting and design; AI-generated performances are becoming increasingly mainstream. A great example of Computer-generated imagery (CGI) being used in Hollywood is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), where CGI digitally recreated Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin, decades after the actor's death. While some viewers, like @heyjpk on Threads, praised this, "I have ZERO problem with CGI Grand Moff Tarkin…recasting would have been dumb", others criticised newer CGI edits on Disney Plus as "unbelievably bad" and jarring (@ninthhostage on X). This raises ethical questions: Should we recreate the images and voices of deceased actors? Similarly, AI voice cloning is gaining traction on social media platforms. On TikTok, @ghostwriter977 posted a song, "Heart On My Sleeve," featuring clones of Drake and The Weeknd. Audiences liked it, Reddit user @galaxy_rae commented, "Umm, does not feel right," highlighting the uneasy grey area AI creates in music authenticity. "AI is like any tool—it can empower artists without access to expensive studios, but it can also be misused. AI helps demos, but cannot replace real human emotion. I would not want my voice cloned for final releases," says Musician Raj Pandit , who has worked with artists like Salim-Sulaiman and Shreya Ghoshal. "An app created a full song in 30 seconds based on prompts. I began to cry—what happens to songwriters who study the craft of emotional composition? How do they compete with something instant?" asks Grammy-winning artist Falu (Falguni Shah) echoing similar concerns. Currently, entertainment laws are struggling to catch up. Artists and labels are advocating for stronger policies on consent and compensation, but until clear rules are established, creators should approach AI with caution. AI's role extends further beyond entertainment. In India, actor Amitabh Bachchan secured legal protection under copyright law to control the use of his image and voice after they were misused in scams and fake advertisements. During India's 2024 electoral season, deepfake videos featuring celebrities and politicians like Ranveer Singh, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi circulated, spreading false messages they never promoted. Similarly, in the U.S., AI voice cloning also made headlines. New York City Mayor Eric Adams utilised AI to communicate in multiple native languages, demonstrating an effective and inclusive approach to the technology. However, a survey I conducted reveals mixed feelings; people like the idea, but many were unsure about its authenticity and worried whether their voices would be truly heard or replaced. Now AI's powers can be used in any industry, both as a tool and also as a weapon, given that it can accelerate misinformation faster than most fact-checkers can respond. Some governments mandate labelling AI-generated political content; however, enforcement of this is slightly behind, especially given the stakes and the scale of its influence. In the U.S., laws like Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024) protect personal traits and likenesses. Federal bills like the NO FAKES Act and No AI FRAUD Act are proposed. India has seen court recognition of personality rights in a 2024 case protecting singer Arijit Singh's voice and likeness from unauthorized AI use. This has raised further questions: when AI replicates your voice or face, who owns your identity? Could it be considered identity theft? AI is transforming education as well. Many Indian ed-tech companies utilize LLMs to transition from passive lectures to active learning, enabling the generation of lesson plans, quizzes, and engaging content. Maithreya Chakravarthula, a Consumer AI Expert, warns about literacy and accountability. "It matters what materials AI was trained on and whether educators understand how it works," he said. "If professors rely on AI but cannot identify errors or biases, we risk falling into the 'black-box dilemma' where AI's inner workings are opaque. Without transparency, there is no accountability, opening doors to misinformation and unmet educational goals." He applies a framework called CLASS: Context, Literacy, Accountability, Safety, and Sustainability to evaluate AI's use across industries. "Human nature favours ease and convenience without considering long-term effects. Education must teach people to question deeply and consistently why and how we use AI," Maithreya tells WION. "An AI tool should admit when it does not know something. If it cannot say 'I do not know,' it is probably hallucinating," Chakravarthula concludes that the strongest safeguard is the ability to question deeply and practically. AI's impact is profound and spans various industries, including entertainment and music, as well as politics and education. While the technology offers immense potential, it also presents complex ethical, legal and societal challenges. Understanding this will help support the creation of tailored rules, strong education on AI literacy and transparent policies, as they are essential to tackle AI's benefits without compromising identity, creativity, or trust. AI is not just a tool; it is a force that is reshaping how we live and communicate. With responsibility and informed use, we can shape this revolution to ensure a better, more responsible future for the technology.

AI is already here; we have chatbots and generative tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot. Large language models (LLMs) can process vast datasets and generate content within minutes; this technology is transforming how we consume information daily.&nbsp;

AI is already reshaping entertainment, education, and politics, but are we ready?

The Monsoon Session of Parliament turned fiery as the Opposition rolled up its sleeves to corner the government over the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military response. On July 28, 2025, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh called a spade a spade in the Lok Sabha, declaring Operation Sindoor a “historic, decisive, and effective” display of India’s firm stand against terrorism and India halted the operation only after achieving its military objectives. Addressing the House, the Defense Minister underlined the successful military campaign against perpetrators who killed 26 civilians, mostly tourists, in a brutal attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025. The attack, driven by religious motives, shook the conscience of the nation. “The Indian Army achieved a stupendous feat, meeting its military goals without any external or internal pressure,” Singh firmly stated, emphasizing the operation’s precision and independence.The nub of Singh’s statements was to refute US President Donald Trump’s claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Operation Sindoor, launched on May 6-7, 2025, targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), destroying them with surgical precision while minimizing civilian casualties. He clarified that the operation was paused at Pakistan’s request through direct military channels on May 10, not due to any diplomatic pressure or external intervention. This directly countered Trump’s repeated assertions—26 times since May 10, as claimed by the Congress—that he brokered the truce, even suggesting he prevented a nuclear war. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a June 18 phone call with Trump, had already clarified that the ceasefire was a bilateral decision, a stance echoed by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri at the G7 summit.The Opposition, led by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, seized the moment to question the Modi-led government’s handling of the Pahalgam attack and Trump’s claims. Labeling the US President’s assertions “humiliating,” they demanded a 16-hour debate on Operation Sindoor, set for July 29, to probe alleged intelligence failures. Kharge cited Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha’s admission of lapses, noting that the terrorists responsible remain at large. The Congress argued that the government’s silence on Trump’s narrative risked undermining India’s global credibility. In response, Singh mounted a robust defense, stating, “Results always matter in any examination, not if the pencil broke or the pen was lost.” He emphasized that Pakistan failed to inflict any damage on India’s military assets, while the Indian Army achieved its objective of dismantling terror infrastructure.Operation Sindoor targeted Pakistan-based terror outfits, eliminating over 100 terrorists, including members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and destroying key infrastructure like China-supplied HQ-9 missile systems. Indian warplanes and strategic planning ensured maximum damage to terror camps without harming innocent civilians, earning global acknowledgment for India’s military prowess. The Defense Minister’s address highlighted the operation’s success in sending a clear message: India will not tolerate cross-border terrorism. The Defense Minister’s visit to Srinagar’s 15 Corps Headquarters on May 15, where he praised the armed forces’ valour, further reinforced this stance. He also called for the International Atomic Energy Agency to oversee Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, signaling India’s concerns over “nuclear blackmail.”India has consistently extended an olive branch to Pakistan, from the 1999 Lahore Bus Yatra to Modi’s attendance at Nawaz Sharif’s granddaughter’s wedding in 2015 as a gesture of goodwill. However, Singh noted in the Lok Sabha, “India has always emphasized peaceful relations with Pakistan, but our neighbour has failed to understand its merit.” Despite these efforts, Pakistan’s persistent support for terrorism has forced India to adopt a zero-tolerance policy. Modi has driven home the message that “terror and talks cannot go together,” a principle reflected in the 2016 Surgical Strike, the 2019 Balakot Air Strike, and now Operation Sindoor. These operations underscore India’s resolve to safeguard its sovereignty while advocating for global peace under the vision of “One Nation, One Earth, One Future.”The Pahalgam attack, executed by Pakistan-backed terrorists, targeted civilians in a popular tourist destination, prompting nationwide outrage. The Indian Army’s response, authorized by PM Modi, utilized indigenous platforms, showcasing India’s growing self-reliance in defense manufacturing. According to a Ministry of Defense report, the operation involved advanced drones and precision-guided munitions, with no Indian casualties reported. This success has bolstered India’s image as a decisive power, capable of countering terrorism without external reliance. The operation’s global impact was evident when the UN Security Council, in a May 12 statement, condemned the Pahalgam attack and supported India’s right to self-defense, a rare endorsement for New Delhi.However, challenges remain. The Opposition’s push for accountability on intelligence failures and Trump’s narrative risks domestic political friction. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s international outreach, while clarifying India’s stance, faced criticism within the party for diluting its aggressive posture. The government must also navigate Pakistan’s propaganda, which falsely claimed civilian casualties in PoK, debunked by India’s satellite imagery evidence.Operation Sindoor highlights India’s sole focus on security and sovereignty. As it marches towards Viksit Bharat by 2047, India’s zero-tolerance policy on terrorism and strategic partnerships signal its emergence as a global leader. Singh’s firm rebuttal of Trump’s claims and the success of Operation Sindoor underscore a clear message: India will protect its sovereignty and peace, no matter the cost.&nbsp;&nbsp;

 On July 28, 2025, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh called a spade a spade in the Lok Sabha, declaring Operation Sindoor a “historic, decisive, and effective” display of India’s firm stand against terrorism and India halted the operation only after achieving its military objectives. 

The Monsoon Session of Parliament turned fiery as the Opposition rolled up its sleeves to corner the government over the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military response. On July 28, 2025, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh called a spade a spade in the Lok Sabha, declaring Operation Sindoor a “historic, decisive, and effective” display of India’s firm stand against terrorism and India halted the operation only after achieving its military objectives. Addressing the House, the Defense Minister underlined the successful military campaign against perpetrators who killed 26 civilians, mostly tourists, in a brutal attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025. The attack, driven by religious motives, shook the conscience of the nation. “The Indian Army achieved a stupendous feat, meeting its military goals without any external or internal pressure,” Singh firmly stated, emphasizing the operation’s precision and independence. The nub of Singh’s statements was to refute US President Donald Trump’s claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Operation Sindoor, launched on May 6-7, 2025, targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), destroying them with surgical precision while minimizing civilian casualties. He clarified that the operation was paused at Pakistan’s request through direct military channels on May 10, not due to any diplomatic pressure or external intervention. This directly countered Trump’s repeated assertions—26 times since May 10, as claimed by the Congress—that he brokered the truce, even suggesting he prevented a nuclear war. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a June 18 phone call with Trump, had already clarified that the ceasefire was a bilateral decision, a stance echoed by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri at the G7 summit. The Opposition, led by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, seized the moment to question the Modi-led government’s handling of the Pahalgam attack and Trump’s claims. Labeling the US President’s assertions “humiliating,” they demanded a 16-hour debate on Operation Sindoor, set for July 29, to probe alleged intelligence failures. Kharge cited Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha’s admission of lapses, noting that the terrorists responsible remain at large. The Congress argued that the government’s silence on Trump’s narrative risked undermining India’s global credibility. In response, Singh mounted a robust defense, stating, “Results always matter in any examination, not if the pencil broke or the pen was lost.” He emphasized that Pakistan failed to inflict any damage on India’s military assets, while the Indian Army achieved its objective of dismantling terror infrastructure. Operation Sindoor targeted Pakistan-based terror outfits, eliminating over 100 terrorists, including members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and destroying key infrastructure like China-supplied HQ-9 missile systems. Indian warplanes and strategic planning ensured maximum damage to terror camps without harming innocent civilians, earning global acknowledgment for India’s military prowess. The Defense Minister’s address highlighted the operation’s success in sending a clear message: India will not tolerate cross-border terrorism. The Defense Minister’s visit to Srinagar’s 15 Corps Headquarters on May 15, where he praised the armed forces’ valour, further reinforced this stance. He also called for the International Atomic Energy Agency to oversee Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, signaling India’s concerns over “nuclear blackmail.” India has consistently extended an olive branch to Pakistan, from the 1999 Lahore Bus Yatra to Modi’s attendance at Nawaz Sharif’s granddaughter’s wedding in 2015 as a gesture of goodwill. However, Singh noted in the Lok Sabha, “India has always emphasized peaceful relations with Pakistan, but our neighbour has failed to understand its merit.” Despite these efforts, Pakistan’s persistent support for terrorism has forced India to adopt a zero-tolerance policy. Modi has driven home the message that “terror and talks cannot go together,” a principle reflected in the 2016 Surgical Strike, the 2019 Balakot Air Strike, and now Operation Sindoor. These operations underscore India’s resolve to safeguard its sovereignty while advocating for global peace under the vision of “One Nation, One Earth, One Future.” The Pahalgam attack, executed by Pakistan-backed terrorists, targeted civilians in a popular tourist destination, prompting nationwide outrage. The Indian Army’s response, authorized by PM Modi, utilized indigenous platforms, showcasing India’s growing self-reliance in defense manufacturing. According to a Ministry of Defense report, the operation involved advanced drones and precision-guided munitions, with no Indian casualties reported. This success has bolstered India’s image as a decisive power, capable of countering terrorism without external reliance. The operation’s global impact was evident when the UN Security Council, in a May 12 statement, condemned the Pahalgam attack and supported India’s right to self-defense, a rare endorsement for New Delhi. However, challenges remain. The Opposition’s push for accountability on intelligence failures and Trump’s narrative risks domestic political friction. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s international outreach, while clarifying India’s stance, faced criticism within the party for diluting its aggressive posture. The government must also navigate Pakistan’s propaganda, which falsely claimed civilian casualties in PoK, debunked by India’s satellite imagery evidence. Operation Sindoor highlights India’s sole focus on security and sovereignty. As it marches towards Viksit Bharat by 2047, India’s zero-tolerance policy on terrorism and strategic partnerships signal its emergence as a global leader. Singh’s firm rebuttal of Trump’s claims and the success of Operation Sindoor underscore a clear message: India will protect its sovereignty and peace, no matter the cost.

&nbsp;On July 28, 2025, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh called a spade a spade in the Lok Sabha, declaring Operation Sindoor a “historic, decisive, and effective” display of India’s firm stand against terrorism and India halted the operation only after achieving its military objectives.&nbsp;

Operation Sindoor: Donald Trump’s ceasefire boast falls flat as Defense Minister Rajnath Singh sets record straight in Lok Sabha

When I bought my new EV, I imagined the convenience of having my own personal petrol pump in the form of a home EV charger. No more standing in long queues at fuel stations. No more Rs 10,000 credit card bills for petrol every month. However that vision quickly shattered.&nbsp;India’s ground-level infrastructure is nowhere close to supporting the EV revolution we are being promised. Jaypee Wishtown in Noida is a prime example. The society, with a poor safety record and zero infrastructure upgrades, is flatly refusing to allow the installation of a personal EV chargers, even when the wiring is taken from the flat owner’s own electricity meter.&nbsp;The result? An EV owner here must park their car 3 km away plug into a society commissioned charging station by Tata Power, that will cost double the price, leave it to charge for six hours, walk back home on foot and then repeat the same 3 km trek to retrieve the vehicle. What’s supposed to be the future of mobility feels like a punishment. It's a nightmare.&nbsp;&nbsp;Question arises, is the society’s FMG also taking a commission from the revenue generated at those charging points?&nbsp;Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari has pushed hard for India’s electric mobility dream, introducing subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives for manufacturers. However, on the ground, there’s a glaring oversight: residents in apartment complexes across India are being blocked from installing personal EV chargers. And car companies? They’re powerless to intervene.&nbsp;Without a legal and infrastructural framework that guarantees home charging rights, India’s EV dream is running on empty.<h3>Apartment Societies: The Silent Roadblock</h3>&nbsp;From Mumbai to Noida, scores of EV owners living in gated societies report being denied permission to install chargers, even when tapping power lines from their own domestic meters. In Noida’s Amrapali Princely Estate, one Mahindra XUV400 owner was slapped with a Rs 25,000 fine for charging at home. The new Owners Association imposed a penalty and demanded residents use only society-appointed commercial chargers, negating electricity savings and convenience.&nbsp;&nbsp;In Mumbai, the Bombay High Court ruled in February 2025 that societies cannot arbitrarily refuse EV charger installations, and directed Maharashtra authorities to formalise rules mandating NOCs within seven days of request. Yet enforcement remains lax in many states.<h3>Society Safety Excuses Hide Structural Gaps</h3>&nbsp;Society committees often justify their refusals citing safety issues or lack of fire‑safety SOPs, infrastructure limitations, or concerns about sanctioned load. For instance, high‑rise residents in Bengaluru and Hyderabad report being denied permits over single entry/exit corridors, absence of separate pathways, or insufficient meter wiring, even if sprinklers and extinguishers are in place.<h3>Automakers Are Watching from the Sidelines</h3>&nbsp;Car companies like Maruti Suzuki, Tata, MG, Mahindra and others have tried to alleviate infrastructure concerns by pledging more public fast‑charging stations, battery rental services, and city‑wide networks. However, these efforts can’t help customers who can’t charge at home and they remain effectively “helpless” when direct society resistance blocks home installations.<h3>A Policy-Promise vs Ground Reality Gap</h3>&nbsp;India’s central EV strategy hinges heavily on home charging: lower tariffs, convenience, reduced grid strain. Yet builders and societies rarely incorporate EV‑ready provisions, wiring, meter access, infrastructure planning. As analysts from IEEFA observe, lack of common guidelines, opposition from non‑EV owners within societies, and poor infrastructure are severely undermining adoption efforts.<h3>Verdict: Gadkari’s Vision Crashing Against Society Walls</h3>&nbsp;Gadkari may be pushing ambitious sales numbers and highway charging corridors, but residential EV charging, the backbone of adoption is crumbling at the grassroots. Until states enforce rules uniformly, utilities simplify sanctioned‑load upgrades, and societies honour legal rulings, EV owners in flats will remain collateral damage in India’s green push.&nbsp;Automakers, policymakers, and civic bodies need to shift from PR pledges to enforcing home charging rights, or risk seeing EV adoption stay stuck in traffic not roads.&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 society, with a poor safety record and zero infrastructure upgrades, is flatly refusing to allow the installation of a personal EV chargers, even when the wiring is taken from the flat owner’s own electricity meter.

When I bought my new EV, I imagined the convenience of having my own personal petrol pump in the form of a home EV charger. No more standing in long queues at fuel stations. No more Rs 10,000 credit card bills for petrol every month. However that vision quickly shattered. India’s ground-level infrastructure is nowhere close to supporting the EV revolution we are being promised. Jaypee Wishtown in Noida is a prime example. The society, with a poor safety record and zero infrastructure upgrades, is flatly refusing to allow the installation of a personal EV chargers, even when the wiring is taken from the flat owner’s own electricity meter. The result? An EV owner here must park their car 3 km away plug into a society commissioned charging station by Tata Power, that will cost double the price, leave it to charge for six hours, walk back home on foot and then repeat the same 3 km trek to retrieve the vehicle. What’s supposed to be the future of mobility feels like a punishment. It's a nightmare. Question arises, is the society’s FMG also taking a commission from the revenue generated at those charging points? Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari has pushed hard for India’s electric mobility dream, introducing subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives for manufacturers. However, on the ground, there’s a glaring oversight: residents in apartment complexes across India are being blocked from installing personal EV chargers. And car companies? They’re powerless to intervene. Without a legal and infrastructural framework that guarantees home charging rights, India’s EV dream is running on empty. Apartment Societies: The Silent Roadblock From Mumbai to Noida, scores of EV owners living in gated societies report being denied permission to install chargers, even when tapping power lines from their own domestic meters. In Noida’s Amrapali Princely Estate, one Mahindra XUV400 owner was slapped with a Rs 25,000 fine for charging at home. The new Owners Association imposed a penalty and demanded residents use only society-appointed commercial chargers, negating electricity savings and convenience. In Mumbai, the Bombay High Court ruled in February 2025 that societies cannot arbitrarily refuse EV charger installations, and directed Maharashtra authorities to formalise rules mandating NOCs within seven days of request. Yet enforcement remains lax in many states. Society Safety Excuses Hide Structural Gaps Society committees often justify their refusals citing safety issues or lack of fire‑safety SOPs, infrastructure limitations, or concerns about sanctioned load. For instance, high‑rise residents in Bengaluru and Hyderabad report being denied permits over single entry/exit corridors, absence of separate pathways, or insufficient meter wiring, even if sprinklers and extinguishers are in place. Automakers Are Watching from the Sidelines Car companies like Maruti Suzuki, Tata, MG, Mahindra and others have tried to alleviate infrastructure concerns by pledging more public fast‑charging stations, battery rental services, and city‑wide networks. However, these efforts can’t help customers who can’t charge at home and they remain effectively “helpless” when direct society resistance blocks home installations. A Policy-Promise vs Ground Reality Gap India’s central EV strategy hinges heavily on home charging: lower tariffs, convenience, reduced grid strain. Yet builders and societies rarely incorporate EV‑ready provisions, wiring, meter access, infrastructure planning. As analysts from IEEFA observe, lack of common guidelines, opposition from non‑EV owners within societies, and poor infrastructure are severely undermining adoption efforts. Verdict: Gadkari’s Vision Crashing Against Society Walls Gadkari may be pushing ambitious sales numbers and highway charging corridors, but residential EV charging, the backbone of adoption is crumbling at the grassroots. Until states enforce rules uniformly, utilities simplify sanctioned‑load upgrades, and societies honour legal rulings, EV owners in flats will remain collateral damage in India’s green push. Automakers, policymakers, and civic bodies need to shift from PR pledges to enforcing home charging rights, or risk seeing EV adoption stay stuck in traffic not roads. 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 society, with a poor safety record and zero infrastructure upgrades, is flatly refusing to allow the installation of a personal EV chargers, even when the wiring is taken from the flat owner’s own electricity meter.

