With Israel's election approaching, contrasting statements from the American president and vice president have sparked questions about foreign political endorsements and Washington's relationship with its closest Middle Eastern ally.US President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the country's October 27 parliamentary election.&nbsp;In a lengthy statement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a strong wartime leader and an important partner in confronting Iran, offering what he described as his complete and total endorsement.But the endorsement went beyond ordinary political praise.&nbsp;Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran.The statement has raised questions about the extent to which an American president should involve himself in another country's democratic process.&nbsp;Then came a contrasting response from Vice President JD Vance.Asked whether he would endorse Netanyahu, Vance declined, explaining that his political focus was on American candidates ahead of the November midterm elections.He clarified that his position should not be interpreted as opposition to Netanyahu.Nevertheless, his explanation has attracted scrutiny because Vance previously campaigned for Viktor Orbán in Hungary.&nbsp;The vice president has also expressed reservations about aspects of Israel's approach to Iran, arguing that American foreign policy must remain focused on US national interests.These developments do not necessarily establish a fundamental disagreement between Trump and Vance over Israel's security.They do, however, reveal contrasting approaches to political endorsements and the boundaries of American involvement in foreign elections.For Netanyahu, Trump's support arrives at a politically sensitive moment.Israel's election follows years of regional conflict, with voters divided over national security, governance and the country's future direction.&nbsp;Trump's endorsement may energise some Netanyahu supporters, but analysts caution that its broader electoral impact remains uncertain.There is also a wider diplomatic question.Can Washington maintain a close strategic partnership with Israel while remaining neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose?And should expressions of support for a foreign candidate be linked to expectations about American military commitments?The contrasting statements from Trump and Vance have brought those questions into sharper focus.Ultimately, the outcome of Israel's election will be determined by Israeli voters and the coalition negotiations that follow — not by an endorsement from Washington.

President Donald Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Benjamin Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. Now, the question arises whether Washington can remain neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose.

With Israel's election approaching, contrasting statements from the American president and vice president have sparked questions about foreign political endorsements and Washington's relationship with its closest Middle Eastern ally. US President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the country's October 27 parliamentary election. In a lengthy statement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a strong wartime leader and an important partner in confronting Iran, offering what he described as his complete and total endorsement. But the endorsement went beyond ordinary political praise. Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. The statement has raised questions about the extent to which an American president should involve himself in another country's democratic process. Then came a contrasting response from Vice President JD Vance. Asked whether he would endorse Netanyahu, Vance declined, explaining that his political focus was on American candidates ahead of the November midterm elections. He clarified that his position should not be interpreted as opposition to Netanyahu. Nevertheless, his explanation has attracted scrutiny because Vance previously campaigned for Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The vice president has also expressed reservations about aspects of Israel's approach to Iran, arguing that American foreign policy must remain focused on US national interests. These developments do not necessarily establish a fundamental disagreement between Trump and Vance over Israel's security. They do, however, reveal contrasting approaches to political endorsements and the boundaries of American involvement in foreign elections. For Netanyahu, Trump's support arrives at a politically sensitive moment. Israel's election follows years of regional conflict, with voters divided over national security, governance and the country's future direction. Trump's endorsement may energise some Netanyahu supporters, but analysts caution that its broader electoral impact remains uncertain. There is also a wider diplomatic question. Can Washington maintain a close strategic partnership with Israel while remaining neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose? And should expressions of support for a foreign candidate be linked to expectations about American military commitments? The contrasting statements from Trump and Vance have brought those questions into sharper focus. Ultimately, the outcome of Israel's election will be determined by Israeli voters and the coalition negotiations that follow — not by an endorsement from Washington.

President Donald Trump suggested that electing a leader other than Benjamin Netanyahu could leave Washington with greater responsibility for confronting Iran. Now, the question arises whether Washington can remain neutral about which political leader Israeli voters choose.

The Verdict | Trump endorses Netanyahu, but JD Vance declines to follow: A difference of principle or politics?