'Rs 25,000 fine for charging at home': Nitin Gadkari’s EV revolution in collapse as housing societies deny personal EV chargers

When Mohit Suri announced his next film- his first collaboration with Yash Raj Films- most welcomed the news as it would combine the sensibilities of two distinct styles into one. Both Suri and YRF have been known to create memorable love stories, and thus this new project held potential. It also marked the debut of two new fresh faces in the film industry. Some passed on Ahaan Panday (nephew of actor Chunky Pandey and cousin to current Bollywood favourite Ananya Panday ) as yet another nepo kid getting the big launch. Some were sceptical of Aneet Padda's potential as the new YRF heroine. But all doubts were put to rest as Saiyaara hit theatres on July 18. No one could have predicted the blitzkrieg it would bring into Bollywood in the next two days.&nbsp;Five days on, the Saiyaara fever refuses to die down. People are sharing reels of the film and music, crying, collapsing in theatres and more. The reactions are dramatic, extreme and unprecedented – something that Bollywood was not prepared for and yet now closely observing and hopefully learning.&nbsp;So what makes Saiyaara such a blockbuster? Is it the music or Suri's Midas touch? A heartfelt love story in the age of dating apps? Or the performances by the debutants? Perhaps a combination of all of these.<h2>Low-key promotions</h2>Saiyaara’s producer, Yash Raj Films, adapted an unusual promotional strategy. In the age of over-the-top, relentless and in-your-face film promotions, YRF chose a traditional path. The interviews were restricted to musicians and later to Suri. No promotional event, no mall visits, no song launch. Less exposure of the lead pair worked in the film's favour as the audience got a proper glimpse of the debutants in the cinema hall for the first time and not through reel collabs with various influencers. Most perceived Ahaan as Krish Kapoor and Aneet as Vaani. The strategy of less is more worked in keeping the curiosity level high.&nbsp;<h2>The Mohit Suri musical</h2>As soon as Saiyaara hit theatres, the film courted controversy as many pointed out eerie similarity with Korean film A Moment To Remember. And while the team of Saiyaara is yet to respond, critics have already started posting clippings of the two films- drawing comparisons between them. &nbsp;However, it's Mohit Suri's Midas touch that did the trick for Saiyaara. Suri, who in the past has given two iconic musical hits like Aashiqui 2 and Ek Villain (both remakes of foreign films), had a bit of a dull outing at the box office over the last few years. Yet, Suri was able to bounce back, keeping his style of cinema intact even under the Yash Raj banner. &nbsp;Suri admitted in an interview with WION that he was happy that he got to tell the story his way, even if it was under YRF. The result was an unusual film from the banner, which is known for opulence and stylish love stories. &nbsp;Aneet Padda, dressed in jeans and chikankari kurta tops, was sans makeup and designer wear. There was no song shot in Switzerland, no opulent set passed off as a humble home. Suri, known for his knack of picking the right music, hit a bull's eye as he appointed multiple music composers to create a stellar soundtrack.&nbsp;<h2>Breaking the clutter</h2>&nbsp;Saiyaara's biggest win is its ability to break the clutter. Call it perfect timing or a calculated risk, it comes at a time when the audience is exhausted of 'Pan-India' actioners which have more gore than logic. Post Pandemic, Bollywood has only seen success with big-budget pan- Indian action thrillers. No other genre seems to have worked. And thus, countless films were made in the last few years based on the same formula. But for how long can one enjoy the same old revenge story, of a 50-something superstar wielding an axe at men double his size?

The audience has changed and Saiyaara's success just proved that the new generation needed a hero of their age. Someone they could relate to. Enough of a 40-year-old playing man-child in a coming-of-age drama.&nbsp;It also needed a story that felt authentic, that could be appreciated in its pauses, in its sad moments and through its music. Saiyaara was able to tick the boxes and more.&nbsp;Saiyaara’s success should be seen as a watershed moment for Bollywood after years of formulaic action films. It should be seen as a textbook example that a story is the biggest star power for a film. No big star or label can woo the audience the way a good story can.

What makes Saiyaara such a blockbuster? Is it the music or Suri's Midas touch? A heartfelt love story in the age of dating apps? Or the performances by the debutants? Perhaps a combination of all of these.

When Mohit Suri announced his next film- his first collaboration with Yash Raj Films- most welcomed the news as it would combine the sensibilities of two distinct styles into one. Both Suri and YRF have been known to create memorable love stories, and thus this new project held potential. It also marked the debut of two new fresh faces in the film industry. Some passed on Ahaan Panday (nephew of actor Chunky Pandey and cousin to current Bollywood favourite Ananya Panday ) as yet another nepo kid getting the big launch. Some were sceptical of Aneet Padda's potential as the new YRF heroine. But all doubts were put to rest as Saiyaara hit theatres on July 18. No one could have predicted the blitzkrieg it would bring into Bollywood in the next two days. Five days on, the Saiyaara fever refuses to die down. People are sharing reels of the film and music, crying, collapsing in theatres and more. The reactions are dramatic, extreme and unprecedented – something that Bollywood was not prepared for and yet now closely observing and hopefully learning. So what makes Saiyaara such a blockbuster? Is it the music or Suri's Midas touch? A heartfelt love story in the age of dating apps? Or the performances by the debutants? Perhaps a combination of all of these. Low-key promotions Saiyaara’s producer, Yash Raj Films, adapted an unusual promotional strategy. In the age of over-the-top, relentless and in-your-face film promotions, YRF chose a traditional path. The interviews were restricted to musicians and later to Suri. No promotional event, no mall visits, no song launch. Less exposure of the lead pair worked in the film's favour as the audience got a proper glimpse of the debutants in the cinema hall for the first time and not through reel collabs with various influencers. Most perceived Ahaan as Krish Kapoor and Aneet as Vaani. The strategy of less is more worked in keeping the curiosity level high. The Mohit Suri musical As soon as Saiyaara hit theatres, the film courted controversy as many pointed out eerie similarity with Korean film A Moment To Remember. And while the team of Saiyaara is yet to respond, critics have already started posting clippings of the two films- drawing comparisons between them. However, it's Mohit Suri's Midas touch that did the trick for Saiyaara. Suri, who in the past has given two iconic musical hits like Aashiqui 2 and Ek Villain (both remakes of foreign films), had a bit of a dull outing at the box office over the last few years. Yet, Suri was able to bounce back, keeping his style of cinema intact even under the Yash Raj banner. Suri admitted in an interview with WION that he was happy that he got to tell the story his way, even if it was under YRF. The result was an unusual film from the banner, which is known for opulence and stylish love stories. Aneet Padda, dressed in jeans and chikankari kurta tops, was sans makeup and designer wear. There was no song shot in Switzerland, no opulent set passed off as a humble home. Suri, known for his knack of picking the right music, hit a bull's eye as he appointed multiple music composers to create a stellar soundtrack. Breaking the clutter Saiyaara's biggest win is its ability to break the clutter. Call it perfect timing or a calculated risk, it comes at a time when the audience is exhausted of 'Pan-India' actioners which have more gore than logic. Post Pandemic, Bollywood has only seen success with big-budget pan- Indian action thrillers. No other genre seems to have worked. And thus, countless films were made in the last few years based on the same formula. But for how long can one enjoy the same old revenge story, of a 50-something superstar wielding an axe at men double his size?

What makes Saiyaara such a blockbuster? Is it the music or Mohit Suri's Midas touch? A heartfelt love story in the age of dating apps? Or the performances by the debutants? Perhaps a combination of all of these.

Saiyaara fever grips the nation: What's making Mohit Suri's film with two newcomers work at the box office?

The leaders of Brazil and Canada have set examples on how standing up to US President Donald Trump can boost their popularity. Leaders around the world might do well to follow events in South America’s biggest country and America’s neighbour and biggest trading partner.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the US follows the schedule it has set for its global trade war, imports from Canada will carry a tariff of 35 per cent beginning on August 1. For Brazil, the rate will be a staggering 50 per cent. Unlike for the rest of the world, the reason for Brazil’s stiff rate is entirely political.&nbsp;&nbsp;On April 2, a date Trump called Liberation Day, Trump signed an executive order on a package of import duties designed to end America’s persistent trade deficits, which he termed a national emergency. The US buys more goods from most countries than it sells to them.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are exceptions. Brazil has a trade surplus with the United States, and Trump laid out his rationale for the 50 per cent levy in a letter to Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula. Posted on Trump’s social media site, Truth Social, the letter is an extraordinary example of the unique way the US President conducts foreign policy.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here is the first paragraph of the letter. It is so far from mainstream diplomacy that many readers, including Lula, first thought it was an Internet fake.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Dear Mr. President: &nbsp;I knew and dealt with former President Jair Bolsonarao, and respected him greatly, as did many other Leaders of Countries. The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. The Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end immediately.”&nbsp;&nbsp;The second paragraph complained about Brazilian rules regulating content on US social media platforms and added: “Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Bolsonaro, who has called himself “the tropical Trump” is facing trial on charges of leading an attempted coup to overturn the results of the 2020 elections and prevent Lula from taking office.&nbsp; The case is handled by Brazilian Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes who has been the focus of an intense lobbying campaign in Washington by Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo, who has been demanding financial sanctions against the judge. The campaign had partial success.&nbsp;&nbsp;On July 18, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Moraes had his US visa revoked. The decision was announced a few hours after the judge ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor and banned him from contact with foreign governments.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;US administration’s interference in Brazilian domestic affairs and a pending trial are almost certain to boost the popularity of Lula, whose approval ratings already ticked up after a reference to Trump as a would-be world president at the end of a two-day meeting in Rio de Janeiro of the BRICS countries. The term BRICS was coined in 2001 by a Goldman Sachs economist and stood for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It gradually expanded and now embraces ten countries with a combined population of 3.75 billion, almost half the population of the globe.&nbsp;&nbsp;The American political analyst Ian Bremmer, head of the Eurasia Group, a political risk research firm, described the US campaign in favour of Bolsonaro as “a flag-wrapped gift” for Lula. Escalating the clash allows him to cast himself as the defender of Brazilian sovereignty.&nbsp;&nbsp;Lula clearly intends to ratchet up the row. On July 17, in an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN, he said he had been surprised not only by the US tariff announcement but also by the way it was delivered, on a social media site. He said his government had suggested negotiations in a formal letter.&nbsp;&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.”&nbsp;&nbsp;The spat between Lula and Trump brings to mind a long Trump campaign to make Canada the 51st state. The US leader was in the habit of calling then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “governor”. Trudeau resigned in January, and his Liberal Party lagged in the polls and looked set for defeat in elections on April 28.&nbsp;&nbsp;But then Trump turned the contest on its head with oft-repeated suggestions that Canada should be the 51st US state, in effect a threat of annexation. Within weeks, the Conservative Party’s 25-point lead had evaporated and was overtaken by the Liberals, who waged an anti-Trump campaign. Liberal leader Mark Carney won. His first foreign visit, a week after his electoral victory, was to Washington.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Oval Office meeting between Trump and Carney was congenial, and the discussion, inevitably, came to the 51st state idea.&nbsp; Solemnly, Carney said: “Canada is not for sale. As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale. We are sitting in one now. Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the (election) campaign, last several months, it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Despite the congenial atmosphere of the encounter, there was no change in the US assessment of tariffs. But there was a change in the approval rating of Carney. Polls showed a marked increase.&nbsp;

If the US follows the schedule it has set for its global trade war, imports from Canada will carry a tariff of 35 per cent beginning on August 1. For Brazil, the rate will be a staggering 50 per cent. Unlike for the rest of the world, the reason for Brazil’s stiff rate is entirely political. 

The leaders of Brazil and Canada have set examples on how standing up to US President Donald Trump can boost their popularity. Leaders around the world might do well to follow events in South America’s biggest country and America’s neighbour and biggest trading partner. If the US follows the schedule it has set for its global trade war, imports from Canada will carry a tariff of 35 per cent beginning on August 1. For Brazil, the rate will be a staggering 50 per cent. Unlike for the rest of the world, the reason for Brazil’s stiff rate is entirely political. On April 2, a date Trump called Liberation Day, Trump signed an executive order on a package of import duties designed to end America’s persistent trade deficits, which he termed a national emergency. The US buys more goods from most countries than it sells to them. There are exceptions. Brazil has a trade surplus with the United States, and Trump laid out his rationale for the 50 per cent levy in a letter to Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula. Posted on Trump’s social media site, Truth Social, the letter is an extraordinary example of the unique way the US President conducts foreign policy. Here is the first paragraph of the letter. It is so far from mainstream diplomacy that many readers, including Lula, first thought it was an Internet fake. “Dear Mr. President: I knew and dealt with former President Jair Bolsonarao, and respected him greatly, as did many other Leaders of Countries. The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. The Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end immediately.” The second paragraph complained about Brazilian rules regulating content on US social media platforms and added: “Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.” Bolsonaro, who has called himself “the tropical Trump” is facing trial on charges of leading an attempted coup to overturn the results of the 2020 elections and prevent Lula from taking office. The case is handled by Brazilian Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes who has been the focus of an intense lobbying campaign in Washington by Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo, who has been demanding financial sanctions against the judge. The campaign had partial success. On July 18, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Moraes had his US visa revoked. The decision was announced a few hours after the judge ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor and banned him from contact with foreign governments. The US administration’s interference in Brazilian domestic affairs and a pending trial are almost certain to boost the popularity of Lula, whose approval ratings already ticked up after a reference to Trump as a would-be world president at the end of a two-day meeting in Rio de Janeiro of the BRICS countries. The term BRICS was coined in 2001 by a Goldman Sachs economist and stood for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It gradually expanded and now embraces ten countries with a combined population of 3.75 billion, almost half the population of the globe. The American political analyst Ian Bremmer, head of the Eurasia Group, a political risk research firm, described the US campaign in favour of Bolsonaro as “a flag-wrapped gift” for Lula. Escalating the clash allows him to cast himself as the defender of Brazilian sovereignty. Lula clearly intends to ratchet up the row. On July 17, in an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN, he said he had been surprised not only by the US tariff announcement but also by the way it was delivered, on a social media site. He said his government had suggested negotiations in a formal letter. “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.” The spat between Lula and Trump brings to mind a long Trump campaign to make Canada the 51st state. The US leader was in the habit of calling then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “governor”. Trudeau resigned in January, and his Liberal Party lagged in the polls and looked set for defeat in elections on April 28. But then Trump turned the contest on its head with oft-repeated suggestions that Canada should be the 51st US state, in effect a threat of annexation. Within weeks, the Conservative Party’s 25-point lead had evaporated and was overtaken by the Liberals, who waged an anti-Trump campaign. Liberal leader Mark Carney won. His first foreign visit, a week after his electoral victory, was to Washington. The Oval Office meeting between Trump and Carney was congenial, and the discussion, inevitably, came to the 51st state idea. Solemnly, Carney said: “Canada is not for sale. As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale. We are sitting in one now. Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the (election) campaign, last several months, it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale, ever.” Despite the congenial atmosphere of the encounter, there was no change in the US assessment of tariffs. But there was a change in the approval rating of Carney. Polls showed a marked increase.

If the US follows the schedule it has set for its global trade war, imports from Canada will carry a tariff of 35 per cent beginning on August 1. For Brazil, the rate will be a staggering 50 per cent.&nbsp;

Brazil and Canada push back on US interference in their domestic affairs

Weekends are my perfect lyadh days. While I line up multiple tasks that need my attention on weekends, I don’t strive to complete them with the same efficiency and speed as I would on other working days. &nbsp;I do things at my own pace.&nbsp;And, my pace could be slow for many, but it is stubborn and persistent. It helps me meet my deadlines at work and lets me stay focused on my targets. Most importantly, it helps me take a back seat on the weekends. That’s when I feel more at ease, with myself and my surroundings.‘Lyadh’ – in colloquial Bangla, means just that. &nbsp;It means the art of doing nothing at all, of lazing around. Or it could mean taking your own sweet time in doing things. I fall into the latter categorisation. &nbsp;Lyadh means different things to different people. &nbsp;It could mean aimlessly watching the world pass by through your little window, gazing up at the clouds and making stories, striking up a conversation with the stars, rewatching mindless comedy classics, or simply putting your feet up and reading a book or listening to your favourite music, and dreaming away. &nbsp;Basically, ‘Lyadh’ can be anything and everything that lets you unwind fully, where you don’t engage much at the cerebral level. &nbsp;My idea of Lyadh-ing on a lazy summer Sunday is to have a leisurely brunch of ‘Panta Bhaat’, followed by an afternoon siesta.&nbsp; &nbsp;What a pure bliss that is. &nbsp;Of late, Panta Bhaat has become a staple food in our household during the summers. It has made its way to our home through me – or so I would like to believe. &nbsp;While my parents enjoy Panta Bhaat, they are not fixated on having the fermented meal every summer weekend as I am. My love for Panta Bhaat has deepened over the last few years, especially because it tastes good, makes my tummy happy and lyadh-ing post that, feels even more justified. &nbsp;This rice dish has many versions and is known by different names in different regions of India - Panta Bhaat in West Bengal, Pakhala in Odisha, Poita Bhaat in Assam, Geel Bhaat in Bihar, Pazhamkanji in Kerala, among others. &nbsp;The first step in preparing Panta Bhaat (Bengali version) is the fermentation process. Usually, the leftover parboiled rice is soaked in water overnight, which then ferments the next day. A dash of lemon, preferably Gondhoraj lebu (a type of lemon grown in Bengal), is squeezed into the rice and is mashed with a bit of mustard oil and salt. It can then be had with onions and green chillies.Along with this, there are several accompaniments to go with Panta Bhaat, like mashed potatoes, batter-fried vegetables, lentil fritters, and fried fish. &nbsp;This mildly fermented rice dish was born out of utilitarian needs. Back in the day, when refrigerators were not so common, this was a meal meant for the working people. Moreover, the process left no food waste, as leftover rice was made into a dish that sustained them for a long time. &nbsp;The oldest historical record of this fermented meal, which is widely reported, dates back to the 17th century. It is attributed to the Portuguese traveller Fray Sebastián Manrique, who visited Bengal and noted that Panta Bhaat, accompanied by salt and green, leafy vegetables, was the main meal for people across all communities. &nbsp;While it’s evident that we have been consuming fermented foods since ancient times, their popularity has surged only recently. Did we recognise their health benefits too late? &nbsp;I have been having fermented food items in my diet for many years now. Some of my preferred fermented Indian food items are - Idli (fermented rice cakes), Dosa (made from fermented batter of rice and lentils), Kanji (fermented drink made from black carrots and spices), Pickles (aachar in Hindi, made from fermented vegetables or fruits) and my all-time favourite – Dhokla (fermented snack made from chickpea flour). All these are rich in probiotics, fibre and essential micronutrients that promote gut health. &nbsp;But ‘Panta Bhaat’ tops my list of favourite summer foods. Its high-water content makes it a hydrating meal, perfect for the scorching heat of Delhi-NCR. And, for me, it goes even deeper. It feels as though my soul immerses itself in a bowl of Panta Bhaat, relishing its cooling properties.I know it sounds a bit exaggerated and surreal, but that’s exactly what I feel. &nbsp;Here is a picture of what my plate of soul food looked like last weekend. The add-ons included - bhaaja, or fried lentil and seasonal vegetables, alu makha, or mashed potatoes with mustard oil and green chillies, and fried Ilish (hilsa) fish.