Three leaders, three competing priorities and one proposed summit that could have far-reaching consequences for global security.The possibility of an unprecedented meeting between US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping has triggered fresh debate over the future of international diplomacy.The Kremlin has acknowledged discussions about a potential trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18 and 19.Trump has expressed willingness to participate, but no formal agreement has been reached.And already, the three powers appear to have different priorities.According to reports, Putin has proposed using the meeting to explore a settlement to the war in Ukraine. Trump, however, has suggested that nuclear disarmament would be a principal objective, alongside possible discussions on trade.Beijing has not confirmed the proposed gathering.The most immediate controversy concerns Ukraine.Ukrainian officials have strongly criticised the prospect of negotiations about their country's future without Kyiv's participation.Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that a meeting involving Washington, Moscow and Beijing could encourage Russia to continue the war rather than accelerate peace.The diplomatic developments also come amid fresh Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of households without electricity.Meanwhile, Trump's recent decision to ease certain sanctions on Moscow and his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have intensified disagreements between Washington and Kyiv.China faces a different calculation.Beijing maintains close strategic ties with Moscow while simultaneously seeking economic stability in its relations with Washington and Europe.It has also questioned proposals for trilateral nuclear disarmament talks, arguing that its nuclear arsenal remains considerably smaller than those of Russia and the United States.For the wider international community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine.Could three competing powers negotiate meaningful arms-control agreements? Would their diplomatic engagement reduce geopolitical tensions? And what role would smaller countries and established alliances play in decisions affecting their security?Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue may see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. Critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty and confidence in international diplomacy.For now, the summit remains hypothetical.But the debate surrounding it has already exposed a central tension in contemporary geopolitics: the difference between negotiating with powerful states and negotiating on behalf of those whose futures are at stake.Three superpowers may eventually sit at one table. The question is whether their discussions will produce a more stable international order — and whose voices will help shape it.

For the global community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. But critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty.

Three leaders, three competing priorities and one proposed summit that could have far-reaching consequences for global security. The possibility of an unprecedented meeting between US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping has triggered fresh debate over the future of international diplomacy. The Kremlin has acknowledged discussions about a potential trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18 and 19. Trump has expressed willingness to participate, but no formal agreement has been reached. And already, the three powers appear to have different priorities. According to reports, Putin has proposed using the meeting to explore a settlement to the war in Ukraine. Trump, however, has suggested that nuclear disarmament would be a principal objective, alongside possible discussions on trade. Beijing has not confirmed the proposed gathering. The most immediate controversy concerns Ukraine. Ukrainian officials have strongly criticised the prospect of negotiations about their country's future without Kyiv's participation. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that a meeting involving Washington, Moscow and Beijing could encourage Russia to continue the war rather than accelerate peace. The diplomatic developments also come amid fresh Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of households without electricity. Meanwhile, Trump's recent decision to ease certain sanctions on Moscow and his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have intensified disagreements between Washington and Kyiv. China faces a different calculation. Beijing maintains close strategic ties with Moscow while simultaneously seeking economic stability in its relations with Washington and Europe. It has also questioned proposals for trilateral nuclear disarmament talks, arguing that its nuclear arsenal remains considerably smaller than those of Russia and the United States. For the wider international community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Could three competing powers negotiate meaningful arms-control agreements? Would their diplomatic engagement reduce geopolitical tensions? And what role would smaller countries and established alliances play in decisions affecting their security? Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue may see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. Critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty and confidence in international diplomacy. For now, the summit remains hypothetical. But the debate surrounding it has already exposed a central tension in contemporary geopolitics: the difference between negotiating with powerful states and negotiating on behalf of those whose futures are at stake. Three superpowers may eventually sit at one table. The question is whether their discussions will produce a more stable international order — and whose voices will help shape it.

For the global community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. But critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty.

The Verdict | Trump, Putin and Xi: A superpower triangle that could reshape global diplomacy

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities.India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement.On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting.Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational.The announcement represents a significant change in tone.Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions.Now, the two governments are signalling progress.But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive?&nbsp;<h2>The tariff battle</h2>&nbsp;At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access.Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India.New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports.American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions.Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment.A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment.But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments.&nbsp;<h2>The Russian oil contradiction</h2>&nbsp;Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations.Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel.Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel.However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ.The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi.So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed.That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue.&nbsp;<h2>Strategic autonomy meets economic reality</h2>&nbsp;For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs.New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner.The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets.Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests.China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates.Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward.A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position.But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy.For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships.For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests.Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text.&nbsp;<h2>Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test</h2>&nbsp;US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan.His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership.The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement.But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement.Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps.Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership.Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains.Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations.Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market?Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need?Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices?And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking?Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit.Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits.The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities. India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement. On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational. The announcement represents a significant change in tone. Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions. Now, the two governments are signalling progress. But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive? The tariff battle At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access. Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India. New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports. American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions. Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment. A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment. But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments. The Russian oil contradiction Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations. Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security. The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel. Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel. However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ. The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi. So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed. That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue. Strategic autonomy meets economic reality For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs. New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner. The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets. Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests. China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates. Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward. A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position. But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy. For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships. For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests. Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text. Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan. His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership. The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement. But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement. Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps. Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation. The Verdict India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership. Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains. Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations. Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market? Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need? Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices? And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking? Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit. Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits. The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and the price of a deal: Is India finally getting a fair bargain?