Panta Bhaat

&nbsp;If Wim Wenders’ Oscar-nominated Japanese drama “Perfect Days” ever gets made into an Indian version, I propose that the filmmaker include the often-called ‘peasant's meal’ in the narrative.Panta Bhaat and lyadh-ing go in “perfect” sync with the theme of the film. &nbsp;They all make a compelling case for a life that is simple, slow, light, and easy.

Of late, Panta Bhaat has become a staple food in our household during the summers. It has made its way to our home through me.  My love for Panta Bhaat has deepened over the last few years, especially because it tastes good, makes my tummy happy.

Weekends are my perfect lyadh days. While I line up multiple tasks that need my attention on weekends, I don’t strive to complete them with the same efficiency and speed as I would on other working days. I do things at my own pace. And, my pace could be slow for many, but it is stubborn and persistent. It helps me meet my deadlines at work and lets me stay focused on my targets. Most importantly, it helps me take a back seat on the weekends. That’s when I feel more at ease, with myself and my surroundings. ‘Lyadh’ – in colloquial Bangla, means just that. It means the art of doing nothing at all, of lazing around. Or it could mean taking your own sweet time in doing things. I fall into the latter categorisation. Lyadh means different things to different people. It could mean aimlessly watching the world pass by through your little window, gazing up at the clouds and making stories, striking up a conversation with the stars, rewatching mindless comedy classics, or simply putting your feet up and reading a book or listening to your favourite music, and dreaming away. Basically, ‘Lyadh’ can be anything and everything that lets you unwind fully, where you don’t engage much at the cerebral level. My idea of Lyadh-ing on a lazy summer Sunday is to have a leisurely brunch of ‘Panta Bhaat’, followed by an afternoon siesta. What a pure bliss that is. Of late, Panta Bhaat has become a staple food in our household during the summers. It has made its way to our home through me – or so I would like to believe. While my parents enjoy Panta Bhaat, they are not fixated on having the fermented meal every summer weekend as I am. My love for Panta Bhaat has deepened over the last few years, especially because it tastes good, makes my tummy happy and lyadh-ing post that, feels even more justified. This rice dish has many versions and is known by different names in different regions of India - Panta Bhaat in West Bengal, Pakhala in Odisha, Poita Bhaat in Assam, Geel Bhaat in Bihar, Pazhamkanji in Kerala, among others. The first step in preparing Panta Bhaat (Bengali version) is the fermentation process. Usually, the leftover parboiled rice is soaked in water overnight, which then ferments the next day. A dash of lemon, preferably Gondhoraj lebu (a type of lemon grown in Bengal), is squeezed into the rice and is mashed with a bit of mustard oil and salt. It can then be had with onions and green chillies. Along with this, there are several accompaniments to go with Panta Bhaat, like mashed potatoes, batter-fried vegetables, lentil fritters, and fried fish. This mildly fermented rice dish was born out of utilitarian needs. Back in the day, when refrigerators were not so common, this was a meal meant for the working people. Moreover, the process left no food waste, as leftover rice was made into a dish that sustained them for a long time. The oldest historical record of this fermented meal, which is widely reported, dates back to the 17th century. It is attributed to the Portuguese traveller Fray Sebastián Manrique, who visited Bengal and noted that Panta Bhaat, accompanied by salt and green, leafy vegetables, was the main meal for people across all communities. While it’s evident that we have been consuming fermented foods since ancient times, their popularity has surged only recently. Did we recognise their health benefits too late? I have been having fermented food items in my diet for many years now. Some of my preferred fermented Indian food items are - Idli (fermented rice cakes), Dosa (made from fermented batter of rice and lentils), Kanji (fermented drink made from black carrots and spices), Pickles (aachar in Hindi, made from fermented vegetables or fruits) and my all-time favourite – Dhokla (fermented snack made from chickpea flour). All these are rich in probiotics, fibre and essential micronutrients that promote gut health. But ‘Panta Bhaat’ tops my list of favourite summer foods. Its high-water content makes it a hydrating meal, perfect for the scorching heat of Delhi-NCR. And, for me, it goes even deeper. It feels as though my soul immerses itself in a bowl of Panta Bhaat, relishing its cooling properties. I know it sounds a bit exaggerated and surreal, but that’s exactly what I feel. Here is a picture of what my plate of soul food looked like last weekend. The add-ons included - bhaaja, or fried lentil and seasonal vegetables, alu makha, or mashed potatoes with mustard oil and green chillies, and fried Ilish (hilsa) fish.

Of late, Panta Bhaat has become a staple food in our household during the&nbsp;summers. It has made its way to our home through me. &nbsp;My love for Panta Bhaat has deepened over the last few years, especially because it tastes good, makes my tummy happy.

Panta Bhaat: How the humble fermented rice has become a summer weekend staple for me

On May 14, US President Donald Trump met Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, the Saudi Capital. The meeting, over cups of tea, lasted 33 minutes, long enough for the American president to form a positive view of the Syrian.&nbsp;He praised him as “a young attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” A man “with a real shot at pulling it together” in turning fractured, war-shattered Syria into a stable country. That would be a big step towards realizing Tump’s proclaimed vision of a new Middle East building on the Abraham Accord concluded in his first term.&nbsp;Brokered by the US and signed in 2020, those accords normalized relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Morocco. The White House has said it hope that Syria will establish relations with Israel and join the accords.&nbsp;The Trump-al Sharaa meeting was the first between American and Syrian presidents in 25 years and came a day after a surprise announcement by Trump that all sanctions on Syria will be lifted “to give the country a chance at greatness.”&nbsp;Trump’s unexpected announcement on the sanctions, at an economic conference in Riyadh, was followed by Executive Orders and a formal announcement by the Department of State along with a removal of al-Sharaa’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Shams (HTS) from the list of foreign terrorist organisations. Both took effect early in July.&nbsp;AL-Sharaa led HTS fighters in a lightning offensive against the Syrian military that led to its collapse and the end of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who fled into exile in Russia.&nbsp;That Trump would shake hands with the leader of the victorious anti-Assad forces less than five months after he seized powers astonished even the most veteran observers of Syria. After all, Washington dropped a $10 million reward for the capture of al-Sharaa only in December. It was imposed when al-Sharaa was a leader of al Qaeda before he broke from it and formed his own group. A White House fact sheet on June 30 provided a list of reasons for the dramatic change of positions on Syria, including “recent positive changes by the government of Syria after the fall of the brutal Assad regime (that) demonstrate promise for a stable and peaceful future.” It added that “this policy aligns with U.S. goals to promote peace and stability in the region.”&nbsp;In the new climate of optimism, there was no mention of a series of massacres featuring the kind of stomach-turning acts of brutality that were a feature of the 14 months of civil war that began when Assad’s military opened fire on peaceful demonstrations against the government. For four days, an estimated 1,500 civilians belonging to the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam, were massacred along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, the heartland of the Alawite minority, which held sway under Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez. Alawites account for around 12 percent of the Syrian population and their dominant role was deeply resented by the Sunni majority.&nbsp;According to the government, a wave of shootings and stabbings was in response to a day-old rebellion organized by former officers loyal to Bashar al-Assad against government security forces. The revenge by Sunni fighters featured acts of stomach-turning brutality. Some of them were depicted in graphic detail by the Reuters news agency, which conducted a months-long investigation into the slaughter. Example: “The young man’s heart was sliced from his chest and placed on his body. The men who killed him called his father from the victim’s phone and dared him to fetch the body.” Human Rights organisations, including Amnesty International, blamed militias affiliated with al-Sharaa’s government and said the coastal massacres of civilians should be investigated as war crimes. “Without justice, Syria risks falling back into a cycle of further atrocities and bloodshed,” the organization warned.&nbsp;Al-Sharaa pledged to hold the perpetrators to account, established a fact-finding committee and formed an additional committee to maintain civil peace. The results of the investigation have not so far been published and human rights groups have expressed skepticism over the committee’s independence.&nbsp;Trump’s words of praise for the new Syrian leader bring to mind an earlier premature judgment of a new president from a senior US official, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the early days of the Syrian uprising against Bashar al-Assad, Clinton was asked by a TV interviewer why the US government did not use force in the case of Syria as it had in Libya. Her response: “There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”&nbsp;Bashar became president in July, 2000, succeeding his father Hafez, who died a month before, ending 29 years of iron-fisted rule enforced by administrations dominated by members of the Alawite minority. Father and son accounted for 53 years of Alawite minority rule over the Sunni majority. More than half a century of resentment.&nbsp;&nbsp;Is al-Sharaa the man “with a real shot of pulling it together”, as Trump thinks? Time will tell.

Trump had praised Ahmed al-Sharaa as “a young attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” A man “with a real shot at pulling it together” in turning fractured, war-shattered Syria into a stable country.

On May 14, US President Donald Trump met Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, the Saudi Capital. The meeting, over cups of tea, lasted 33 minutes, long enough for the American president to form a positive view of the Syrian. He praised him as “a young attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” A man “with a real shot at pulling it together” in turning fractured, war-shattered Syria into a stable country. That would be a big step towards realizing Tump’s proclaimed vision of a new Middle East building on the Abraham Accord concluded in his first term. Brokered by the US and signed in 2020, those accords normalized relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Morocco. The White House has said it hope that Syria will establish relations with Israel and join the accords. The Trump-al Sharaa meeting was the first between American and Syrian presidents in 25 years and came a day after a surprise announcement by Trump that all sanctions on Syria will be lifted “to give the country a chance at greatness.” Trump’s unexpected announcement on the sanctions, at an economic conference in Riyadh, was followed by Executive Orders and a formal announcement by the Department of State along with a removal of al-Sharaa’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Shams (HTS) from the list of foreign terrorist organisations. Both took effect early in July. AL-Sharaa led HTS fighters in a lightning offensive against the Syrian military that led to its collapse and the end of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who fled into exile in Russia. That Trump would shake hands with the leader of the victorious anti-Assad forces less than five months after he seized powers astonished even the most veteran observers of Syria. After all, Washington dropped a $10 million reward for the capture of al-Sharaa only in December. It was imposed when al-Sharaa was a leader of al Qaeda before he broke from it and formed his own group. A White House fact sheet on June 30 provided a list of reasons for the dramatic change of positions on Syria, including “recent positive changes by the government of Syria after the fall of the brutal Assad regime (that) demonstrate promise for a stable and peaceful future.” It added that “this policy aligns with U.S. goals to promote peace and stability in the region.” In the new climate of optimism, there was no mention of a series of massacres featuring the kind of stomach-turning acts of brutality that were a feature of the 14 months of civil war that began when Assad’s military opened fire on peaceful demonstrations against the government. For four days, an estimated 1,500 civilians belonging to the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam, were massacred along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, the heartland of the Alawite minority, which held sway under Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez. Alawites account for around 12 percent of the Syrian population and their dominant role was deeply resented by the Sunni majority. According to the government, a wave of shootings and stabbings was in response to a day-old rebellion organized by former officers loyal to Bashar al-Assad against government security forces. The revenge by Sunni fighters featured acts of stomach-turning brutality. Some of them were depicted in graphic detail by the Reuters news agency, which conducted a months-long investigation into the slaughter. Example: “The young man’s heart was sliced from his chest and placed on his body. The men who killed him called his father from the victim’s phone and dared him to fetch the body.” Human Rights organisations, including Amnesty International, blamed militias affiliated with al-Sharaa’s government and said the coastal massacres of civilians should be investigated as war crimes. “Without justice, Syria risks falling back into a cycle of further atrocities and bloodshed,” the organization warned. Al-Sharaa pledged to hold the perpetrators to account, established a fact-finding committee and formed an additional committee to maintain civil peace. The results of the investigation have not so far been published and human rights groups have expressed skepticism over the committee’s independence. Trump’s words of praise for the new Syrian leader bring to mind an earlier premature judgment of a new president from a senior US official, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the early days of the Syrian uprising against Bashar al-Assad, Clinton was asked by a TV interviewer why the US government did not use force in the case of Syria as it had in Libya. Her response: “There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” Bashar became president in July, 2000, succeeding his father Hafez, who died a month before, ending 29 years of iron-fisted rule enforced by administrations dominated by members of the Alawite minority. Father and son accounted for 53 years of Alawite minority rule over the Sunni majority. More than half a century of resentment. Is al-Sharaa the man “with a real shot of pulling it together”, as Trump thinks? Time will tell.

Trump had praised Ahmed al-Sharaa as “a young attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” A man “with a real shot at pulling it together” in turning fractured, war-shattered Syria into a stable country.

How Trump wants to tie Syria into a new, stable Middle East

A new era in naval defence has dawned for India with the successful development and user trials of the&nbsp;Extended Range Anti-Submarine Rocket (ERASR). This powerful, fully indigenous weapon system is poised to transform the Indian Navy's capabilities, acting as a formidable "underwater guardian" that can detect and neutralise hidden submarine threats from significantly greater distances. Its induction marks a pivotal moment in India's journey towards true self-reliance in cutting-edge defence technology.As the global maritime landscape becomes increasingly complex, with advanced submarines operating with enhanced stealth and sophistication, the ERASR offers India a crucial strategic advantage. It empowers the Indian Navy to maintain a vigilant watch over vast oceanic regions, safeguarding its extensive coastline and vital national interests in the Indian Ocean.<h2>Beyond the Horizon: Extending India's Reach Below the Waves</h2>Previously, the Indian Navy's anti-submarine rockets had a limited engagement range of up to 5.3 kilometres. While effective for close-range combat, this offered minimal reaction time against faster, more elusive underwater adversaries. The ERASR dramatically expands this strike envelope to approximately&nbsp;8.5 km – an impressive increase of nearly 60%. This extended reach means the Navy can now identify and neutralise threats much earlier, and from a safer standoff distance, significantly bolstering its defensive and offensive capabilities.The technological advancements embedded in ERASR are a testament to India's engineering prowess. Unlike older systems that relied on a single-stage motor, ERASR incorporates a&nbsp;two-stage solid propulsion system. This innovative design enables the rocket to efficiently cover both short and long distances with remarkable accuracy. Further enhancing its precision is a specialised, indigenously developed&nbsp;Electronic Time Fuze, engineered to ensure the warhead detonates at the optimal moment, maximising the chances of destroying the target.Between June 23 and July 7, 2025, the Indian Navy conducted a comprehensive series of user trials for the ERASR system from its advanced warship, INS Kavaratti. A total of 17 rockets were test-fired under authentic sea conditions, with each performing flawlessly. These rigorous trials meticulously evaluated the rocket's maximum range performance, the flawless operation of its electronic fuze, and the warhead's precise targeting accuracy. The resounding success of these trials, officially announced by the Press Information Bureau on the evening of July 8, confirms ERASR's readiness for immediate induction into regular Navy service.<h2>A Pillar of "Make in India" in Defence</h2>The ERASR is a product of collaborative excellence, primarily developed by the&nbsp;Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) in Pune, a key laboratory under the&nbsp;Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The project also received invaluable technical expertise and support from the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory and the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory.One of ERASR's most significant advantages is its inherent compatibility with the&nbsp;Indigenous Rocket Launcher (IRL) system&nbsp;already deployed on Indian Navy ships. This "fit-and-forget" design means the Navy avoids the need for expensive new platforms or extensive modifications to its existing warships, making the upgrade process both rapid and highly cost-effective.Crucially, the entire production of ERASR will also be undertaken within India, significantly strengthening the government's flagship 'Make in India' initiative.&nbsp;Bharat Dynamics Limited in Hyderabad&nbsp;and&nbsp;Solar Defence and Aerospace Limited in Nagpur&nbsp;have been selected as the dedicated production partners. This strategic move not only drastically reduces India's reliance on foreign defence equipment but also fosters domestic job creation and bolsters local industries, demonstrating India's capability to design, develop, and manufacture advanced weapons systems entirely with its own resources and talent.Defence Minister Rajnath Singh lauded the concerted efforts of the DRDO, the Indian Navy, and the industry partners involved in the ERASR's development and testing. He underscored that the induction of this new system will provide a substantial boost to the Navy's anti-submarine warfare capabilities and powerfully demonstrate the government's unwavering commitment to nurturing homegrown defence capabilities. The Defence Ministry affirmed that this achievement represents a major milestone in India's long-term aspiration of becoming fully self-reliant in defence production. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-navys-ins-tarkash-seizes-over-2500-kg-of-narcotics-8919733/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-navys-ins-tarkash-seizes-over-2500-kg-of-narcotics-8919733/embed</a>&nbsp;The Indian Ocean region, a critical artery for global trade, is experiencing increasing submarine activity. Protecting India's vast 7,500-kilometre coastline and vital maritime trade routes is paramount. The ERASR equips the Indian Navy with the proactive tools necessary to counter evolving underwater threats effectively and assert control over crucial sea lanes. It is a timely and indispensable addition to India's defence arsenal. More than just a potent weapon, ERASR stands as a beacon of what Indian scientists, engineers, and industries can achieve when united in purpose. It symbolises India's surging confidence in building high-end military technology and signals to the world that India is resolutely prepared to protect its interests with strength, innovation, and unwavering self-reliance.

This powerful, fully indigenous weapon system is poised to transform the Indian Navy's capabilities, acting as a formidable "underwater guardian" that can detect and neutralise hidden submarine threats 

A new era in naval defence has dawned for India with the successful development and user trials of the Extended Range Anti-Submarine Rocket (ERASR). This powerful, fully indigenous weapon system is poised to transform the Indian Navy's capabilities, acting as a formidable "underwater guardian" that can detect and neutralise hidden submarine threats from significantly greater distances. Its induction marks a pivotal moment in India's journey towards true self-reliance in cutting-edge defence technology. As the global maritime landscape becomes increasingly complex, with advanced submarines operating with enhanced stealth and sophistication, the ERASR offers India a crucial strategic advantage. It empowers the Indian Navy to maintain a vigilant watch over vast oceanic regions, safeguarding its extensive coastline and vital national interests in the Indian Ocean. Beyond the Horizon: Extending India's Reach Below the Waves Previously, the Indian Navy's anti-submarine rockets had a limited engagement range of up to 5.3 kilometres. While effective for close-range combat, this offered minimal reaction time against faster, more elusive underwater adversaries. The ERASR dramatically expands this strike envelope to approximately 8.5 km – an impressive increase of nearly 60%. This extended reach means the Navy can now identify and neutralise threats much earlier, and from a safer standoff distance, significantly bolstering its defensive and offensive capabilities. The technological advancements embedded in ERASR are a testament to India's engineering prowess. Unlike older systems that relied on a single-stage motor, ERASR incorporates a two-stage solid propulsion system. This innovative design enables the rocket to efficiently cover both short and long distances with remarkable accuracy. Further enhancing its precision is a specialised, indigenously developed Electronic Time Fuze, engineered to ensure the warhead detonates at the optimal moment, maximising the chances of destroying the target. Between June 23 and July 7, 2025, the Indian Navy conducted a comprehensive series of user trials for the ERASR system from its advanced warship, INS Kavaratti. A total of 17 rockets were test-fired under authentic sea conditions, with each performing flawlessly. These rigorous trials meticulously evaluated the rocket's maximum range performance, the flawless operation of its electronic fuze, and the warhead's precise targeting accuracy. The resounding success of these trials, officially announced by the Press Information Bureau on the evening of July 8, confirms ERASR's readiness for immediate induction into regular Navy service. A Pillar of "Make in India" in Defence The ERASR is a product of collaborative excellence, primarily developed by the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) in Pune, a key laboratory under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The project also received invaluable technical expertise and support from the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory and the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory. One of ERASR's most significant advantages is its inherent compatibility with the Indigenous Rocket Launcher (IRL) system already deployed on Indian Navy ships. This "fit-and-forget" design means the Navy avoids the need for expensive new platforms or extensive modifications to its existing warships, making the upgrade process both rapid and highly cost-effective. Crucially, the entire production of ERASR will also be undertaken within India, significantly strengthening the government's flagship 'Make in India' initiative. Bharat Dynamics Limited in Hyderabad and Solar Defence and Aerospace Limited in Nagpur have been selected as the dedicated production partners. This strategic move not only drastically reduces India's reliance on foreign defence equipment but also fosters domestic job creation and bolsters local industries, demonstrating India's capability to design, develop, and manufacture advanced weapons systems entirely with its own resources and talent. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh lauded the concerted efforts of the DRDO, the Indian Navy, and the industry partners involved in the ERASR's development and testing. He underscored that the induction of this new system will provide a substantial boost to the Navy's anti-submarine warfare capabilities and powerfully demonstrate the government's unwavering commitment to nurturing homegrown defence capabilities. The Defence Ministry affirmed that this achievement represents a major milestone in India's long-term aspiration of becoming fully self-reliant in defence production. https://www.wionews.com/videos/indian-navys-ins-tarkash-seizes-over-2500-kg-of-narcotics-8919733/embed The Indian Ocean region, a critical artery for global trade, is experiencing increasing submarine activity. Protecting India's vast 7,500-kilometre coastline and vital maritime trade routes is paramount. The ERASR equips the Indian Navy with the proactive tools necessary to counter evolving underwater threats effectively and assert control over crucial sea lanes. It is a timely and indispensable addition to India's defence arsenal. More than just a potent weapon, ERASR stands as a beacon of what Indian scientists, engineers, and industries can achieve when united in purpose. It symbolises India's surging confidence in building high-end military technology and signals to the world that India is resolutely prepared to protect its interests with strength, innovation, and unwavering self-reliance.