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create.India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging.Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday.The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series.The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers.&nbsp;<h2>The energy shock behind the numbers</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices.Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets.The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies.India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude.A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector.It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food.In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>When wholesale pressure reaches households</h2>&nbsp;Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy.The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households.That distinction matters.An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases.Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices.India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent.Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent.For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed.Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses.The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases.&nbsp;<h2>The government's difficult balancing act</h2>&nbsp;India's policymakers face competing priorities.Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation.But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured.Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers.Monetary policy presents another dilemma.The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden.Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations.However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households.That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases.&nbsp;<h2>India's growth story faces a new test</h2>&nbsp;India's economic growth remains an important source of strength.Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty.But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation.Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories.Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures.These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction.If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment.The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures.&nbsp;<h2>Can India shield itself from global instability?</h2>&nbsp;India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships.The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge.Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks.But those measures take time.In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable.There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders.That makes effective crisis management essential.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended.They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing.A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses.The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation.The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment.And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise?India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden.Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create. India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging. Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday. The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series. The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers. The energy shock behind the numbers Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices. Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets. The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies. India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude. A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector. It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food. In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything. https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed When wholesale pressure reaches households Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy. The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households. That distinction matters. An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases. Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices. India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent. Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent. For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses. The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases. The government's difficult balancing act India's policymakers face competing priorities. Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation. But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured. Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers. Monetary policy presents another dilemma. The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden. Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations. However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households. That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases. India's growth story faces a new test India's economic growth remains an important source of strength. Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty. But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation. Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories. Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures. These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction. If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment. The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures. Can India shield itself from global instability? India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships. The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge. Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks. But those measures take time. In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable. There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders. That makes effective crisis management essential. The Verdict India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended. They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing. A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses. The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation. The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment. And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise? India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden. Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: A growing economy, but who pays the price?

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment.On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living.For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences.India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.&nbsp;<h2>Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny</h2>&nbsp;The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year.According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established.Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment.The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement.Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern.Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi.Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions.At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote?&nbsp;<h2>India's economic resilience faces new pressures</h2>&nbsp;Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge.India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent.Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions.Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain.The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies.A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy.Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending.For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day.Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight.The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power.&nbsp;<h2>Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations</h2>&nbsp;India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge.The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security.But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled.Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population.The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship.Washington wants closer strategic coordination.New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests.That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions.Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions.The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions.&nbsp;<h2>Three challenges, one larger question</h2>&nbsp;These pressures are interconnected.Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability.Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning.Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence.Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing.Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention.Both perspectives are part of the national debate.What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues.India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability.That requires more than responding to individual controversies.It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance.India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy.But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home.A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy.Three important objectives.And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment. On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences. India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together. Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year. According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established. Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment. The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement. Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern. Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi. Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions. At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote? India's economic resilience faces new pressures Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge. India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent. Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions. Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain. The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies. A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy. Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending. For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day. Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight. The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power. Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge. The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security. But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled. Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population. The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship. Washington wants closer strategic coordination. New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests. That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions. Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions. The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions. Three challenges, one larger question These pressures are interconnected. Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability. Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning. Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence. Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing. Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention. Both perspectives are part of the national debate. What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues. India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability. That requires more than responding to individual controversies. It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance. India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy. But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home. A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy. Three important objectives. And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

The Verdict | Modi's three-front challenge: Protests at home, pressure from Washington and an economy under strain

Donald Trump says he wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. But his latest energy decisions have raised questions about whether Washington's economic policies are reinforcing that diplomatic objective or complicating it.The American president has announced what he describes as an energy ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv, suggesting a breakthrough in efforts to halt attacks on critical infrastructure.Yet Ukraine has reported continuing Russian strikes, while questions remain over Moscow's acceptance of the proposed arrangement.The discrepancy illustrates a recurring challenge in international diplomacy: a ceasefire announced from Washington does not automatically become a ceasefire observed on the battlefield.And the controversy does not end there.&nbsp;<h2>The Russian diesel dilemma</h2>&nbsp;Trump's administration has also moved towards easing restrictions on Russian diesel, arguing that additional fuel supplies could help American consumers facing high energy prices.The decision has generated criticism from lawmakers concerned about its implications for sanctions against Moscow.For years, Washington and its Western partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine.The objective has been to increase the economic cost of continuing the war.Now the administration faces a difficult question.Can the United States maintain meaningful economic pressure on Russia while simultaneously reopening channels for Russian energy?The White House argues that energy affordability and national economic interests must also be considered.Critics counter that easing restrictions risks weakening the leverage Washington has sought to build.Both arguments point towards the same underlying dilemma: energy security and foreign policy objectives do not always move in the same direction.&nbsp;<h2>A ceasefire announced, but not yet established</h2>&nbsp;Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire has also placed renewed attention on the difference between diplomatic declarations and verified agreements.Ukraine has indicated its willingness to consider reciprocal restrictions on attacks against energy infrastructure.But Kyiv has also reported continuing Russian strikes, raising questions about the status and practical implementation of the proposal.Any durable agreement would require clearly defined commitments from both sides, credible monitoring and mechanisms for addressing alleged violations.Without those elements, competing announcements risk creating the appearance of progress without establishing meaningful changes on the ground.For Ukrainians facing repeated disruptions to electricity and other essential services, that distinction is far from academic.&nbsp;<h2>Is Washington weakening its own leverage?</h2>&nbsp;Economic sanctions are intended to influence behaviour by imposing costs.Their effectiveness depends partly on enforcement, international coordination and the willingness of governments to maintain restrictions despite domestic economic pressures.Trump's energy policy now highlights the tension between those priorities.Allowing additional Russian fuel into international markets could contribute to supply and price objectives.But whether it would materially reduce prices, or provide Moscow with meaningful additional revenue, depends on the details of the arrangement.Those questions deserve scrutiny rather than assumptions.The broader diplomatic concern is equally significant.If Washington eases economic pressure before securing enforceable commitments, critics fear it could surrender negotiating leverage.Supporters of a more flexible approach argue that selective economic measures can form part of a wider negotiating strategy.Ultimately, the relevant test is whether the policy produces measurable diplomatic results.&nbsp;<h2>Peace requires more than announcements</h2>&nbsp;Trump has repeatedly presented himself as a leader capable of resolving international conflicts through direct negotiation.His administration's diplomatic initiatives should be judged by their results, including whether they reduce violence and establish sustainable agreements.But the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents exceptionally difficult conditions.The two governments remain divided over territory, security guarantees, sovereignty and the terms of any lasting settlement.Energy infrastructure has become an important dimension of the conflict, both as a military target and as a source of economic pressure.That makes an energy ceasefire potentially valuable.It also makes the terms of such an agreement critically important.A temporary reduction in attacks could offer civilians immediate relief.A verified, reciprocal and sustained cessation would represent more substantial progress.But neither should be confused with a comprehensive peace settlement.&nbsp;<h2>The test of Trump's Russia strategy</h2>&nbsp;Washington's challenge is not simply to persuade Russia and Ukraine to discuss peace.It is to ensure that America's economic, diplomatic and security policies work towards a coherent objective.That means explaining how sanctions relief fits into negotiations, what concessions are expected in return and how compliance with any ceasefire would be verified.Trump's supporters argue that his willingness to depart from conventional diplomatic approaches creates opportunities for breakthroughs.His critics warn that unpredictable changes in economic pressure could undermine the credibility of American commitments.The consequences will depend on what happens next.Will attacks on energy infrastructure stop?Will Russia and Ukraine accept reciprocal obligations?Will changes to energy restrictions contribute to a settlement, or merely alter the economics of a continuing war?Those are the questions that will determine whether Washington's latest initiatives represent progress.Because announcing peace is not the same as securing it.And changing the economics of war is not necessarily the same as ending one.

Washington and its partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine in order to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Can the US maintain economic pressure on Russia while reopening channels for Russian energy?