This powerful, fully indigenous weapon system is poised to transform the Indian Navy's capabilities, acting as a formidable "underwater guardian" that can detect and neutralise hidden submarine threats&nbsp;

The Silent Guardian: ERASR Extends India's Reach Below the Surface

After years of boasting about his good relations with Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump is admitting he misjudged the Russian leader and has no influence on making an end to the war in Ukraine. The belated end of an illusion?&nbsp;This conclusion is drawn from a bewildering and swift American U-turn on US weapons supplies to Ukraine, which has been under fierce drone and bombing attacks on civilian targets, including the capital, Kyiv. One of the worst since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it came a day after the latest in a series of telephone calls between Putin and Trump, who has frequently mentioned that he is on a first-name basis with his Russian counterpart. The topic: a ceasefire and an end to the war.The unspoken response: a seven-hour Russian onslaught hammered the capital with 539 drones and 11 missiles. That explains why Trump described as “disappointing” his conversation – the sixth since taking office. At a televised cabinet meeting on July 8, Trump vented his frustration with the Russian leader in unusually blunt terms. Vladimir Putin is “talking a lot of bullshit” when it comes to Ukraine, he said.Telephone calls over the months have been supplemented by postings on Trump’s social network, Truth Social. Such as this one, on April 24, after another air assault: “I’m not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv. Not necessary and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5,000 soldiers a week are dying; Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!” Vladimir, whose troops are preparing for another offensive, was clearly unimpressed – possibly because Trump never followed up on suggestions that he would tighten sanctions on Russia unless it changed course.With strains in the relationship between the two leaders increasingly public, leaked reports from the Pentagon said that the administration had decided to halt supplying Ukraine with much-needed weapons, including Patriot air defence missiles and thousands of Howitzer rounds. A sharply worded editorial in the frequently Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal on July 3 described the decision to withhold weapons before Russia’s expected summer assault as “a hostile act that favours Vladimir Putin.” Alarmed reactions also came from Europe as well as from some of his most devoted followers in the Republican Party, the so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) crowd, who voted him into office largely because he pledged to keep the United States out of foreign wars.Just three days after the suspension of aid became known, Trump reversed course. On the sidelines of a meeting with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump announced that US arms supplies to Ukraine would resume. “We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves,” he told reporters. &nbsp;“They are getting hit very hard. Now they are getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons.”In the early stages of the conflict, Trump suggested that it was Ukraine that had provoked the Russian invasion because of its desire to join the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO). Trump’s aides frequently echoed Kremlin talking points.A visit to Washington in February by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky descended into a shouting match between him, Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Lunch was cancelled, as was a planned joint press conference after the Ukrainian was asked to leave the Oval Office. US-Ukrainian relations have since warmed up, partly because of a trade deal on rare minerals, and Trump clearly no longer views Putin through rose-tinted glasses. At a NATO meeting in June, he told reporters that Putin was proving “the more difficult partner” in reaching a peace deal.That is a very long way from the days when Trump assured the world he could end the conflict in a day because of his good relations with, and influence on, Putin. The one-day solution to the conflict became part of his speeches in the campaign for the 2024 elections he won. “Befeore I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than a day,“ he told a cheering crowd on March 5, 2023. That was 856 days ago. How many more days it will take before that conflict finally ends is anyone’s guess &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

This conclusion is drawn from a bewildering and swift American U-turn on US weapons supplies to Ukraine, which has been under fierce drone and bombing attacks on civilian targets, including the capital, Kyiv.



After years of boasting about his good relations with Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump is admitting he misjudged the Russian leader and has no influence on making an end to the war in Ukraine. The belated end of an illusion? This conclusion is drawn from a bewildering and swift American U-turn on US weapons supplies to Ukraine, which has been under fierce drone and bombing attacks on civilian targets, including the capital, Kyiv. One of the worst since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it came a day after the latest in a series of telephone calls between Putin and Trump, who has frequently mentioned that he is on a first-name basis with his Russian counterpart. The topic: a ceasefire and an end to the war. The unspoken response: a seven-hour Russian onslaught hammered the capital with 539 drones and 11 missiles. That explains why Trump described as “disappointing” his conversation – the sixth since taking office. At a televised cabinet meeting on July 8, Trump vented his frustration with the Russian leader in unusually blunt terms. Vladimir Putin is “talking a lot of bullshit” when it comes to Ukraine, he said. Telephone calls over the months have been supplemented by postings on Trump’s social network, Truth Social. Such as this one, on April 24, after another air assault: “I’m not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv. Not necessary and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5,000 soldiers a week are dying; Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!” Vladimir, whose troops are preparing for another offensive, was clearly unimpressed – possibly because Trump never followed up on suggestions that he would tighten sanctions on Russia unless it changed course. With strains in the relationship between the two leaders increasingly public, leaked reports from the Pentagon said that the administration had decided to halt supplying Ukraine with much-needed weapons, including Patriot air defence missiles and thousands of Howitzer rounds. A sharply worded editorial in the frequently Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal on July 3 described the decision to withhold weapons before Russia’s expected summer assault as “a hostile act that favours Vladimir Putin.” Alarmed reactions also came from Europe as well as from some of his most devoted followers in the Republican Party, the so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) crowd, who voted him into office largely because he pledged to keep the United States out of foreign wars. Just three days after the suspension of aid became known, Trump reversed course. On the sidelines of a meeting with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump announced that US arms supplies to Ukraine would resume. “We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves,” he told reporters. “They are getting hit very hard. Now they are getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons.” In the early stages of the conflict, Trump suggested that it was Ukraine that had provoked the Russian invasion because of its desire to join the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO). Trump’s aides frequently echoed Kremlin talking points. A visit to Washington in February by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky descended into a shouting match between him, Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Lunch was cancelled, as was a planned joint press conference after the Ukrainian was asked to leave the Oval Office. US-Ukrainian relations have since warmed up, partly because of a trade deal on rare minerals, and Trump clearly no longer views Putin through rose-tinted glasses. At a NATO meeting in June, he told reporters that Putin was proving “the more difficult partner” in reaching a peace deal. That is a very long way from the days when Trump assured the world he could end the conflict in a day because of his good relations with, and influence on, Putin. The one-day solution to the conflict became part of his speeches in the campaign for the 2024 elections he won. “Befeore I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the war settled. It will take no longer than a day,“ he told a cheering crowd on March 5, 2023. That was 856 days ago. How many more days it will take before that conflict finally ends is anyone’s guess

This conclusion is drawn from a bewildering and swift American U-turn on US weapons supplies to Ukraine, which has been under fierce drone and bombing attacks on civilian targets, including the capital, Kyiv.

Trump-Putin relations: Finally, the end of an illusion?

In a country that lives and breathes cricket, Indian football has long been the forgotten child — occasionally remembered, mostly ignored. But the recent developments, both tragic and telling, demand we ask a painful question: Does anyone really care about the state of football in India?&nbsp;On July 7 (Monday), an image from the Calcutta Football League — Asia’s oldest football league, founded in 1898 — showing a player lying on the ground in agony, having suffered a serious leg fracture. There was no stretcher, no ambulance, no physiotherapist in sight. What did the officials do? They used umbrellas as makeshift splints to stabilise the injury. Umbrellas. It would be comical if it weren’t tragic. Because this is not a forgotten backwater of Indian sport.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is Kolkata, the home of Indian football. A city that once packed 120,000 fans into the Salt Lake Stadium. A city whose footballing history is written in blood and passion. If a player is left to suffer like this in Kolkata, one can only imagine the condition of grassroots footballers in smaller cities and rural belts. And yet, this didn’t even create outrage. No headlines. No action from the All India Football Federation (AIFF). Just another footnote in the long and painful story of how India continues to fail its footballers.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The shocking reality of Indian football. A footballer gt injured on his foot, and IFA treated it with n umbrella stunt. They should just remove football 4m India. Don&#39;t neglect footballers like this. Today CFL match between MBSG vs Railways,Tarak Hemram gt injured<a href="https://twitter.com/IndianFootball?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@IndianFootball</a> <a href="https://t.co/JUoSDyfGXN">pic.twitter.com/JUoSDyfGXN</a>&mdash; Chayan🇮🇳 (@chay_eb) <a href="https://twitter.com/chay_eb/status/1942189299354767659?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Only last week, the AIFF sacked head coach Manolo Marquez after an year in charge after a horrible run of results. Marquez, who took over as the head coach of India in June 2024 had succeeded Igor Stimac after India failed to progress in the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers. During his spell in charge, India won only one match which was a 3-0 win over the Maldives in a friendly in March. Before Marquez, Igor Stimac, quit his post. A former Croatian World Cupper, took charge in 2019 with the promise of turning Indian football into a competitive force in Asia. He tried to build a structure, develop younger players, advocate for longer training camps, and introduce a more modern style of play. But instead of being backed, he was stonewalled. His requests for basic international friendlies went unanswered. He warned of a lack of match fitness, of poor coordination, of short-termism. No one listened.&nbsp;And he’s not the only one. Over the years, multiple foreign coaches, technical directors, and consultants have come, tried to help, and left in frustration. Albert Roca. Wim Koevermans. Stephen Constantine. Each of them faced resistance not from the players, but from red tape, ego-driven leadership, and lack of alignment across stakeholders.&nbsp;On the surface, Indian football seems to be doing well. The Indian Super League (ISL) is marketed like a carnival — with foreign players, celebrity owners, big TV deals, and glitzy production. But the gloss fades quickly when you look below.The I-League, once India’s top division, has been relegated to a second-tier status. Many of its clubs have shut down or drastically downsized. Youth academies, barring a few elite ones, are underfunded, under-coached, and overrun by politics. The number of competitive matches Indian players play annually is among the lowest for any FIFA-affiliated country. There is no national reserve league. AIFF’s roadmap for 2047 looks like a wish list rather than a real plan.&nbsp;Take a walk around most of India’s football grounds and you’ll see the decay: rusting goalposts, worn-out nets, overgrown grass, empty stands. Contrast that with the cricketing infrastructure in even a tier-2 city — modern dressing rooms, video analysis equipment, support staff, and above all, respect.&nbsp;Footballers are still treated like replaceable labour. Injury management is often DIY. A sprained ankle? Use hot water. A muscle pull? Just rest. A fracture? Umbrellas. And then there’s women’s football, which exists in an even more invisible dimension. Despite moments of brilliance, the women’s team is underfunded, poorly promoted, and barely televised.<h2>What’s stopping Indian football?</h2>India isn’t short of talent. What it lacks is a coherent, long-term vision, backed by serious investment in grassroots football, medical systems, coaching education, and league structure. Lack of professional clubs outside ISL: 90% of clubs don’t have scouting systems or youth pathways. No school or university football ecosystem: Contrast this with the US, Japan, where college football feeds the pro scene. Political interference and bureaucracy: Appointments made on allegiance, not merit. Decision-making is reactive, not strategic. Corporate disinterest at grassroots: Everyone wants to sponsor ISL, but no one wants to invest in U-17 leagues, refereeing, or training fields.<h2>The way forward</h2>To make football a viable profession in India, urgent structural reforms are essential. Players need to be protected — not just celebrated when they succeed, but supported throughout their careers. Footballers should not have to beg for dues or recover from broken legs under umbrellas in the absence of proper medical care. State leagues — the real backbone of Indian football — must be revived and reformed. This includes mandating the presence of trained medical staff at every match, employing qualified referees, and ensuring that every game is recorded and documented, so there’s transparency, review, and visibility for young talent.&nbsp;&nbsp;But more than anything, Indian football needs to learn to treat its players with dignity. No dream should end with an injured footballer being treated with umbrellas instead of paramedics. No career should fade into obscurity because of unpaid dues or institutional apathy.&nbsp;It’s time we stopped applauding the glitz of the Indian Super League and started fixing Indian football from the ground up. Until that happens, Indian football will continue to be what it tragically is today — a game of passion played by the powerless, watched by the indifferent, and governed by the incompetent.

Umbrellas used for treatment: Indian football exposed in stark reality of neglect and apathy

In a country that lives and breathes cricket, Indian football has long been the forgotten child — occasionally remembered, mostly ignored. But the recent developments, both tragic and telling, demand we ask a painful question: Does anyone really care about the state of football in India? On July 7 (Monday), an image from the Calcutta Football League — Asia’s oldest football league, founded in 1898 — showing a player lying on the ground in agony, having suffered a serious leg fracture. There was no stretcher, no ambulance, no physiotherapist in sight. What did the officials do? They used umbrellas as makeshift splints to stabilise the injury. Umbrellas. It would be comical if it weren’t tragic. Because this is not a forgotten backwater of Indian sport. This is Kolkata, the home of Indian football. A city that once packed 120,000 fans into the Salt Lake Stadium. A city whose footballing history is written in blood and passion. If a player is left to suffer like this in Kolkata, one can only imagine the condition of grassroots footballers in smaller cities and rural belts. And yet, this didn’t even create outrage. No headlines. No action from the All India Football Federation (AIFF). Just another footnote in the long and painful story of how India continues to fail its footballers.

Last week, the All India Football Federation sacked head coach Manolo Marquez after just 12 months in charge after a disastrous run of results. Marquez, succeeded Igor Stimac after India's failure to progress in the FIFA World Cup qualifiers

India's recent acquisition of the AH-64E Apache attack helicopters for the Army, with the first batch anticipated this month, has been touted as a significant boost to its defence capabilities, particularly along the western border. However, beneath the gleaming promise of enhanced firepower lies a complex narrative of delays, escalating costs, and a stark reminder of the strategic vulnerabilities inherent in over-reliance on foreign military acquisitions. While the Apache undeniably brings cutting-edge technology to the Indian Army, a closer examination reveals a compelling argument for accelerating indigenous defence manufacturing.The arrival of the Apache Guardian, a multirole combat helicopter lauded for its advanced weaponry and battlefield prowess, is indeed a substantial upgrade. It's formidable 30&nbsp;mm M230 Chain Gun, Hellfire and Stinger missile capabilities, and the revolutionary AN/APG-78 Longbow radar—capable of tracking 128 targets simultaneously—promise unparalleled offensive and surveillance capabilities. Features like the Modernised Target Acquisition and Designation System (MTADS), night vision sensors, and seamless integration with drones further enhance its operational effectiveness in modern warfare scenarios, offering critical air support in challenging terrains like deserts. The formation of the Army’s 451 Aviation Squadron in Nagtalao, Jodhpur, specifically for these helicopters, underscores the strategic intent behind their deployment. Furthermore, the deal aligns with India’s 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat' initiative, with Tata Boeing Aerospace Limited (TBAL) already producing Apache fuselages in Hyderabad, a step towards fostering domestic defence production.Despite these clear advantages, the Apache programme has been plagued by considerable setbacks, raising serious questions about its overall efficacy and value for money. The initial excitement has been tempered by a staggering 15-month delay in delivery, pushing back the operational readiness of the dedicated squadron. This delay, attributed to supply chain and technical issues, meant the 451 Aviation Squadron was formed in March 2024 but remained without its primary aircraft for over a year, a costly period of idleness.Perhaps the most glaring concern is the alarming escalation in cost. The price per Apache helicopter has surged by a staggering 62% in just five years, jumping from ₹678 crore for the Indian Air Force's 2015 acquisition to ₹1,100 crore in the Army's 2020 deal. This exponential increase, coupled with accusations of past overcharging by Boeing for spare parts to the US Army, fuels anxieties about potential exploitation. Moreover, the exorbitant operating cost of ₹4.6 lakh per flight hour and the significant maintenance demands (35 hours of maintenance per flying hour) paint a picture of a resource-intensive asset that will continue to drain national coffers long after its initial purchase.Beyond financial concerns, the strategic implications of foreign dependency are stark. The 18-month delivery delay, particularly during heightened tensions with Pakistan and crucial operations like "Operation Sindoor," exposed critical gaps in India's defence preparedness. Furthermore, the low ranking in the US Defense Priorities and Allocations Systems Program (DPAS) and the restrictive International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) highlight how geopolitical dynamics and foreign regulations can directly impede India's defence autonomy, dictating what can be upgraded or how the acquired equipment can be utilised.Technical limitations also cast a shadow. Despite their advanced capabilities, Apaches reportedly struggle in high-altitude environments above 15,000 feet, rendering them less effective in critical regions like Ladakh. The incident of an Apache being stranded in Ladakh, requiring disassembly for transport, underscores this operational constraint, forcing the Army to restrict their deployment primarily to desert zones. Recent reports of emergency landings due to power failures and malfunctions in high heat further raise safety and reliability concerns, mirroring issues faced by the US Army itself.The fragmented acquisition strategy, with the Air Force and Army procuring Apaches separately, has led to costly duplication in training, simulators, and support systems, adding an estimated ₹2,500 crore to the overall expense. The highly trained Army pilots and technicians, now idle due to delayed deliveries, risk skill fade, a direct consequence of inefficient planning.In contrast, India's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) Prachand presents a compelling alternative. At roughly half the cost of an Apache ($50 million per unit), the Prachand has demonstrated superior high-altitude performance, operating effectively at 21,300 feet in Siachen. With 50% Indian-made components and a recent approval for 156 units, the LCH Prachand not only offers a more cost-effective solution but also significantly bolsters the 'Make in India' initiative, reducing critical foreign dependence. The global trend of nations re-evaluating Apache purchases, with even a top U.S. Army General questioning the older models' "war-winning capability," further underscores the need for India to critically assess its acquisition strategies.The Apache acquisition, while bringing undeniable technological advancements, serves as a powerful cautionary tale. The soaring costs, debilitating delays, and strategic constraints underscore the urgent necessity for India to prioritise and accelerate its indigenous defence manufacturing capabilities. The LCH Prachand is not just an alternative; it is a symbol of India's potential for self-reliance in defence. True national security in the 21st century lies not in endless foreign procurements, but in cultivating the domestic strength to design, develop, and deploy its own cutting-edge defence solutions, ensuring both military effectiveness and strategic autonomy. &nbsp;

While the Apache undeniably brings cutting-edge technology to the Indian Army, a closer examination reveals a compelling argument for accelerating indigenous defense manufacturing.