Donald Trump says he wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. But his latest energy decisions have raised questions about whether Washington's economic policies are reinforcing that diplomatic objective or complicating it. The American president has announced what he describes as an energy ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv, suggesting a breakthrough in efforts to halt attacks on critical infrastructure. Yet Ukraine has reported continuing Russian strikes, while questions remain over Moscow's acceptance of the proposed arrangement. The discrepancy illustrates a recurring challenge in international diplomacy: a ceasefire announced from Washington does not automatically become a ceasefire observed on the battlefield. And the controversy does not end there. The Russian diesel dilemma Trump's administration has also moved towards easing restrictions on Russian diesel, arguing that additional fuel supplies could help American consumers facing high energy prices. The decision has generated criticism from lawmakers concerned about its implications for sanctions against Moscow. For years, Washington and its Western partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine. The objective has been to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Now the administration faces a difficult question. Can the United States maintain meaningful economic pressure on Russia while simultaneously reopening channels for Russian energy? The White House argues that energy affordability and national economic interests must also be considered. Critics counter that easing restrictions risks weakening the leverage Washington has sought to build. Both arguments point towards the same underlying dilemma: energy security and foreign policy objectives do not always move in the same direction. A ceasefire announced, but not yet established Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire has also placed renewed attention on the difference between diplomatic declarations and verified agreements. Ukraine has indicated its willingness to consider reciprocal restrictions on attacks against energy infrastructure. But Kyiv has also reported continuing Russian strikes, raising questions about the status and practical implementation of the proposal. Any durable agreement would require clearly defined commitments from both sides, credible monitoring and mechanisms for addressing alleged violations. Without those elements, competing announcements risk creating the appearance of progress without establishing meaningful changes on the ground. For Ukrainians facing repeated disruptions to electricity and other essential services, that distinction is far from academic. Is Washington weakening its own leverage? Economic sanctions are intended to influence behaviour by imposing costs. Their effectiveness depends partly on enforcement, international coordination and the willingness of governments to maintain restrictions despite domestic economic pressures. Trump's energy policy now highlights the tension between those priorities. Allowing additional Russian fuel into international markets could contribute to supply and price objectives. But whether it would materially reduce prices, or provide Moscow with meaningful additional revenue, depends on the details of the arrangement. Those questions deserve scrutiny rather than assumptions. The broader diplomatic concern is equally significant. If Washington eases economic pressure before securing enforceable commitments, critics fear it could surrender negotiating leverage. Supporters of a more flexible approach argue that selective economic measures can form part of a wider negotiating strategy. Ultimately, the relevant test is whether the policy produces measurable diplomatic results. Peace requires more than announcements Trump has repeatedly presented himself as a leader capable of resolving international conflicts through direct negotiation. His administration's diplomatic initiatives should be judged by their results, including whether they reduce violence and establish sustainable agreements. But the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents exceptionally difficult conditions. The two governments remain divided over territory, security guarantees, sovereignty and the terms of any lasting settlement. Energy infrastructure has become an important dimension of the conflict, both as a military target and as a source of economic pressure. That makes an energy ceasefire potentially valuable. It also makes the terms of such an agreement critically important. A temporary reduction in attacks could offer civilians immediate relief. A verified, reciprocal and sustained cessation would represent more substantial progress. But neither should be confused with a comprehensive peace settlement. The test of Trump's Russia strategy Washington's challenge is not simply to persuade Russia and Ukraine to discuss peace. It is to ensure that America's economic, diplomatic and security policies work towards a coherent objective. That means explaining how sanctions relief fits into negotiations, what concessions are expected in return and how compliance with any ceasefire would be verified. Trump's supporters argue that his willingness to depart from conventional diplomatic approaches creates opportunities for breakthroughs. His critics warn that unpredictable changes in economic pressure could undermine the credibility of American commitments. The consequences will depend on what happens next. Will attacks on energy infrastructure stop? Will Russia and Ukraine accept reciprocal obligations? Will changes to energy restrictions contribute to a settlement, or merely alter the economics of a continuing war? Those are the questions that will determine whether Washington's latest initiatives represent progress. Because announcing peace is not the same as securing it. And changing the economics of war is not necessarily the same as ending one.

Washington and its partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine in order to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Can the US maintain economic pressure on Russia while reopening channels for Russian energy?

The Verdict | Trump's Russia paradox: Peace in words, pressure in reverse?

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize.And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award.His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars.But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated.From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace.And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home.&nbsp;<h2>Eight wars and a Nobel ambition</h2>&nbsp;Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented.He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating.His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East.These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits.But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict?Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success.Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement.And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives.Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires.But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace.&nbsp;<h2>‘I can do whatever I want’</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7.Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents.He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect.Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’&nbsp;Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments.He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate.His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority.American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security.But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight.The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system.And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals.&nbsp;<h2>The divisions within MAGA</h2>&nbsp;Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement.The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts.Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach.But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative.Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base.They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean.Is it a commitment to military restraint?Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened?That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record.&nbsp;<h2>Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone</h2>&nbsp;There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success.A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement.An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely.Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely.That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims.His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements.Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests.The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently.And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it.&nbsp;<h2>The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition</h2>&nbsp;Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus.One concerns America's contribution to international peace.The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself.Both deserve scrutiny.A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory.But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits.Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize.It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries.&nbsp;The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace.It does not confer unlimited presidential authority.And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award. His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars. But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated. From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace. And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home. Eight wars and a Nobel ambition Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented. He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating. His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits. But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict? Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success. Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement. And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives. Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires. But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace. ‘I can do whatever I want’ Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7. Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents. He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect. Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’ Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments. He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate. His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority. American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security. But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight. The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system. And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals. The divisions within MAGA Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement. The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts. Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach. But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative. Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries. These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base. They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean. Is it a commitment to military restraint? Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened? That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record. Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success. A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement. An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely. Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely. That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims. His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements. Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests. The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently. And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it. The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus. One concerns America's contribution to international peace. The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself. Both deserve scrutiny. A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory. But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits. Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize. It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries. The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace. It does not confer unlimited presidential authority. And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