India's recent acquisition of the AH-64E Apache attack helicopters for the Army, with the first batch anticipated this month, has been touted as a significant boost to its defence capabilities, particularly along the western border. However, beneath the gleaming promise of enhanced firepower lies a complex narrative of delays, escalating costs, and a stark reminder of the strategic vulnerabilities inherent in over-reliance on foreign military acquisitions. While the Apache undeniably brings cutting-edge technology to the Indian Army, a closer examination reveals a compelling argument for accelerating indigenous defence manufacturing. The arrival of the Apache Guardian, a multirole combat helicopter lauded for its advanced weaponry and battlefield prowess, is indeed a substantial upgrade. It's formidable 30 mm M230 Chain Gun, Hellfire and Stinger missile capabilities, and the revolutionary AN/APG-78 Longbow radar—capable of tracking 128 targets simultaneously—promise unparalleled offensive and surveillance capabilities. Features like the Modernised Target Acquisition and Designation System (MTADS), night vision sensors, and seamless integration with drones further enhance its operational effectiveness in modern warfare scenarios, offering critical air support in challenging terrains like deserts. The formation of the Army’s 451 Aviation Squadron in Nagtalao, Jodhpur, specifically for these helicopters, underscores the strategic intent behind their deployment. Furthermore, the deal aligns with India’s 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat' initiative, with Tata Boeing Aerospace Limited (TBAL) already producing Apache fuselages in Hyderabad, a step towards fostering domestic defence production. Despite these clear advantages, the Apache programme has been plagued by considerable setbacks, raising serious questions about its overall efficacy and value for money. The initial excitement has been tempered by a staggering 15-month delay in delivery, pushing back the operational readiness of the dedicated squadron. This delay, attributed to supply chain and technical issues, meant the 451 Aviation Squadron was formed in March 2024 but remained without its primary aircraft for over a year, a costly period of idleness. Perhaps the most glaring concern is the alarming escalation in cost. The price per Apache helicopter has surged by a staggering 62% in just five years, jumping from ₹678 crore for the Indian Air Force's 2015 acquisition to ₹1,100 crore in the Army's 2020 deal. This exponential increase, coupled with accusations of past overcharging by Boeing for spare parts to the US Army, fuels anxieties about potential exploitation. Moreover, the exorbitant operating cost of ₹4.6 lakh per flight hour and the significant maintenance demands (35 hours of maintenance per flying hour) paint a picture of a resource-intensive asset that will continue to drain national coffers long after its initial purchase. Beyond financial concerns, the strategic implications of foreign dependency are stark. The 18-month delivery delay, particularly during heightened tensions with Pakistan and crucial operations like "Operation Sindoor," exposed critical gaps in India's defence preparedness. Furthermore, the low ranking in the US Defense Priorities and Allocations Systems Program (DPAS) and the restrictive International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) highlight how geopolitical dynamics and foreign regulations can directly impede India's defence autonomy, dictating what can be upgraded or how the acquired equipment can be utilised. Technical limitations also cast a shadow. Despite their advanced capabilities, Apaches reportedly struggle in high-altitude environments above 15,000 feet, rendering them less effective in critical regions like Ladakh. The incident of an Apache being stranded in Ladakh, requiring disassembly for transport, underscores this operational constraint, forcing the Army to restrict their deployment primarily to desert zones. Recent reports of emergency landings due to power failures and malfunctions in high heat further raise safety and reliability concerns, mirroring issues faced by the US Army itself. The fragmented acquisition strategy, with the Air Force and Army procuring Apaches separately, has led to costly duplication in training, simulators, and support systems, adding an estimated ₹2,500 crore to the overall expense. The highly trained Army pilots and technicians, now idle due to delayed deliveries, risk skill fade, a direct consequence of inefficient planning. In contrast, India's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) Prachand presents a compelling alternative. At roughly half the cost of an Apache ($50 million per unit), the Prachand has demonstrated superior high-altitude performance, operating effectively at 21,300 feet in Siachen. With 50% Indian-made components and a recent approval for 156 units, the LCH Prachand not only offers a more cost-effective solution but also significantly bolsters the 'Make in India' initiative, reducing critical foreign dependence. The global trend of nations re-evaluating Apache purchases, with even a top U.S. Army General questioning the older models' "war-winning capability," further underscores the need for India to critically assess its acquisition strategies. The Apache acquisition, while bringing undeniable technological advancements, serves as a powerful cautionary tale. The soaring costs, debilitating delays, and strategic constraints underscore the urgent necessity for India to prioritise and accelerate its indigenous defence manufacturing capabilities. The LCH Prachand is not just an alternative; it is a symbol of India's potential for self-reliance in defence. True national security in the 21st century lies not in endless foreign procurements, but in cultivating the domestic strength to design, develop, and deploy its own cutting-edge defence solutions, ensuring both military effectiveness and strategic autonomy.

While the Apache undeniably brings cutting-edge technology to the Indian Army, a closer examination reveals a compelling argument for accelerating indigenous defense manufacturing.

India's Apache gambit: A costly lesson in self-reliance

The Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Washington on 1 July was of considerable consequence, especially as an indicator of how the Trump administration 2.0 viewed the plurilateral grouping of the US, India, Japan, and Australia as an instrument to implement its Indo-Pacific strategy. The message from Washington is to reconfirm that the Quad would stay, but it may work to achieve a less comprehensive agenda than before. Besides, its inner solidarity may be moulded by what happens between now and the next summit to be hosted by India later in the year.Several significant developments are expected in the coming months. First, more clarity is awaited in US-China relations following the conclusion of the tariff agreement and reports of a Trump visit to China. Then, the tariff agreements between the US and India, as well as those with Japan, have been on the anvil. With India, there is the additional complication stemming from a public disagreement over the US’s ‘mediatory role’ in ending the India-Pakistan military conflict. The US-Japan equation is not in good shape at present. The US President and the Australian Prime Minister are yet to meet. Hence, the four foreign ministers faced the daunting task of redefining the Quad, while imparting it some fresh momentum. They did what they could, and then left it to their top leaders to give it a more precise shape at the forthcoming summit.<h2>Contours of agreement</h2>The Biden administration, claiming full glory for its contribution to the development of the Quad, produced a 5,700-word Wilmington Declaration in September 2024, which asserted: “The Quad is here to stay.” The new administration seemed to agree by hosting the Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting on 20 January 2025, the day of Trump’s inauguration. They voiced their “shared agreement to strengthen a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.” Yet, the brevity of their joint statement was striking.Five months later, the foreign ministers became relatively more articulate. At the conclusion of their latest meeting, they issued a 10-paragraph-long joint statement. It made a conscious effort to trim the large number of issues that the Quad mechanism had addressed during the Biden years.Some of the issues missing from the latest common position include global health and health security, the Cancer Moonshot, climate adaptation and clean energy, as well as the previous emphasis on people-to-people initiatives. The joint statement of July 1 stresses a shared commitment to “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” but deletes the other two adjectives – “inclusive and resilient.” It speaks of “a new, ambitious and strong agenda” that would be focused on four key areas, namely, maritime and traditional security, economic prosperity and security, critical and emerging technology (replacing “technologies” of the previous era), and humanitarian assistance and emergency response. The reference to the Quad as “a global good” is also missing.The Washington meeting accorded significant importance to the Quad Minerals Initiative, promoting collective resilience through collaboration to secure and diversify critical minerals. Supply chains will continue to strengthen the Quad Indo-Pacific Logistics Network without hindrance. There is also an important project to launch the Ports of the Future Partnership in Mumbai in 2025. A clear understanding of the trimming of the Quad cooperation programme can be obtained by comparing the official ‘Factsheet’ issued on 21 September 2024 and on 1 July 2025.<h2>Regional issues</h2>For the Quad nations, the Indo-Pacific architecture continues to be based on three pillars: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA).The joint statement has devoted two paragraphs to the China challenge, calling out China’s objectionable activities in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and expressing strong opposition and serious concern over them as well as on China’s “non-market policies and practices.” This has, of course, been done without naming the country as such, while leaving the reader in no doubt that the reference is indeed to China. In this respect, the document closely follows the previous approach. It also resembles the language used by the G7 nations at the conclusion of their latest summit hosted by Canada.Two other nations drew the specific attention of the Quad foreign ministers: North Korea and Myanmar. The ministers reaffirmed their commitment to “the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”. They expressed deep concern aboutcountries that are deepening military cooperation with North Korea in a direct undermining of the global non-proliferation regime.In Myanmar, the worsening crisis was noted as a concerning development, with the Quad throwing its weight behind ASEAN’s Five Point Consensus. This formula has failed to bring about any progress towards the peaceful resolution of the post-coup crisis. The Myanmar military government is set to hold elections in a few months, but the Quad avoided commenting on them, probably because no consensus exists. India recently advised the regime to advance towards early restoration of a democratic process by ensuring that elections are “inclusive and credible”. India favours “a Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led transition towards a peaceful, stable and democratic future”. In contrast, the other three countries appeared to have reservations on this score to varying degrees.Meeting a few weeks after the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India-Pakistan military hostilities, the Quad had no option but to forge a common stand on this question vital to India. It condemned the terrorist attack “in the strongest terms.” Then it fell on the language used by the UN Security Council to call for “the perpetrators, organizers and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay.” However, what was missing was a direct condemnation of Pakistan, support for India’s assertion that the world must have a zero tolerance policy on terrorism, and for India’s right of self-defense against cross-border terrorism. This delayed and inadequate response by the Quad displeased many in India.Complete silence on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East revealed policy divergences among the four nations.<h2>Assessment</h2>The ministerial meeting, on the whole, showed some progress, but the preparatory task for the Quad summit remains heavy and challenging. On the bilateral level, equations between India and the US, as well as those between Japan and the US, need to be improved. On the plurilateral plane, the members need to be clearer about their respective approaches towards China. In the meantime, India needs to keep improving its bilateral and trilateral cooperation with Australia and Japan.Furthermore, in macro policy terms, a vital coincidence needs to be taken into account. As New Delhi prepares to host the Quad summit later in the year, the burden of the BRICS presidency in 2026 will also be placed on its shoulders. This brings prestige, but also presents a highly complex challenge in balancing and managing the paradox of leading the Quad – an essentially Western grouping – and the BRICS – an essentially non-Western grouping.This intricate challenge arises at a time when India seeks to safeguard the gains achieved in India-US relations over the past two decades, as well as to maintain the reset of ties with China, five years after the Galwan clash.Indeed, interesting times lie ahead for Indian diplomacy in the next 18 months.

The message from Washington is to reconfirm that the Quad would stay, but it may work to achieve a less comprehensive agenda than before. Besides, its inner solidarity may be moulded by what happens between now and the next summit to be hosted by India later in the year.

The Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Washington on 1 July was of considerable consequence, especially as an indicator of how the Trump administration 2.0 viewed the plurilateral grouping of the US, India, Japan, and Australia as an instrument to implement its Indo-Pacific strategy. The message from Washington is to reconfirm that the Quad would stay, but it may work to achieve a less comprehensive agenda than before. Besides, its inner solidarity may be moulded by what happens between now and the next summit to be hosted by India later in the year. Several significant developments are expected in the coming months. First, more clarity is awaited in US-China relations following the conclusion of the tariff agreement and reports of a Trump visit to China. Then, the tariff agreements between the US and India, as well as those with Japan, have been on the anvil. With India, there is the additional complication stemming from a public disagreement over the US’s ‘mediatory role’ in ending the India-Pakistan military conflict. The US-Japan equation is not in good shape at present. The US President and the Australian Prime Minister are yet to meet. Hence, the four foreign ministers faced the daunting task of redefining the Quad, while imparting it some fresh momentum. They did what they could, and then left it to their top leaders to give it a more precise shape at the forthcoming summit. Contours of agreement The Biden administration, claiming full glory for its contribution to the development of the Quad, produced a 5,700-word Wilmington Declaration in September 2024, which asserted: “The Quad is here to stay.” The new administration seemed to agree by hosting the Quad Foreign Ministers’ meeting on 20 January 2025, the day of Trump’s inauguration. They voiced their “shared agreement to strengthen a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.” Yet, the brevity of their joint statement was striking. Five months later, the foreign ministers became relatively more articulate. At the conclusion of their latest meeting, they issued a 10-paragraph-long joint statement. It made a conscious effort to trim the large number of issues that the Quad mechanism had addressed during the Biden years. Some of the issues missing from the latest common position include global health and health security, the Cancer Moonshot, climate adaptation and clean energy, as well as the previous emphasis on people-to-people initiatives. The joint statement of July 1 stresses a shared commitment to “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” but deletes the other two adjectives – “inclusive and resilient.” It speaks of “a new, ambitious and strong agenda” that would be focused on four key areas, namely, maritime and traditional security, economic prosperity and security, critical and emerging technology (replacing “technologies” of the previous era), and humanitarian assistance and emergency response. The reference to the Quad as “a global good” is also missing. The Washington meeting accorded significant importance to the Quad Minerals Initiative, promoting collective resilience through collaboration to secure and diversify critical minerals. Supply chains will continue to strengthen the Quad Indo-Pacific Logistics Network without hindrance. There is also an important project to launch the Ports of the Future Partnership in Mumbai in 2025. A clear understanding of the trimming of the Quad cooperation programme can be obtained by comparing the official ‘Factsheet’ issued on 21 September 2024 and on 1 July 2025. Regional issues For the Quad nations, the Indo-Pacific architecture continues to be based on three pillars: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). The joint statement has devoted two paragraphs to the China challenge, calling out China’s objectionable activities in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and expressing strong opposition and serious concern over them as well as on China’s “non-market policies and practices.” This has, of course, been done without naming the country as such, while leaving the reader in no doubt that the reference is indeed to China. In this respect, the document closely follows the previous approach. It also resembles the language used by the G7 nations at the conclusion of their latest summit hosted by Canada. Two other nations drew the specific attention of the Quad foreign ministers: North Korea and Myanmar. The ministers reaffirmed their commitment to “the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”. They expressed deep concern about countries that are deepening military cooperation with North Korea in a direct undermining of the global non-proliferation regime. In Myanmar, the worsening crisis was noted as a concerning development, with the Quad throwing its weight behind ASEAN’s Five Point Consensus. This formula has failed to bring about any progress towards the peaceful resolution of the post-coup crisis. The Myanmar military government is set to hold elections in a few months, but the Quad avoided commenting on them, probably because no consensus exists. India recently advised the regime to advance towards early restoration of a democratic process by ensuring that elections are “inclusive and credible”. India favours “a Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led transition towards a peaceful, stable and democratic future”. In contrast, the other three countries appeared to have reservations on this score to varying degrees. Meeting a few weeks after the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India-Pakistan military hostilities, the Quad had no option but to forge a common stand on this question vital to India. It condemned the terrorist attack “in the strongest terms.” Then it fell on the language used by the UN Security Council to call for “the perpetrators, organizers and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay.” However, what was missing was a direct condemnation of Pakistan, support for India’s assertion that the world must have a zero tolerance policy on terrorism, and for India’s right of self-defense against cross-border terrorism. This delayed and inadequate response by the Quad displeased many in India. Complete silence on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East revealed policy divergences among the four nations. Assessment The ministerial meeting, on the whole, showed some progress, but the preparatory task for the Quad summit remains heavy and challenging. On the bilateral level, equations between India and the US, as well as those between Japan and the US, need to be improved. On the plurilateral plane, the members need to be clearer about their respective approaches towards China. In the meantime, India needs to keep improving its bilateral and trilateral cooperation with Australia and Japan. Furthermore, in macro policy terms, a vital coincidence needs to be taken into account. As New Delhi prepares to host the Quad summit later in the year, the burden of the BRICS presidency in 2026 will also be placed on its shoulders. This brings prestige, but also presents a highly complex challenge in balancing and managing the paradox of leading the Quad – an essentially Western grouping – and the BRICS – an essentially non-Western grouping. This intricate challenge arises at a time when India seeks to safeguard the gains achieved in India-US relations over the past two decades, as well as to maintain the reset of ties with China, five years after the Galwan clash. Indeed, interesting times lie ahead for Indian diplomacy in the next 18 months.

The message from Washington is to reconfirm that the Quad would stay, but it may work to achieve a less comprehensive agenda than before. Besides, its inner solidarity may be moulded by what happens between now and the next summit to be hosted by India later in the year.

The trimming of the Quad

Indian-American politician Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral primaries of New York City, and suddenly, President Donald Trump and a section of the internet started pestering him. The son of Indian director Mira Nair and Mahmood Mamdani was trolled over his religion, his political motives, and now his tradition. In a recent video on social media, Zohran was seen answering questions regarding his political approach while eating biryani - with his hands. And some American netizens think it's "uncivilised" when a person eats using their hands. Brandon Gill, a Texas Congressman, reshared Zohran's video on X and wrote, "Civilised people in America don’t eat like this."&nbsp;In the video, the interviewer asked Zohran, "The third holy grail of taboos in American politics: you have socialism, you have Islam, and then you have Palestine. And you are really going for the trifecta ... tell me why Palestine is a part of your politics?" Zohran replied, "When you grow up as someone, especially in the Third World, you have a very different understanding of the Palestinian struggle."&nbsp; In this context, Gill added that if someone refuses to adopt "Western customs," they should go back to the Third World. Soon, some internet hawks reminded Gill that his wife, Danielle D’Souza Gill, is also Indian-origin, suggesting he must respect the tradition and culture of India. But strangely enough, Gill's wife took her husband's stance, saying she “always used a fork”.&nbsp;Well, Mr Gill and Mrs Gill, along with everyone out there - you might not like your bubble being broken, but eating with your hands is not a crime. In fact, it is a well-documented scientific habit that makes much more sense than eating with a fork. Also, Indians wash their hands and mouths before and after eating, just in case some Americans need a hygiene lecture.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Civilized people in America don’t eat like this. If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World. <a href="https://t.co/TYQkcr0nFE">https://t.co/TYQkcr0nFE</a>&mdash; Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepBrandonGill/status/1939489434983883116?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Eating with hands: There is a logic, America!&nbsp;As per scientific studies, eating with hands helps improve digestion as the hands contain bacteria which are not harmful but fight against damaging microbes in the environment.&nbsp;Rujuta Diwekar, &nbsp;one of the world's most-followed nutritionists, posted a video on social media saying that eating with hands, in ‘Sukhasana posture’ (sitting with legs folded), is the best thing you can do for your gut health. She said that eating is a ‘havan’ - a process of offering food to the digestive fire in the stomach. Hence, the food must go into your mouth from your hands.&nbsp;According to texts in Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine, each finger has some spiritual significance that affects eating and digestion. Thumb finger connects to Agni (Fire), index finger connects to Varun (Air), middle finger connects to Akash (Space), ring finger connects to Prithvi (Earth), and little finger connects to Jal (Water). It is believed that when eaten with hands, each finger brings in the representing element, and they altogether balance out the functioning of the internal mechanism.&nbsp;Call to action&nbsp;So, America, it's time you stop being so obsessive about your "Western" culture and try using some sensible, scientific, and logical habits. Try adapting it from other cultures, like India, if you don't have much to start with. And please wash your hands and mouths before and after eating. It's good, really. Try it.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Zohran Mamdani eats with his hands in a viral video. Brandon Gill says it is uncivilised to eat with hands, as Americans do not eat with hands, and he should use a fork. Eating with hands has scientific and ayurvedic reasons. 

Indian-American politician Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic mayoral primaries of New York City, and suddenly, President Donald Trump and a section of the internet started pestering him. The son of Indian director Mira Nair and Mahmood Mamdani was trolled over his religion, his political motives, and now his tradition. In a recent video on social media, Zohran was seen answering questions regarding his political approach while eating biryani - with his hands. And some American netizens think it's "uncivilised" when a person eats using their hands. Brandon Gill, a Texas Congressman, reshared Zohran's video on X and wrote, "Civilised people in America don’t eat like this." In the video, the interviewer asked Zohran, "The third holy grail of taboos in American politics: you have socialism, you have Islam, and then you have Palestine. And you are really going for the trifecta ... tell me why Palestine is a part of your politics?" Zohran replied, "When you grow up as someone, especially in the Third World, you have a very different understanding of the Palestinian struggle." In this context, Gill added that if someone refuses to adopt "Western customs," they should go back to the Third World. Soon, some internet hawks reminded Gill that his wife, Danielle D’Souza Gill, is also Indian-origin, suggesting he must respect the tradition and culture of India. But strangely enough, Gill's wife took her husband's stance, saying she “always used a fork”. Well, Mr Gill and Mrs Gill, along with everyone out there - you might not like your bubble being broken, but eating with your hands is not a crime. In fact, it is a well-documented scientific habit that makes much more sense than eating with a fork. Also, Indians wash their hands and mouths before and after eating, just in case some Americans need a hygiene lecture.

As per scientific studies, eating with hands helps improve digestion as the hands contain bacteria which are not harmful but fight against damaging microbes in the environment. One of world's most-followed nutritionists said eating with your hands is best for your gut health.&nbsp;

Fork off, America: Zohran's 'eating with hands' is an Indian tradition, BACKED BY SCIENCE

US President Donald Trump called the pinpoint precision bombing of three nuclear facilities in Iran on June 21 “a spectacular military success” and there is no doubt that it was a stunning display of American military might. Hard power without equal.But Operation Midnight Hammer, as the Pentagon termed it, also served as a reminder that under Trump, the United States pays little attention to soft power, the ability to influence other countries through attraction and persuasion. In the international information war waged around the world, Trump’s America tends to fare badly.That was highlighted again in the aftermath of the strike on the Iranian facilities with 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs never before used in war. No other country has a bomb that can penetrate 250 feet of solid rock. &nbsp;Four days after the strikes on nuclear enrichment facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, one of the oldest and best-known instruments of US soft power, the Voice of America, was the subject of heated discussion in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.Kari Lake, the top advisor of the US Agency for Global Media, which includes the Voice of America, was called to defend her decision to abolish the broadcaster. Founded in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda, it grew into a multi-media operation broadcasting in almost 50 languages and claiming a weekly global audience of more than 350 million people.Trump ordered VOA dismantled when he began his second term. By the time of the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, around 85 per cent of the workforce had been fired. They included almost all journalists running the Persian-language service.&nbsp;If ever independent news were important for Iranians, it was when Israel and Iran began exchanging missile strikes, one of which hit the Iranian State TV and Radio Station at the moment a chador-clad anchor began her programme and had to run out of the studio seconds before the lights went out. &nbsp;In Washington, even ardent critics of VOA realised the importance of news unfiltered by Iranian propaganda. The government hastily ordered the Farsi-speaking staff to return to work from “administrative leave.” &nbsp;The Persian service had been shut down by an executive order Trump issued on March 15. The abrupt dismissal of the staff prompted various lawsuits.Though the need to recall the fired staff spoke volumes of the administration’s inept handling of the global information war, Kari Lake, on behalf of her boss, kept insisting that VOA must go.“Some say it’s the Voice of anti-America,” she told the hearing, a reference to oft-repeated charges that the broadcaster’s staffers were “left-wing radicals.” Lake added: “Hopefully, we can root out the Russian, Chinese, Iranian propaganda that has been prevalent on our airwaves at VOA and we are going to work to do that.”Lake suggested that the purpose of the broadcaster is “to promote President Trump’s message to people around the world. She sharply criticised VOA coverage of Trump in the run-up to the 2024 elections and accused the organisation of pro-Chinese Communist Party propaganda.Democrats on the committee interpreted her remarks as evidence she was on a mission to turn VOA into an international mouthpiece for President Trump.America’s adversaries around the world have had fulsome praise for the administration’s apparent mission to dismantle its global influence and information structure, chief of all the media that, in the words of the New York Times media analyst Tiffany Hsu “helped market the United States as the world’s moral and cultural authority.”America’s competitors in the influence market were overjoyed by VOA’s demise. Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, &nbsp;said “this is a holiday for me and my colleagues.” Praise also came from China. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of Global Times, &nbsp;a Chinese government outlet, commented that dismantling VOA was “really gratifying.” &nbsp;Both China and Russia are now spending more money and effort on the information war that runs parallel to hard power moves. In Trump’s first term, attempts to deeply cut budgets for international development and diplomacy failed to pass Congress. &nbsp;The main reason: opposition from the then leaders of the Armed Forces, who argued that military might alone could not solve America’s conflicts and should be complemented by soft power. The present top leaders of the Pentagon are inclined to bow to the president’s wishes. &nbsp;Across the Atlantic, the British government is going into the opposite direction from the Americans. The British Broadcasting Service (BBC) is held in high esteem and members of the parliament recently clamoured for more funding for a network with a sterling reputation and followers around the world.“The BBC plays an indispensable role in the fight against misinformation,’ the meeting was told, with speakers noting that “where services have been cut, we have seen other countries rush in to fill the space.” &nbsp;Perhaps the most devastating criticism of the Trump administration’s failure to appreciate the importance of its international media assets has come from Jamie Sheah, a British former NATO official.“The soft power suicide of the U.S. will be incomprehensible for future historians who will be dumbfounded in their attempts to explain why the global leader voluntarily wrecked one of its greatest national assets.”&nbsp;

Operation Midnight Hammer, as the Pentagon termed it, also served as a reminder that under Trump, the United States pays little attention to soft power, the ability to influence other countries through attraction and persuasion. 

US President Donald Trump called the pinpoint precision bombing of three nuclear facilities in Iran on June 21 “a spectacular military success” and there is no doubt that it was a stunning display of American military might. Hard power without equal. But Operation Midnight Hammer, as the Pentagon termed it, also served as a reminder that under Trump, the United States pays little attention to soft power, the ability to influence other countries through attraction and persuasion. In the international information war waged around the world, Trump’s America tends to fare badly. That was highlighted again in the aftermath of the strike on the Iranian facilities with 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs never before used in war. No other country has a bomb that can penetrate 250 feet of solid rock. Four days after the strikes on nuclear enrichment facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, one of the oldest and best-known instruments of US soft power, the Voice of America, was the subject of heated discussion in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives. Kari Lake, the top advisor of the US Agency for Global Media, which includes the Voice of America, was called to defend her decision to abolish the broadcaster. Founded in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda, it grew into a multi-media operation broadcasting in almost 50 languages and claiming a weekly global audience of more than 350 million people. Trump ordered VOA dismantled when he began his second term. By the time of the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, around 85 per cent of the workforce had been fired. They included almost all journalists running the Persian-language service. If ever independent news were important for Iranians, it was when Israel and Iran began exchanging missile strikes, one of which hit the Iranian State TV and Radio Station at the moment a chador-clad anchor began her programme and had to run out of the studio seconds before the lights went out. In Washington, even ardent critics of VOA realised the importance of news unfiltered by Iranian propaganda. The government hastily ordered the Farsi-speaking staff to return to work from “administrative leave.” The Persian service had been shut down by an executive order Trump issued on March 15. The abrupt dismissal of the staff prompted various lawsuits. Though the need to recall the fired staff spoke volumes of the administration’s inept handling of the global information war, Kari Lake, on behalf of her boss, kept insisting that VOA must go. “Some say it’s the Voice of anti-America,” she told the hearing, a reference to oft-repeated charges that the broadcaster’s staffers were “left-wing radicals.” Lake added: “Hopefully, we can root out the Russian, Chinese, Iranian propaganda that has been prevalent on our airwaves at VOA and we are going to work to do that.” Lake suggested that the purpose of the broadcaster is “to promote President Trump’s message to people around the world. She sharply criticised VOA coverage of Trump in the run-up to the 2024 elections and accused the organisation of pro-Chinese Communist Party propaganda. Democrats on the committee interpreted her remarks as evidence she was on a mission to turn VOA into an international mouthpiece for President Trump. America’s adversaries around the world have had fulsome praise for the administration’s apparent mission to dismantle its global influence and information structure, chief of all the media that, in the words of the New York Times media analyst Tiffany Hsu “helped market the United States as the world’s moral and cultural authority.” America’s competitors in the influence market were overjoyed by VOA’s demise. Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, said “this is a holiday for me and my colleagues.” Praise also came from China. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of Global Times, a Chinese government outlet, commented that dismantling VOA was “really gratifying.” Both China and Russia are now spending more money and effort on the information war that runs parallel to hard power moves. In Trump’s first term, attempts to deeply cut budgets for international development and diplomacy failed to pass Congress. The main reason: opposition from the then leaders of the Armed Forces, who argued that military might alone could not solve America’s conflicts and should be complemented by soft power. The present top leaders of the Pentagon are inclined to bow to the president’s wishes. Across the Atlantic, the British government is going into the opposite direction from the Americans. The British Broadcasting Service (BBC) is held in high esteem and members of the parliament recently clamoured for more funding for a network with a sterling reputation and followers around the world. “The BBC plays an indispensable role in the fight against misinformation,’ the meeting was told, with speakers noting that “where services have been cut, we have seen other countries rush in to fill the space.” Perhaps the most devastating criticism of the Trump administration’s failure to appreciate the importance of its international media assets has come from Jamie Sheah, a British former NATO official. “The soft power suicide of the U.S. will be incomprehensible for future historians who will be dumbfounded in their attempts to explain why the global leader voluntarily wrecked one of its greatest national assets.”

Operation Midnight Hammer, as the Pentagon termed it, also served as a reminder that under Trump, the United States pays little attention to soft power, the ability to influence other countries through attraction and persuasion.&nbsp;

US-Iran conflict: A spectacular military win, another information war loss

On a stage meant to uphold the ideals of transparency and truth, the White House press briefing room has long been a symbol of America’s commitment to a free press. But on Thursday morning (June 26), that symbol took a hit. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made headlines not for policy clarifications or presidential announcements, but for publicly questioning the journalistic integrity of CNN national security reporter Natasha Bertrand. In doing so, Leavitt didn’t just single out a reporter—she triggered a deeper debate about where the line lies between government accountability and institutional intimidation of the press.<h3>The incident</h3>During the press briefing on Thursday (June 26), Leavitt launched a pointed attack on Bertrand, criticising her past reporting. During the briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also called out CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand. She said, “This is a reporter who has been used by people who dislike Donald Trump to push fake and false narrative. She should be ashamed of herself. And that's not what reporting is. That's not what reporting is. Journalism is trying to find the facts and the truth.” It’s not the first time a government official has taken issue with a reporter’s work, but the context matters. This wasn’t a private complaint or an offhand remark. It was a public rebuke from the White House podium—arguably the most powerful communications platform in the country—against a journalist from one of the nation’s largest networks.<h3>The bigger picture</h3>While Leavitt’s comments may have played well to certain partisan audiences who view mainstream media as inherently biased, they also represent something more troubling: the normalisation of public officials attacking individual reporters by name. In democracies, government and media are expected to operate in tension—each holding the other accountable. But when that tension devolves into targeted delegitimisation, we inch toward a dangerous erosion of democratic norms.&nbsp;Natasha Bertrand, who has reported extensively on intelligence and national security, is no stranger to controversy or criticism. But what distinguishes this episode is the public nature of the condemnation—and the power imbalance behind it. When someone in Leavitt’s position calls out a journalist during an official briefing, the chilling effect goes far beyond the individual. It sends a message to the broader press corps: tread carefully, or be next.<h3>Is this justified scrutiny or institutional pressure?</h3>Some may argue that calling out perceived media bias is fair game—after all, journalists aren’t above criticism. But that defense misses the point. The issue here isn’t whether reporters should be held accountable. They absolutely should. The question is: Who gets to do that, and how?&nbsp;There are mechanisms for challenging inaccurate reporting—editorial rebuttals, fact-checks, ombudsman reviews, or even interviews to set the record straight. What shouldn't happen is the use of an official government pulpit to discredit specific journalists, especially those involved in covering sensitive political or security matters.&nbsp;In this case, Leavitt’s attack on Bertrand wasn’t an offhand deflection. It was a deliberate attempt to question her credibility. The political optics are hard to ignore.<h3>A pattern worth watching</h3>This isn’t an isolated incident. Around the world, governments that wish to avoid scrutiny often begin by undermining the credibility of the press. We’ve seen this playbook before—in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and elsewhere. Discredit the journalist, question the platform, and soon, the public no longer trusts any version of the truth but the one they’re handed.In the US, press freedom is protected by the First Amendment, but legal protections mean little if public trust in journalism is steadily corroded by attacks from the highest levels of power.<h3>The line we cannot cross</h3>The freedom of the press is not just about protecting journalists from censorship—it’s about ensuring that no public official can dictate which questions are valid or which messengers are allowed to ask them.&nbsp;Karoline Leavitt may believe she was defending the administration from media bias. But in doing so from the podium of the White House press room, she stepped into territory where free societies should never feel comfortable: where the government judges the legitimacy of the press. In the end, the story isn’t about Bertrand alone. It’s about the signal this moment sends. If calling out a journalist by name becomes normalised from the highest office in the land, then the next reporter may hesitate before asking the uncomfortable question—and that, more than any partisan debate, is the real threat to democracy.&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.)

Who gets to judge the media Trumps Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt remarks raises questions on journalistic freedom

On a stage meant to uphold the ideals of transparency and truth, the White House press briefing room has long been a symbol of America’s commitment to a free press. But on Thursday morning (June 26), that symbol took a hit. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made headlines not for policy clarifications or presidential announcements, but for publicly questioning the journalistic integrity of CNN national security reporter Natasha Bertrand. In doing so, Leavitt didn’t just single out a reporter—she triggered a deeper debate about where the line lies between government accountability and institutional intimidation of the press. The incident During the press briefing on Thursday (June 26), Leavitt launched a pointed attack on Bertrand, criticising her past reporting. During the briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also called out CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand. She said, “This is a reporter who has been used by people who dislike Donald Trump to push fake and false narrative. She should be ashamed of herself. And that's not what reporting is. That's not what reporting is. Journalism is trying to find the facts and the truth.” It’s not the first time a government official has taken issue with a reporter’s work, but the context matters. This wasn’t a private complaint or an offhand remark. It was a public rebuke from the White House podium—arguably the most powerful communications platform in the country—against a journalist from one of the nation’s largest networks. The bigger picture While Leavitt’s comments may have played well to certain partisan audiences who view mainstream media as inherently biased, they also represent something more troubling: the normalisation of public officials attacking individual reporters by name. In democracies, government and media are expected to operate in tension—each holding the other accountable. But when that tension devolves into targeted delegitimisation, we inch toward a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. Natasha Bertrand, who has reported extensively on intelligence and national security, is no stranger to controversy or criticism. But what distinguishes this episode is the public nature of the condemnation—and the power imbalance behind it. When someone in Leavitt’s position calls out a journalist during an official briefing, the chilling effect goes far beyond the individual. It sends a message to the broader press corps: tread carefully, or be next. Is this justified scrutiny or institutional pressure? Some may argue that calling out perceived media bias is fair game—after all, journalists aren’t above criticism. But that defense misses the point. The issue here isn’t whether reporters should be held accountable. They absolutely should. The question is: Who gets to do that, and how? There are mechanisms for challenging inaccurate reporting—editorial rebuttals, fact-checks, ombudsman reviews, or even interviews to set the record straight. What shouldn't happen is the use of an official government pulpit to discredit specific journalists, especially those involved in covering sensitive political or security matters. In this case, Leavitt’s attack on Bertrand wasn’t an offhand deflection. It was a deliberate attempt to question her credibility. The political optics are hard to ignore. A pattern worth watching This isn’t an isolated incident. Around the world, governments that wish to avoid scrutiny often begin by undermining the credibility of the press. We’ve seen this playbook before—in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and elsewhere. Discredit the journalist, question the platform, and soon, the public no longer trusts any version of the truth but the one they’re handed. In the US, press freedom is protected by the First Amendment, but legal protections mean little if public trust in journalism is steadily corroded by attacks from the highest levels of power. The line we cannot cross The freedom of the press is not just about protecting journalists from censorship—it’s about ensuring that no public official can dictate which questions are valid or which messengers are allowed to ask them. Karoline Leavitt may believe she was defending the administration from media bias. But in doing so from the podium of the White House press room, she stepped into territory where free societies should never feel comfortable: where the government judges the legitimacy of the press. In the end, the story isn’t about Bertrand alone. It’s about the signal this moment sends. If calling out a journalist by name becomes normalised from the highest office in the land, then the next reporter may hesitate before asking the uncomfortable question—and that, more than any partisan debate, is the real threat to democracy. (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.)

Karoline Leavitt spent nearly two minutes ranting about Bertrand during her White House press briefing, accusing the CNN reporter of publishing a “false narrative” and having a history of reporting false information

Who gets to judge the media? Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt remarks raises questions on journalistic freedom

BlackBerry (originally Research In Motion, RIM) pioneered mobile email and smartphones in the early 2000s. Its devices, with secure messaging and iconic QWERTY keyboards, became status symbols for business and government users. RIM’s market share grew rapidly; for example, by January 2010 BlackBerry held about 43 per cent of US smartphone sales. At its peak BlackBerry counted some 41 million subscribers worldwide. BlackBerry’s early success rested on its physical keyboard and push‐email.&nbsp;&nbsp;By the late 2000s consumer preferences shifted sharply to large touchscreen devices and rich multimedia features. BlackBerry reacted slowly. It initially dismissed the iPhone (introduced 2007) as a “toy” for consumers, and only released its first full-touchscreen model (the BlackBerry Storm) in 2008 – a device that drew criticism for poor performance and responsiveness. In fact, industry analysts noted that for years BlackBerry phone hardware changed little: “the typical BlackBerry phone…was really hard to tell…from one from five years ago”. In contrast, Apple’s iPhone and Android competitors continuously iterated on form factor, adding large, high-resolution touchscreens and sleek designs. BlackBerry’s clinging to small screens and keyboards left it unable to match the user experience of newer smartphones.<ul><li>Hardware missteps: BlackBerry insisted on QWERTY keyboards and small displays long after rivals went all-touch. Its first touchscreen models (like the 2008 Storm) proved unreliable. This reluctance to fully embrace touchscreen UIs hurt its appeal.</li><li>OS delays: BlackBerry’s proprietary OS also lagged behind. Successive BlackBerry operating systems were slower to update and less intuitive than iOS or Android, making apps and features harder to develop. By the time BlackBerry 10 (its next-gen OS) launched in 2013, it was six years behind the iPhone – too late to regain users.</li></ul>App Ecosystem and Market Focus&nbsp;As Apple and Google cultivated vast app ecosystems (starting with Apple’s 2008 App Store and Google’s Android Market), BlackBerry failed to attract developers. In practical terms, iOS and Android users enjoyed tens of thousands of apps; BlackBerry’s App World had far fewer popular apps. Observers noted that BlackBerry developers lagged behind the “rapid introduction of apps” on other platforms. This limited functionality made BlackBerry devices less versatile for consumers.&nbsp;BlackBerry also focused heavily on corporate and government customers, emphasizing email security and enterprise server integration. As smartphones became mainstream tools for personal use, BlackBerry’s enterprise image became a handicap. Users increasingly “expect their phones to meet both professional and personal needs,” but BlackBerry’s offerings were seen as corporate‐centric. In the hand of an individual consumer, Apple’s iPhone (and Android phones) offered not just email but rich multimedia, web browsing, music, and social apps – needs BlackBerry devices only partially addressed. BlackBerry’s failure to broaden its appeal beyond business users meant it ceded ground to phones that delivered a “single device” for both work and life.&nbsp;Strategic Missteps and Internal Dynamics&nbsp;Internally, BlackBerry’s leadership structure and strategy contributed to missteps. Co‑CEOs Mike Lazaridis (product visionary) and Jim Balsillie (business strategist) often clashed on priorities. In general, the company became slow to adapt its strategy as the market changed. BlackBerry at one point delayed major product launches (for example, there was a multi-month delay before the PlayBook tablet ship date) which let competitors gain ground. A notorious example was the company’s network outage in October 2011, when all BlackBerry email services went down for days – an event that shook customer confidence just as consumers were already eyeing other platforms. After several disappointing quarters and executive turmoil, both co-founders left as CEOs in early 2012 (Lazaridis and Balsillie resigned in January 2012), leaving the company scrambling for direction.&nbsp;Manufacturing and Quality Decisions&nbsp;One critical business decision was the shift of handset production to China. Co-founder Jim Balsillie championed outsourcing manufacturing to reduce costs as BlackBerry grew. In 2010, for example, BlackBerry began contracting Chinese factories for phone assembly. In the short run this cut expenses, but it also introduced quality-control problems. The company’s product quality and reliability suffered according to insiders. In fact, analysts later described BlackBerry’s move to Chinese manufacturing as disastrous. Commentators note that “Balsillie insisted outsourcing to China will lower costs…[but] Lazaridis…refuses because he believes it will worsen the phone’s quality”. In practice, BlackBerry’s mass-market devices faced glitches (battery pullouts, buggy software updates, etc.) after the shift. One critic wrote that the decision to “shift manufacturing to China was an unmitigated disaster” for BlackBerry’s products. The quality issues damaged BlackBerry’s reputation even as rivals like Apple maintained tight control over their overseas production. (For context, Apple famously centralised much of its assembly in China and refined its supply chain to ensure consistent quality and massive scale.)&nbsp;By late 2016 BlackBerry effectively exited handset manufacturing altogether, licensing its brand instead. In December 2016 the company announced it would no longer make phones itself: it outsourced future smartphone production to Chinese partner TCL and even moved to Android on its last devices. This retreat marked the end of BlackBerry’s hardware business. Ultimately, RIM’s effort to cut costs via Chinese production may have extended its life by a few quarters, but it failed to address the deeper loss of market share – and arguably hurt device quality along the way.&nbsp;Competitors: Apple and Samsung&nbsp;BlackBerry’s decline coincided with the meteoric rise of Apple and Samsung. Apple’s 2007 iPhone redefined the smartphone with a capacitive touchscreen and an ecosystem of apps and media. By the early 2010s Apple repeatedly introduced new features (e.g. voice assistant Siri in 2011) and refined its design. As a result, Apple grew from a niche to a dominant player: by late 2012 Apple’s iOS commanded about 35% of the US smartphone market. Samsung, partnering with Google’s Android platform, pursued a different strategy. Samsung and other Android OEMs could focus on hardware design while using Google’s free OS, letting them iterate devices rapidly. For example, CNN reported that by January 2011 Android (powering Samsung, Motorola, HTC phones, etc.) had reached 31.2 per cent US market share, narrowly surpassing BlackBerry’s 30.4 per cent. Within a few months Android even overtook Apple in share. Samsung also diversified its lineup (the Galaxy S/Note series) and aggressively priced phones, quickly becoming the world’s largest smartphone maker. In short, Apple and Samsung moved swiftly to meet evolving consumer demand (big screens, apps, multimedia) in a way BlackBerry had not.&nbsp;Both competitors also executed smarter supply-chain strategies. Apple and Samsung leveraged massive Chinese factory networks to ramp production; BlackBerry had been slow to build comparable scale. As market trends shifted, Apple and Samsung gained share almost inevitably. By 2012 Gartner and ComScore data showed Android+ iOS owned roughly 85–90 per cent of the smartphone market, while BlackBerry’s share collapsed into the single digits. In effect, BlackBerry was “crowded out” by the iPhone and Android wave – competitors who bet heavily on touch interfaces, user-friendly operating systems, and app ecosystems, in stark contrast to BlackBerry’s legacy approach.&nbsp;BlackBerry’s downfall resulted from concrete strategic and design missteps. It clung too long to its physical‐keyboard design and enterprise niche even as consumers demanded touchscreen, app‐rich smartphones. Its operating system updates and app ecosystem lagged behind Android/iOS. Internally, shifting priorities and a two-CEO structure slowed decisive action. Critically, the push by co‐founder Jim Balsillie to offshore manufacturing to China – intended to save money – is widely seen as having worsened product quality. Meanwhile, rivals Apple and Samsung seized the touchscreen era and optimized global supply chains, swiftly eroding BlackBerry’s market dominance. These verified factors, rather than hype, best explain BlackBerry’s rapid fall from industry leader to (by the mid-2010s) a company pivoting entirely to software.