Donald Trump wants Americans to vote in November as though his name were on the ballot.Republicans may want to consider carefully what that means.At a campaign rally in Nebraska, the US president once again placed himself at the centre of the Republican midterm campaign. But it was another extraordinary remark that quickly dominated the headlines.Speaking about the war with Iran, Trump joked about allowing Tehran to “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — two Democratic strongholds in California.The backlash was swift.California Governor Gavin Newsom and the mayors of both cities condemned the remarks, turning what was supposed to be another Republican campaign stop into another controversy over Trump himself.And therein lies the problem.Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.But attention and persuasion are not necessarily the same thing.And with the midterm elections approaching, Republicans need more than the voters already committed to Donald Trump.&nbsp;<h2>From campaign asset to campaign complication?</h2>&nbsp;Trump's latest Reuters/Ipsos approval rating stands at 32 percent.In the same poll, registered voters preferred Democratic congressional candidates to Republican candidates by 44 percent to 37 percent.That is only one national poll and congressional elections will ultimately be decided district by district and state by state. But it illustrates why the president's campaign appearances matter.Trump himself has effectively acknowledged the stakes.In Nebraska, he urged Republicans to vote as though he personally were on the ballot.That strategy may energise MAGA loyalists.It could also nationalise hundreds of congressional races around one extraordinarily polarising political figure.Instead of Republican candidates talking primarily about their districts, affordability, immigration, security or the economy, every Trump controversy risks forcing them to answer questions about something the president has said.&nbsp;<h2>Even mail-in voting is back</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps nothing illustrates the changing political calculation better than Trump's message on postal voting.For years, Trump attacked mail-in voting, repeatedly associating it with electoral fraud despite the absence of evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud capable of changing national election results.Now his message is different.“Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person,” Trump told supporters.Republicans have increasingly encouraged early and postal voting as they seek to maximise turnout.Strategically, that makes sense.Politically, however, it exposes an uncomfortable contradiction.If mail-in voting was supposedly so dangerous when Democrats used it effectively, why is it acceptable when Republicans need every possible vote?The answer may be less ideological than electoral.November is getting closer.&nbsp;<h2>The politics of provocation</h2>&nbsp;Trump's defenders will argue that his California comments were typical Trump — provocative humour intended to entertain supporters rather than a serious suggestion that Iran should attack American cities.His critics see something far more troubling: an American president making light of foreign attacks against millions of Americans because they live in overwhelmingly Democratic territory.Either way, the controversy demonstrates the political risk of Trump's campaign style.The United States remains deeply polarised.Americans are dealing with questions about affordability, foreign wars, immigration, jobs and the economy.Against that backdrop, Republicans must decide whether another headline about Trump's rhetoric helps them communicate their own message — or buries it.&nbsp;<h2>Trump is effectively on the ballot</h2>&nbsp;There is also a deeper irony.Midterm elections traditionally become judgments on the president occupying the White House.Trump is now explicitly encouraging that dynamic.He wants Republicans to imagine that his name appears beside every congressional candidate.Perhaps his supporters will.But so might his opponents.That is the gamble.Donald Trump remains capable of electrifying the Republican base in a way few politicians can.But elections are not won merely by exciting people who already agree with you.They require persuasion beyond the faithful.Trump wants November to become a referendum on Donald Trump.Republicans may discover that getting exactly what the president asked for is the biggest gamble of all.

President Donald Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.