One critical business decision was the shift of handset production to China. Co-founder Jim Balsillie championed outsourcing manufacturing to reduce costs as BlackBerry grew.

BlackBerry (originally Research In Motion, RIM) pioneered mobile email and smartphones in the early 2000s. Its devices, with secure messaging and iconic QWERTY keyboards, became status symbols for business and government users. RIM’s market share grew rapidly; for example, by January 2010 BlackBerry held about 43 per cent of US smartphone sales. At its peak BlackBerry counted some 41 million subscribers worldwide. BlackBerry’s early success rested on its physical keyboard and push‐email. By the late 2000s consumer preferences shifted sharply to large touchscreen devices and rich multimedia features. BlackBerry reacted slowly. It initially dismissed the iPhone (introduced 2007) as a “toy” for consumers, and only released its first full-touchscreen model (the BlackBerry Storm) in 2008 – a device that drew criticism for poor performance and responsiveness. In fact, industry analysts noted that for years BlackBerry phone hardware changed little: “the typical BlackBerry phone…was really hard to tell…from one from five years ago”. In contrast, Apple’s iPhone and Android competitors continuously iterated on form factor, adding large, high-resolution touchscreens and sleek designs. BlackBerry’s clinging to small screens and keyboards left it unable to match the user experience of newer smartphones. Hardware missteps: BlackBerry insisted on QWERTY keyboards and small displays long after rivals went all-touch. Its first touchscreen models (like the 2008 Storm) proved unreliable. This reluctance to fully embrace touchscreen UIs hurt its appeal. OS delays: BlackBerry’s proprietary OS also lagged behind. Successive BlackBerry operating systems were slower to update and less intuitive than iOS or Android, making apps and features harder to develop. By the time BlackBerry 10 (its next-gen OS) launched in 2013, it was six years behind the iPhone – too late to regain users. App Ecosystem and Market Focus As Apple and Google cultivated vast app ecosystems (starting with Apple’s 2008 App Store and Google’s Android Market), BlackBerry failed to attract developers. In practical terms, iOS and Android users enjoyed tens of thousands of apps; BlackBerry’s App World had far fewer popular apps. Observers noted that BlackBerry developers lagged behind the “rapid introduction of apps” on other platforms. This limited functionality made BlackBerry devices less versatile for consumers. BlackBerry also focused heavily on corporate and government customers, emphasizing email security and enterprise server integration. As smartphones became mainstream tools for personal use, BlackBerry’s enterprise image became a handicap. Users increasingly “expect their phones to meet both professional and personal needs,” but BlackBerry’s offerings were seen as corporate‐centric. In the hand of an individual consumer, Apple’s iPhone (and Android phones) offered not just email but rich multimedia, web browsing, music, and social apps – needs BlackBerry devices only partially addressed. BlackBerry’s failure to broaden its appeal beyond business users meant it ceded ground to phones that delivered a “single device” for both work and life. Strategic Missteps and Internal Dynamics Internally, BlackBerry’s leadership structure and strategy contributed to missteps. Co‑CEOs Mike Lazaridis (product visionary) and Jim Balsillie (business strategist) often clashed on priorities. In general, the company became slow to adapt its strategy as the market changed. BlackBerry at one point delayed major product launches (for example, there was a multi-month delay before the PlayBook tablet ship date) which let competitors gain ground. A notorious example was the company’s network outage in October 2011, when all BlackBerry email services went down for days – an event that shook customer confidence just as consumers were already eyeing other platforms. After several disappointing quarters and executive turmoil, both co-founders left as CEOs in early 2012 (Lazaridis and Balsillie resigned in January 2012), leaving the company scrambling for direction. Manufacturing and Quality Decisions One critical business decision was the shift of handset production to China. Co-founder Jim Balsillie championed outsourcing manufacturing to reduce costs as BlackBerry grew. In 2010, for example, BlackBerry began contracting Chinese factories for phone assembly. In the short run this cut expenses, but it also introduced quality-control problems. The company’s product quality and reliability suffered according to insiders. In fact, analysts later described BlackBerry’s move to Chinese manufacturing as disastrous. Commentators note that “Balsillie insisted outsourcing to China will lower costs…[but] Lazaridis…refuses because he believes it will worsen the phone’s quality”. In practice, BlackBerry’s mass-market devices faced glitches (battery pullouts, buggy software updates, etc.) after the shift. One critic wrote that the decision to “shift manufacturing to China was an unmitigated disaster” for BlackBerry’s products. The quality issues damaged BlackBerry’s reputation even as rivals like Apple maintained tight control over their overseas production. (For context, Apple famously centralised much of its assembly in China and refined its supply chain to ensure consistent quality and massive scale.) By late 2016 BlackBerry effectively exited handset manufacturing altogether, licensing its brand instead. In December 2016 the company announced it would no longer make phones itself: it outsourced future smartphone production to Chinese partner TCL and even moved to Android on its last devices. This retreat marked the end of BlackBerry’s hardware business. Ultimately, RIM’s effort to cut costs via Chinese production may have extended its life by a few quarters, but it failed to address the deeper loss of market share – and arguably hurt device quality along the way. Competitors: Apple and Samsung BlackBerry’s decline coincided with the meteoric rise of Apple and Samsung. Apple’s 2007 iPhone redefined the smartphone with a capacitive touchscreen and an ecosystem of apps and media. By the early 2010s Apple repeatedly introduced new features (e.g. voice assistant Siri in 2011) and refined its design. As a result, Apple grew from a niche to a dominant player: by late 2012 Apple’s iOS commanded about 35% of the US smartphone market. Samsung, partnering with Google’s Android platform, pursued a different strategy. Samsung and other Android OEMs could focus on hardware design while using Google’s free OS, letting them iterate devices rapidly. For example, CNN reported that by January 2011 Android (powering Samsung, Motorola, HTC phones, etc.) had reached 31.2 per cent US market share, narrowly surpassing BlackBerry’s 30.4 per cent. Within a few months Android even overtook Apple in share. Samsung also diversified its lineup (the Galaxy S/Note series) and aggressively priced phones, quickly becoming the world’s largest smartphone maker. In short, Apple and Samsung moved swiftly to meet evolving consumer demand (big screens, apps, multimedia) in a way BlackBerry had not. Both competitors also executed smarter supply-chain strategies. Apple and Samsung leveraged massive Chinese factory networks to ramp production; BlackBerry had been slow to build comparable scale. As market trends shifted, Apple and Samsung gained share almost inevitably. By 2012 Gartner and ComScore data showed Android+ iOS owned roughly 85–90 per cent of the smartphone market, while BlackBerry’s share collapsed into the single digits. In effect, BlackBerry was “crowded out” by the iPhone and Android wave – competitors who bet heavily on touch interfaces, user-friendly operating systems, and app ecosystems, in stark contrast to BlackBerry’s legacy approach. BlackBerry’s downfall resulted from concrete strategic and design missteps. It clung too long to its physical‐keyboard design and enterprise niche even as consumers demanded touchscreen, app‐rich smartphones. Its operating system updates and app ecosystem lagged behind Android/iOS. Internally, shifting priorities and a two-CEO structure slowed decisive action. Critically, the push by co‐founder Jim Balsillie to offshore manufacturing to China – intended to save money – is widely seen as having worsened product quality. Meanwhile, rivals Apple and Samsung seized the touchscreen era and optimized global supply chains, swiftly eroding BlackBerry’s market dominance. These verified factors, rather than hype, best explain BlackBerry’s rapid fall from industry leader to (by the mid-2010s) a company pivoting entirely to software.

One critical business decision was the shift of handset production to China. Co-founder Jim Balsillie championed outsourcing manufacturing to reduce costs as BlackBerry grew.

Rise and fall of BlackBerry: How the mobile phone giant destroyed itself

At the end of 12 days of mutual aerial bombardment, Iran and Israel appear to have agreed on a ceasefire, brokered and announced by US President Donald Trump after American B2 bombers attacked suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The one-off US Operation Midnight Hammer looked very similar to Operation Sindoor, India's military action against Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attacks. India ended the operation just three days after bombings that targeted Pakistani terror infrastructure and hit near its suspected nuclear installations. Though military officials and political leadership described Operation Sindoor as ‘ongoing’, the hostilities have ended for now. The fact that what threatened to be long-drawn wars ended rather abruptly makes one wonder if we are in the era of quick-fix air wars, as opposed to long wars of attrition.<h2>Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion, Operation Midnight Hammer: Quick operations are better than wars of attrition</h2>As long as the military objectives are achieved, quick, targeted air operations are more practical. In the era of drones, long-range missiles and artificial intelligence, such operations avoid boots on the ground. Israel is already in a war of attrition with Hamas in the Gaza strip, which started after the terror attack of 7 October 2023. The military objectives of that war - defeating Hamas and releasing Israeli hostages it had taken in 2023 - have not been achieved despite more than two years of war. This is an asymmetrical war, as Hamas continues to fight the far better-equipped Israeli Army in spite of its leadership being wiped out in Mossad-led intelligence operations both inside Gaza and abroad.<h2>Ukraine-Russia war, US occupation of Afghanistan: Cautionary tales on how not to conduct warfare</h2>The Russia-Ukraine conflict is an instance of how long wars of attrition are not the order of the day in the present world. Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition.&nbsp; Another example of the failure of a long and costly military mission is from Afghanistan. The US invaded it with the intention of removing the Taliban regime in October 2001. But after 20 years of occupation, the US Army left Afghanistan in a messy exit as the Taliban rode back to power in August 2021, with hardly any resistance.&nbsp;<h2>People are not interested in joining as foot soldiers for armies</h2>Something that stood out in the Russia-Ukraine war is how difficult it was for both sides to recruit foot soldiers. There have been reports of draft dodging by Russians. North Korean soldiers reportedly joined &nbsp;Russia in fighting Ukraine. Russia reportedly recruited soldiers from jails, meaning hardened criminals were sent to the frontline. There were difficulties in recruitment for the Ukrainian Army, too. Affiliate groups, militias and mercenaries from abroad are fighting alongside the regular Ukrainian forces.<h2>Drones and missiles: Future of warfare will have to be lean and smart</h2>The use of drones in all these wars is a new trend that is here to stay. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have become the face of wars in Ukraine, as well as in the Iran-Israel conflict and Operation Sindoor. Taking out enemies from the comfort of one's room or office is a much cheaper and effective method than sending the troops to the ground.<h2>Interest is growing on non-contact warfare</h2>The emerging new form of war consists of the following main aspects: Identify enemy targets using a combination of on-ground intelligence and satellite imagery; decide on the type of munitions and launchpads (Operation Midnight Hammer of the US, for instance, fired the torpedo missiles from submarines, while the B2 stealth bombers attacked from the air); use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemey's defence system, and exit without pilot casualties and minimum loss of hardware whenever possible. In Operation Sindoor, all Indian pilots were back home. In Iran's counterattacks, dozens of drones attempted to exhaust the Israeli air defence systems. Drones are seen as dispensable, as the cost involved in developing them would be less than the standing cost of armies. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed</a> One thing is clear: Non-contact, air-dominated warfare is going to be a more prominent aspect of combat in future than the olden days of trench warfare and face-to-face combat. Whether it is India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, or Israel's Operation Rising Lion against Iran, Iran's counteroffensive, or Operation Midnight Hammer, the salient features remain the same: Air war, pinpointed targets, extensive planning, and use of unmanned vehicles.&nbsp;

The new trend is to identify enemy targets, decide on the type of munitions and launchpads, use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemy defence system, and exit without casualties and minimal hardware loss.

At the end of 12 days of mutual aerial bombardment, Iran and Israel appear to have agreed on a ceasefire, brokered and announced by US President Donald Trump after American B2 bombers attacked suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The one-off US Operation Midnight Hammer looked very similar to Operation Sindoor, India's military action against Pakistan to avenge the Pahalgam terror attacks. India ended the operation just three days after bombings that targeted Pakistani terror infrastructure and hit near its suspected nuclear installations. Though military officials and political leadership described Operation Sindoor as ‘ongoing’, the hostilities have ended for now. The fact that what threatened to be long-drawn wars ended rather abruptly makes one wonder if we are in the era of quick-fix air wars, as opposed to long wars of attrition. Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion, Operation Midnight Hammer: Quick operations are better than wars of attrition As long as the military objectives are achieved, quick, targeted air operations are more practical. In the era of drones, long-range missiles and artificial intelligence, such operations avoid boots on the ground. Israel is already in a war of attrition with Hamas in the Gaza strip, which started after the terror attack of 7 October 2023. The military objectives of that war - defeating Hamas and releasing Israeli hostages it had taken in 2023 - have not been achieved despite more than two years of war. This is an asymmetrical war, as Hamas continues to fight the far better-equipped Israeli Army in spite of its leadership being wiped out in Mossad-led intelligence operations both inside Gaza and abroad. Ukraine-Russia war, US occupation of Afghanistan: Cautionary tales on how not to conduct warfare The Russia-Ukraine conflict is an instance of how long wars of attrition are not the order of the day in the present world. Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition. Another example of the failure of a long and costly military mission is from Afghanistan. The US invaded it with the intention of removing the Taliban regime in October 2001. But after 20 years of occupation, the US Army left Afghanistan in a messy exit as the Taliban rode back to power in August 2021, with hardly any resistance. People are not interested in joining as foot soldiers for armies Something that stood out in the Russia-Ukraine war is how difficult it was for both sides to recruit foot soldiers. There have been reports of draft dodging by Russians. North Korean soldiers reportedly joined Russia in fighting Ukraine. Russia reportedly recruited soldiers from jails, meaning hardened criminals were sent to the frontline. There were difficulties in recruitment for the Ukrainian Army, too. Affiliate groups, militias and mercenaries from abroad are fighting alongside the regular Ukrainian forces. Drones and missiles: Future of warfare will have to be lean and smart The use of drones in all these wars is a new trend that is here to stay. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have become the face of wars in Ukraine, as well as in the Iran-Israel conflict and Operation Sindoor. Taking out enemies from the comfort of one's room or office is a much cheaper and effective method than sending the troops to the ground. Interest is growing on non-contact warfare The emerging new form of war consists of the following main aspects: Identify enemy targets using a combination of on-ground intelligence and satellite imagery; decide on the type of munitions and launchpads (Operation Midnight Hammer of the US, for instance, fired the torpedo missiles from submarines, while the B2 stealth bombers attacked from the air); use numerous drones and missiles to overwhelm the enemey's defence system, and exit without pilot casualties and minimum loss of hardware whenever possible. In Operation Sindoor, all Indian pilots were back home. In Iran's counterattacks, dozens of drones attempted to exhaust the Israeli air defence systems. Drones are seen as dispensable, as the cost involved in developing them would be less than the standing cost of armies. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump-tells-israel-to-stop-attacking-iran-report-1750834499577/embed One thing is clear: Non-contact, air-dominated warfare is going to be a more prominent aspect of combat in future than the olden days of trench warfare and face-to-face combat. Whether it is India's Operation Sindoor against Pakistan, or Israel's Operation Rising Lion against Iran, Iran's counteroffensive, or Operation Midnight Hammer, the salient features remain the same: Air war, pinpointed targets, extensive planning, and use of unmanned vehicles.

Perhaps the quick operations as seen in India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran conflicts would now become a model for future wars, given the failure of long wars of attrition.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Operation Sindoor, Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer: Are we in the era of quickfix air wars?

US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, 12 days into the escalation of the conflict that started on June 13 with Israeli attacks and follow-up US strikes with B2 bombers targeting Iranian nuclear sites. He warned both countries not to violate the truce, but within hours of his social media posts, Iran rained more missiles on Israel, which vowed to respond. Trump appears to have copied Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who ended the Operation Sindoor, India's military response to Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack, just three days after it started on May 10. At the time of writing this, the Israel-Iran ceasefire appears to be broken. Did Trump speak too soon? Is the war really over? Why did Trump announce the truce if ground reality hasn't changed? Let's break it down.<h2>How Modi and Trump differed in announcing the ceasefires</h2>Perhaps the most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved. That objective was to hit hard inside Pakistan's terror infrastructure. The new military doctrine announced by Modi after the end of Operation Sindoor also mentioned that there will be a strong response to any Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India in the future. He made it clear that India will not yield to any nuclear blackmail, with the Indian airstrikes having hit very near the suspected nuclear installations of Pakistan. Modi reasserted his earlier statement in the context of Ukraine-Russia war that this is not an era of war. But he also stressed that this is not an era of terrorism, either.&nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed</a> But in the case of Trump, there are some key differences. The US is, at best, a ‘third party’ in the war, having joined it in the form of a one-off military strike, the Operation Midnight Hammer, in which B2 bombers attacked some Iranian nuclear sites. However, questions remain on whether the military objectives of the war, either of the US or Israel, have been achieved, given that Iran appears to have moved the near-bomb grade uranium it had enriched up to 60 per cent. That remains a potential threat, as Iran can resume its nuclear programme, this time with an explicit intention of building a bomb.<h2>Trump may have spoken too soon, but why?</h2>One of the reasons why Trump was very quick to announce the ceasefire is domestic politics. Democrats, who were in tatters after the last presidential elections that saw Trump thunder back into power, have now got a rallying point in the form of US intervention in the Iran-Israel war. That is not good for Trump or his Republican Party, some leaders of which are also criticising the US president. Trump's popularity will be put to test in the mid-term elections next November. As a president who got elected for the second non-consecutive term on a promise of ‘no more stupid wars’, the Israel-Iran situation provided Trump with a tough choice. America had to enter the war in order to end it quickly. A long war of attrition was not on the agenda of Trump. But events unfolding on the ground threaten to drag the US into another long-drawn conflict. &nbsp;<h2>Nobel Peace Prize hopes of Trump: A key motivator to end the war?</h2>It is interesting to note that Trump claimed credit, publicly and quite a few times, for the India-Pakistan ceasefire after Operation Sindoor, something India firmly rejected. He has been trying to end the Israel-Hamas war before it escalated into an Iran-Israel war. His efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war haven't been fruitful yet. But Pakistan, quite stupidly, endorsed a nomination for Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhere in his heart, Trump himself probably dreams of such an honour. In reality, despite his acerbic tongue, Trump has made some efforts to end wars. But the belligerents on both sides are frustrating his efforts, particularly in the Ukraine-Russia war.&nbsp; With no more terms left (unless he manages to change the constitution), Trump is looking for a legacy. He probably wants to be known as the peacemaker president. In his first term, he made efforts to bring Israel and its traditional Arab rivals closer through the Abraham Accords. This term, he is trying hard to end American military involvement in foreign wars. But the traditional role of his nation as the global police, and the temptations from the military-industrial complex, are pulling strings elsewhere.&nbsp; While Trump might have tried a touch-and-go type operation against Iran, peace seems to be distant, and at best uneasy. The US might have to bear the consequences of having sided with Israel in the war, the latest example being the attack by Iran on the American airbase in Qatar. In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved, and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.

The most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved

US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, 12 days into the escalation of the conflict that started on June 13 with Israeli attacks and follow-up US strikes with B2 bombers targeting Iranian nuclear sites. He warned both countries not to violate the truce, but within hours of his social media posts, Iran rained more missiles on Israel, which vowed to respond. Trump appears to have copied Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who ended the Operation Sindoor, India's military response to Pakistan for the Pahalgam terror attack, just three days after it started on May 10. At the time of writing this, the Israel-Iran ceasefire appears to be broken. Did Trump speak too soon? Is the war really over? Why did Trump announce the truce if ground reality hasn't changed? Let's break it down. How Modi and Trump differed in announcing the ceasefires Perhaps the most important difference between the end of Operation Sindoor and the truce announcement of Trump is that, India declared that its military objective had been achieved. That objective was to hit hard inside Pakistan's terror infrastructure. The new military doctrine announced by Modi after the end of Operation Sindoor also mentioned that there will be a strong response to any Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India in the future. He made it clear that India will not yield to any nuclear blackmail, with the Indian airstrikes having hit very near the suspected nuclear installations of Pakistan. Modi reasserted his earlier statement in the context of Ukraine-Russia war that this is not an era of war. But he also stressed that this is not an era of terrorism, either. https://www.wionews.com/videos/qatar-played-key-role-in-convincing-iran-to-accept-ceasefire-deal-say-diplomats-wion-breaking-1750752379342/embed But in the case of Trump, there are some key differences. The US is, at best, a ‘third party’ in the war, having joined it in the form of a one-off military strike, the Operation Midnight Hammer, in which B2 bombers attacked some Iranian nuclear sites. However, questions remain on whether the military objectives of the war, either of the US or Israel, have been achieved, given that Iran appears to have moved the near-bomb grade uranium it had enriched up to 60 per cent. That remains a potential threat, as Iran can resume its nuclear programme, this time with an explicit intention of building a bomb. Trump may have spoken too soon, but why? One of the reasons why Trump was very quick to announce the ceasefire is domestic politics. Democrats, who were in tatters after the last presidential elections that saw Trump thunder back into power, have now got a rallying point in the form of US intervention in the Iran-Israel war. That is not good for Trump or his Republican Party, some leaders of which are also criticising the US president. Trump's popularity will be put to test in the mid-term elections next November. As a president who got elected for the second non-consecutive term on a promise of ‘no more stupid wars’, the Israel-Iran situation provided Trump with a tough choice. America had to enter the war in order to end it quickly. A long war of attrition was not on the agenda of Trump. But events unfolding on the ground threaten to drag the US into another long-drawn conflict. Nobel Peace Prize hopes of Trump: A key motivator to end the war? It is interesting to note that Trump claimed credit, publicly and quite a few times, for the India-Pakistan ceasefire after Operation Sindoor, something India firmly rejected. He has been trying to end the Israel-Hamas war before it escalated into an Iran-Israel war. His efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war haven't been fruitful yet. But Pakistan, quite stupidly, endorsed a nomination for Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhere in his heart, Trump himself probably dreams of such an honour. In reality, despite his acerbic tongue, Trump has made some efforts to end wars. But the belligerents on both sides are frustrating his efforts, particularly in the Ukraine-Russia war. With no more terms left (unless he manages to change the constitution), Trump is looking for a legacy. He probably wants to be known as the peacemaker president. In his first term, he made efforts to bring Israel and its traditional Arab rivals closer through the Abraham Accords. This term, he is trying hard to end American military involvement in foreign wars. But the traditional role of his nation as the global police, and the temptations from the military-industrial complex, are pulling strings elsewhere. While Trump might have tried a touch-and-go type operation against Iran, peace seems to be distant, and at best uneasy. The US might have to bear the consequences of having sided with Israel in the war, the latest example being the attack by Iran on the American airbase in Qatar. In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved, and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.

In the coming days, Trump would learn if another war in which he got involved and hoped to resolve, would worsen after his interventions.

Trump, dreaming of Nobel Peace Prize, may have copied Modi to end Iran-Israel war quickly, but did he speak too soon?

He came, he bombed, and now he says the war is over—at least that’s what President Donald Trump wants people to believe. Just two days after secret U.S. bombers hit Iran’s underground nuclear sites, Trump declared a “complete and total” ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised both countries, saying, “I want to congratulate Israel and Iran for having the strength, courage, and wisdom to end what we should now call ‘THE 12 DAY WAR.’” &nbsp;According to reports, Donald Trump first got Israel to agree to a ceasefire and then passed on the offer to Iran through Qatar. Trump said that Iran would stop fighting first, and Israel would follow 12 hours later.&nbsp;He added that both countries would stay “peaceful and respectful.” In an interview with NBC News, Trump said he believed the ceasefire would last “forever.” &nbsp;The news brought some relief—stock markets went up and oil prices came down—especially after Iran’s foreign minister said there was no official agreement, but that Iran would stop fighting if Israel did the same. &nbsp;However, just as the ceasefire was supposed to begin, Iran reportedly fired missiles that killed three people in southern Israel—possibly as a final act of defiance (openly refusing to obey to the order) before ending the attacks. &nbsp;The announcement is the latest surprising development in a fast-moving conflict that began on June 13, when Israel suddenly attacked Iran. Israeli fighter jets and secret agents took down many of Iran’s air defence systems, killed key nuclear scientists and military generals, and started destroying Iran’s scattered nuclear sites—sites that were believed to be close to producing nuclear weapons. &nbsp;Then, on June 22, the United States joined the fight with a major operation called “Midnight Hammer.” B-2 stealth bombers flew all the way from Missouri, USA, in a 37-hour mission to drop 14 powerful “bunker-buster” bombs—called GBU-57—on Iran’s underground uranium facilities, mainly at Natanz and Fordow.&nbsp;In addition, around 30 Tomahawk missiles, likely launched from submarines, targeted nuclear sites in the city of Isfahan.&nbsp;The next day, Iran responded with a limited counterattack. It fired 14 missiles—one for each American bunker-buster bomb—at the U.S. military base in Al-Udeid, Qatar.&nbsp;Almost all the missiles were shot down, and since Iran gave an early warning, no one was hurt. President Trump shared this update and announced the ceasefire just two hours later. &nbsp;J.D. Vance, the U.S. Vice President, was at the Fox News studio when Donald Trump announced the ceasefire. He said the American airstrikes had achieved their goal. “We are sure Iran can no longer build a nuclear bomb,” he said. According to The Economist, Vance also claimed that most of Iran’s enriched uranium was likely destroyed in the attacks.Now, three big questions remain for the region:<ol><li>Will the ceasefire last?</li><li>Can a new peace deal be made to limit Iran’s nuclear program?</li><li>Will the Middle East become more peaceful after this war?</li></ol>These are the key things the world is watching closely. &nbsp;1. Let’s start with the ceasefire.&nbsp;Neither Israel nor Iran has officially confirmed that the fighting has stopped, but both have strong reasons to pause.Iran’s religious government often chants slogans like “Death to America,” but for many years, it has avoided direct war with the U.S. Instead, it relies on proxy militias—armed groups in other countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—that fight on Iran’s behalf. Iran supports these groups by giving them weapons, money, and training, allowing it to influence regional conflicts without directly taking part. &nbsp;Right now, Iran is facing serious problems at home, its army has not been able to stop Israeli attacks, and many of its allies across the region have become weaker. Now that the U.S. has entered the war, Iran may choose to step back and recover from the damage. &nbsp;2. As for Israel, it’s unlikely that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will go against Donald Trump—especially after praising his major military action. Israeli military officials believe they have already hit almost all the important targets in Iran. Some even say that Israel could announce victory and stop fighting, even without an official ceasefire. &nbsp;Netanyahu may now feel that he has scored a big win against Israel’s main enemy, which could be seen as a major achievement in his career.Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t want the war to continue for too long. He has promised the American people that he won’t drag the country into another long war like the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, which he has often criticized.&nbsp;3.When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, there’s a big concern—it cannot “unlearn” what it already knows. Even though many of its nuclear sites may have been destroyed, Iran still has the knowledge and skills to build nuclear weapons. Feeling embarrassed and angry, Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, might now believe that having nuclear weapons is the only way to protect his government.&nbsp;The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said it doesn’t know where Iran’s official stock of highly enriched uranium—about 400kg at 60% purity—is being kept. If Iran has secretly saved some uranium machines (called centrifuges), it could quickly make even purer material—up to 90%—which is needed to make nuclear bombs. That amount could be enough to build around ten nuclear weapons. &nbsp;4.Back in 2015, President Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran. The agreement allowed Iran to enrich uranium, but only in small amounts and under strict international checks.&nbsp;The goal was to make sure Iran stayed at least a year away from being able to build a nuclear bomb.However, when Donald Trump became president, he cancelled that deal during his first term. By the time Israel attacked Iran recently, experts believed Iran was just days or weeks away from having enough nuclear material to make a bomb—a stage often called a "breakout." &nbsp;The worry grew even more after intelligence reports said Iran had started working on ways to make a nuclear warhead that could fit on a missile.In recent talks with Iran, Donald Trump has asked for much stricter limits—he wants Iran to stop enriching uranium completely, or come close to it. &nbsp;5.&nbsp;His special representative, Steve Witkoff, suggested a compromise: Iran could still take part in uranium enrichment, but it would have to happen outside the country as part of a group effort with other countries in the region. It’s unclear if this offer is still being discussed—or if either Iran or Israel would accept such a deal. The bigger question now is whether the Middle East can truly become peaceful while Iran’s hardline religious leaders stay in power. &nbsp;6.If Israel finds out that Iran is secretly working on nuclear weapons again, it will likely attack—even if the U.S. doesn’t help. Israel also wants Iran to stop building up its regular weapons and supporting armed groups in other countries. After more than a year of fighting Iran’s allies and blocking missiles from places like Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen, Israel will push for stronger limits on conventional missiles to keep the region safe. &nbsp;7. Some people in Israel and the U.S. believe that lasting peace in the region is only possible if Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is removed from power. On June 23, Israel targeted key parts of Iran’s control system—bombing the infamous Evin prison and the headquarters of the Basij militia, which has violently put down protests in the past. Israel hoped that ordinary Iranians would rise up against their rulers—but that was unlikely to happen while bombs were still falling. However, if the fighting stops and people in Iran begin to realise how much damage their leaders' decisions have caused, there could still be public anger. Until then, Israel and its Arab partners will want the U.S. to continue helping protect the region’s security. &nbsp;8. Through “Operation Midnight Hammer,” the U.S. showed how important its role still is in global security. But many in Donald Trump’s team believe America should stop acting like the world’s policeman and instead focus more on the Pacific region, especially to deal with China. Vice President JD Vance, who supports this idea of stepping back, said that how Iran is ruled should be decided by the Iranian people. However, he also warned that if Iran ever tries to build a nuclear weapon again, it will have to face the full strength of the U.S. military. For now, the big U.S. attack followed by a sudden ceasefire does not mean real peace has been achieved—at least not yet.

According to reports, Donald Trump first got Israel to agree to a ceasefire and then passed on the offer to Iran through Qatar. Trump said that Iran would stop fighting first, and Israel would follow 12 hours later. 

He came, he bombed, and now he says the war is over—at least that’s what President Donald Trump wants people to believe. Just two days after secret U.S. bombers hit Iran’s underground nuclear sites, Trump declared a “complete and total” ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump praised both countries, saying, “I want to congratulate Israel and Iran for having the strength, courage, and wisdom to end what we should now call ‘THE 12 DAY WAR.’” According to reports, Donald Trump first got Israel to agree to a ceasefire and then passed on the offer to Iran through Qatar. Trump said that Iran would stop fighting first, and Israel would follow 12 hours later. He added that both countries would stay “peaceful and respectful.” In an interview with NBC News, Trump said he believed the ceasefire would last “forever.” The news brought some relief—stock markets went up and oil prices came down—especially after Iran’s foreign minister said there was no official agreement, but that Iran would stop fighting if Israel did the same. However, just as the ceasefire was supposed to begin, Iran reportedly fired missiles that killed three people in southern Israel—possibly as a final act of defiance (openly refusing to obey to the order) before ending the attacks. The announcement is the latest surprising development in a fast-moving conflict that began on June 13, when Israel suddenly attacked Iran. Israeli fighter jets and secret agents took down many of Iran’s air defence systems, killed key nuclear scientists and military generals, and started destroying Iran’s scattered nuclear sites—sites that were believed to be close to producing nuclear weapons. Then, on June 22, the United States joined the fight with a major operation called “Midnight Hammer.” B-2 stealth bombers flew all the way from Missouri, USA, in a 37-hour mission to drop 14 powerful “bunker-buster” bombs—called GBU-57—on Iran’s underground uranium facilities, mainly at Natanz and Fordow. In addition, around 30 Tomahawk missiles, likely launched from submarines, targeted nuclear sites in the city of Isfahan. The next day, Iran responded with a limited counterattack. It fired 14 missiles—one for each American bunker-buster bomb—at the U.S. military base in Al-Udeid, Qatar. Almost all the missiles were shot down, and since Iran gave an early warning, no one was hurt. President Trump shared this update and announced the ceasefire just two hours later. J.D. Vance, the U.S. Vice President, was at the Fox News studio when Donald Trump announced the ceasefire. He said the American airstrikes had achieved their goal. “We are sure Iran can no longer build a nuclear bomb,” he said. According to The Economist, Vance also claimed that most of Iran’s enriched uranium was likely destroyed in the attacks. Now, three big questions remain for the region: Will the ceasefire last? Can a new peace deal be made to limit Iran’s nuclear program? Will the Middle East become more peaceful after this war? These are the key things the world is watching closely. 1. Let’s start with the ceasefire. Neither Israel nor Iran has officially confirmed that the fighting has stopped, but both have strong reasons to pause. Iran’s religious government often chants slogans like “Death to America,” but for many years, it has avoided direct war with the U.S. Instead, it relies on proxy militias—armed groups in other countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—that fight on Iran’s behalf. Iran supports these groups by giving them weapons, money, and training, allowing it to influence regional conflicts without directly taking part. Right now, Iran is facing serious problems at home, its army has not been able to stop Israeli attacks, and many of its allies across the region have become weaker. Now that the U.S. has entered the war, Iran may choose to step back and recover from the damage. 2. As for Israel, it’s unlikely that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will go against Donald Trump—especially after praising his major military action. Israeli military officials believe they have already hit almost all the important targets in Iran. Some even say that Israel could announce victory and stop fighting, even without an official ceasefire. Netanyahu may now feel that he has scored a big win against Israel’s main enemy, which could be seen as a major achievement in his career. Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t want the war to continue for too long. He has promised the American people that he won’t drag the country into another long war like the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, which he has often criticized. 3.When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, there’s a big concern—it cannot “unlearn” what it already knows. Even though many of its nuclear sites may have been destroyed, Iran still has the knowledge and skills to build nuclear weapons. Feeling embarrassed and angry, Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, might now believe that having nuclear weapons is the only way to protect his government. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said it doesn’t know where Iran’s official stock of highly enriched uranium—about 400kg at 60% purity—is being kept. If Iran has secretly saved some uranium machines (called centrifuges), it could quickly make even purer material—up to 90%—which is needed to make nuclear bombs. That amount could be enough to build around ten nuclear weapons. 4.Back in 2015, President Barack Obama signed a nuclear deal with Iran. The agreement allowed Iran to enrich uranium, but only in small amounts and under strict international checks. The goal was to make sure Iran stayed at least a year away from being able to build a nuclear bomb. However, when Donald Trump became president, he cancelled that deal during his first term. By the time Israel attacked Iran recently, experts believed Iran was just days or weeks away from having enough nuclear material to make a bomb—a stage often called a "breakout." The worry grew even more after intelligence reports said Iran had started working on ways to make a nuclear warhead that could fit on a missile. In recent talks with Iran, Donald Trump has asked for much stricter limits—he wants Iran to stop enriching uranium completely, or come close to it. 5. His special representative, Steve Witkoff, suggested a compromise: Iran could still take part in uranium enrichment, but it would have to happen outside the country as part of a group effort with other countries in the region. It’s unclear if this offer is still being discussed—or if either Iran or Israel would accept such a deal. The bigger question now is whether the Middle East can truly become peaceful while Iran’s hardline religious leaders stay in power. 6.If Israel finds out that Iran is secretly working on nuclear weapons again, it will likely attack—even if the U.S. doesn’t help. Israel also wants Iran to stop building up its regular weapons and supporting armed groups in other countries. After more than a year of fighting Iran’s allies and blocking missiles from places like Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen, Israel will push for stronger limits on conventional missiles to keep the region safe. 7. Some people in Israel and the U.S. believe that lasting peace in the region is only possible if Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is removed from power. On June 23, Israel targeted key parts of Iran’s control system—bombing the infamous Evin prison and the headquarters of the Basij militia, which has violently put down protests in the past. Israel hoped that ordinary Iranians would rise up against their rulers—but that was unlikely to happen while bombs were still falling. However, if the fighting stops and people in Iran begin to realise how much damage their leaders' decisions have caused, there could still be public anger. Until then, Israel and its Arab partners will want the U.S. to continue helping protect the region’s security. 8. Through “Operation Midnight Hammer,” the U.S. showed how important its role still is in global security. But many in Donald Trump’s team believe America should stop acting like the world’s policeman and instead focus more on the Pacific region, especially to deal with China. Vice President JD Vance, who supports this idea of stepping back, said that how Iran is ruled should be decided by the Iranian people. However, he also warned that if Iran ever tries to build a nuclear weapon again, it will have to face the full strength of the U.S. military. For now, the big U.S. attack followed by a sudden ceasefire does not mean real peace has been achieved—at least not yet.

According to reports, Donald Trump first got Israel to agree to a ceasefire and then passed on the offer to Iran through Qatar. Trump said that Iran would stop fighting first, and Israel would follow 12 hours later.&nbsp;

Beyond the 12-Day War: What's Next for Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Mideast Peace?

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

Reality check: American oil hunt in Pakistan may serve as cover for US military presence

Apache vs Prachand: Strategic helicopter competition reshaping modern warfare

US-Indian tariff wrangling show limits of Trump’s art of the deal

Trump’s tariff barrage on India: Navigating the storm

Quake rocks Russia, ripples reach US; will climate change end geopolitical wars?

AI's already reshaping entertainment, education, and politics, but are we ready?

Trump’s ceasefire boast falls flat as Rajnath Singh sets record straight in LS

Nitin Gadkari’s EV revolution in collapse as housing societies deny EV chargers!

Saiyaara fever grips the nation: What's making the film resonate with audience?

Brazil and Canada push back on US interference in their domestic affairs

Panta Bhaat: My ultimate summer meal

How Trump wants to tie Syria into a new, stable Middle East

The Silent Guardian: ERASR Extends India's Reach Below the Surface

Trump-Putin relations: Finally, the end of an illusion?

Umbrellas used for treatment: Indian football's dark reality exposed

India's Apache gambit: A costly lesson in self-reliance

The trimming of the Quad

Fork off, America: Zohran's 'hand-eating' is Indian tradition

US-Iran conflict: A spectacular military win, another information war loss

WH press secretary Karoline Leavitt's opine spark debate on journalistic freedom

Rise and fall of BlackBerry: How the mobile phone giant destroyed itself

Operation Sindoor to Operation Midnight Hammer: Era of quickfix air wars is here

Trump may have copied Modi to end Iran-Israel war fast. Did he speak too soon?

12-Day War ends: What's Next for Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Mideast Peace?