Donald Trump wants Americans to vote in November as though his name were on the ballot. Republicans may want to consider carefully what that means. At a campaign rally in Nebraska, the US president once again placed himself at the centre of the Republican midterm campaign. But it was another extraordinary remark that quickly dominated the headlines. Speaking about the war with Iran, Trump joked about allowing Tehran to “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — two Democratic strongholds in California. The backlash was swift. California Governor Gavin Newsom and the mayors of both cities condemned the remarks, turning what was supposed to be another Republican campaign stop into another controversy over Trump himself. And therein lies the problem. Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline. But attention and persuasion are not necessarily the same thing. And with the midterm elections approaching, Republicans need more than the voters already committed to Donald Trump. From campaign asset to campaign complication? Trump's latest Reuters/Ipsos approval rating stands at 32 percent. In the same poll, registered voters preferred Democratic congressional candidates to Republican candidates by 44 percent to 37 percent. That is only one national poll and congressional elections will ultimately be decided district by district and state by state. But it illustrates why the president's campaign appearances matter. Trump himself has effectively acknowledged the stakes. In Nebraska, he urged Republicans to vote as though he personally were on the ballot. That strategy may energise MAGA loyalists. It could also nationalise hundreds of congressional races around one extraordinarily polarising political figure. Instead of Republican candidates talking primarily about their districts, affordability, immigration, security or the economy, every Trump controversy risks forcing them to answer questions about something the president has said. Even mail-in voting is back Perhaps nothing illustrates the changing political calculation better than Trump's message on postal voting. For years, Trump attacked mail-in voting, repeatedly associating it with electoral fraud despite the absence of evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud capable of changing national election results. Now his message is different. “Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person,” Trump told supporters. Republicans have increasingly encouraged early and postal voting as they seek to maximise turnout. Strategically, that makes sense. Politically, however, it exposes an uncomfortable contradiction. If mail-in voting was supposedly so dangerous when Democrats used it effectively, why is it acceptable when Republicans need every possible vote? The answer may be less ideological than electoral. November is getting closer. The politics of provocation Trump's defenders will argue that his California comments were typical Trump — provocative humour intended to entertain supporters rather than a serious suggestion that Iran should attack American cities. His critics see something far more troubling: an American president making light of foreign attacks against millions of Americans because they live in overwhelmingly Democratic territory. Either way, the controversy demonstrates the political risk of Trump's campaign style. The United States remains deeply polarised. Americans are dealing with questions about affordability, foreign wars, immigration, jobs and the economy. Against that backdrop, Republicans must decide whether another headline about Trump's rhetoric helps them communicate their own message — or buries it. Trump is effectively on the ballot There is also a deeper irony. Midterm elections traditionally become judgments on the president occupying the White House. Trump is now explicitly encouraging that dynamic. He wants Republicans to imagine that his name appears beside every congressional candidate. Perhaps his supporters will. But so might his opponents. That is the gamble. Donald Trump remains capable of electrifying the Republican base in a way few politicians can. But elections are not won merely by exciting people who already agree with you. They require persuasion beyond the faithful. Trump wants November to become a referendum on Donald Trump. Republicans may discover that getting exactly what the president asked for is the biggest gamble of all.

President Donald Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.

The Verdict | Trump wants the midterms to be about him. Republicans may regret it

Jair Bolsonaro is behind bars. His name was not on Brazil's presidential ballot. But if the first round of Brazil's election proved anything, it is that Bolsonaro's political movement is nowhere near dead.His son, Flávio Bolsonaro, has stormed into the presidential runoff after securing just over 47 percent of the valid vote, finishing ahead of incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who received just over 45 percent.The two will now meet again on October 25.On paper, this is Lula versus Flávio Bolsonaro.Politically, it is something much bigger.It is a referendum on whether Bolsonaroism can outlive Bolsonaro.&nbsp;<h2>A surname becomes a political movement</h2>&nbsp;Four years ago, Lula narrowly defeated Jair Bolsonaro for the presidency. Bolsonaro would subsequently be convicted over an attempt to overturn that result and sentenced to 27 years in prison.For Bolsonaro's opponents, his downfall appeared to offer an opportunity to turn the page.Instead, his son is now within touching distance of the presidency.That should force Brazil's political establishment to confront an uncomfortable reality: removing a politician does not necessarily remove the grievances that created his movement.Flávio Bolsonaro's performance cannot simply be explained by loyalty to his father.Brazilian voters remain concerned about the cost of living, public security, corruption, household debt and the direction of the economy. Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets.That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.&nbsp;<h2>Brazil's Trump connection</h2>&nbsp;There is also an international dimension.Flávio Bolsonaro is politically aligned with US President Donald Trump, who has publicly praised him. Lula, meanwhile, has accused Washington of attempting to interfere in Brazil's politics — allegations the United States has rejected.But the more important story extends beyond Trump himself.Across Latin America, voters in several countries have recently turned towards right-wing governments and candidates promising tougher security policies, economic reform and a rejection of established political elites.Brazil may now become the biggest prize in that political realignment.Latin America's largest economy choosing another Bolsonaro would reverberate far beyond Brasília — from Washington to Beijing and across the Global South.&nbsp;<h2>But Flávio is not Jair</h2>&nbsp;The Bolsonaro name is both Flávio's greatest political asset and potentially his greatest weakness.It gives him an enormous, already mobilised conservative base. But it also brings the baggage of his father's presidency, the attempted coup case and years of bitter political polarisation.The runoff therefore presents Flávio with an intriguing challenge.He must inherit his father's voters without becoming imprisoned by his father's politics.Lula faces the opposite problem.At 80, the veteran leftist must convince Brazilians that his experience remains an asset rather than evidence that the country's politics has become trapped between two familiar political dynasties.And that may ultimately be the most fascinating feature of this election.Brazil is being offered change — but through one of the most recognisable surnames in Brazilian politics.&nbsp;<h2>Bolsonaroism survives</h2>&nbsp;Whatever happens on October 25, the first round has already delivered a political lesson extending far beyond Brazil.Political movements rarely disappear simply because their leaders fall.Donald Trump survived impeachment, prosecution and political defeat. Populist movements across Europe have survived bans, scandals and leadership changes. And now Brazil is discovering that Bolsonaroism does not necessarily require Jair Bolsonaro standing on the ballot.That does not mean Flávio Bolsonaro has won.A runoff is a different election. Alliances shift. Tactical voting intensifies. Voters who supported eliminated candidates must choose again.Lula still has a path back.But the assumption that Jair Bolsonaro's imprisonment would consign his movement to history has already been demolished.Brazil has separated the politician from the politics.Jair Bolsonaro may be behind bars.Bolsonaroism is not.

Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.

Jair Bolsonaro is behind bars. His name was not on Brazil's presidential ballot. But if the first round of Brazil's election proved anything, it is that Bolsonaro's political movement is nowhere near dead. His son, Flávio Bolsonaro, has stormed into the presidential runoff after securing just over 47 percent of the valid vote, finishing ahead of incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who received just over 45 percent. The two will now meet again on October 25. On paper, this is Lula versus Flávio Bolsonaro. Politically, it is something much bigger. It is a referendum on whether Bolsonaroism can outlive Bolsonaro. A surname becomes a political movement Four years ago, Lula narrowly defeated Jair Bolsonaro for the presidency. Bolsonaro would subsequently be convicted over an attempt to overturn that result and sentenced to 27 years in prison. For Bolsonaro's opponents, his downfall appeared to offer an opportunity to turn the page. Instead, his son is now within touching distance of the presidency. That should force Brazil's political establishment to confront an uncomfortable reality: removing a politician does not necessarily remove the grievances that created his movement. Flávio Bolsonaro's performance cannot simply be explained by loyalty to his father. Brazilian voters remain concerned about the cost of living, public security, corruption, household debt and the direction of the economy. Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right. Brazil's Trump connection There is also an international dimension. Flávio Bolsonaro is politically aligned with US President Donald Trump, who has publicly praised him. Lula, meanwhile, has accused Washington of attempting to interfere in Brazil's politics — allegations the United States has rejected. But the more important story extends beyond Trump himself. Across Latin America, voters in several countries have recently turned towards right-wing governments and candidates promising tougher security policies, economic reform and a rejection of established political elites. Brazil may now become the biggest prize in that political realignment. Latin America's largest economy choosing another Bolsonaro would reverberate far beyond Brasília — from Washington to Beijing and across the Global South. But Flávio is not Jair The Bolsonaro name is both Flávio's greatest political asset and potentially his greatest weakness. It gives him an enormous, already mobilised conservative base. But it also brings the baggage of his father's presidency, the attempted coup case and years of bitter political polarisation. The runoff therefore presents Flávio with an intriguing challenge. He must inherit his father's voters without becoming imprisoned by his father's politics. Lula faces the opposite problem. At 80, the veteran leftist must convince Brazilians that his experience remains an asset rather than evidence that the country's politics has become trapped between two familiar political dynasties. And that may ultimately be the most fascinating feature of this election. Brazil is being offered change — but through one of the most recognisable surnames in Brazilian politics. Bolsonaroism survives Whatever happens on October 25, the first round has already delivered a political lesson extending far beyond Brazil. Political movements rarely disappear simply because their leaders fall. Donald Trump survived impeachment, prosecution and political defeat. Populist movements across Europe have survived bans, scandals and leadership changes. And now Brazil is discovering that Bolsonaroism does not necessarily require Jair Bolsonaro standing on the ballot. That does not mean Flávio Bolsonaro has won. A runoff is a different election. Alliances shift. Tactical voting intensifies. Voters who supported eliminated candidates must choose again. Lula still has a path back. But the assumption that Jair Bolsonaro's imprisonment would consign his movement to history has already been demolished. Brazil has separated the politician from the politics. Jair Bolsonaro may be behind bars. Bolsonaroism is not.

Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.

The Verdict | You can jail Bolsonaro, but can you kill Bolsonaroism?

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack.India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action.&nbsp;Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done?&nbsp;Because every few months, we hear the same promise.&nbsp;10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad.&nbsp;Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes.&nbsp;&nbsp;Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering.&nbsp;So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases.This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility.&nbsp;For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it.&nbsp;The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings.So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil.&nbsp;If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism.&nbsp;But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

29 September, 2016—India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control after the Uri terror attack. India is marking 10 years of the surgical strikes, and for ten years, India has sent a clear message to Pakistan: terror will be answered with action. Ten years on, the question is not what India has said. The question is, what has Pakistan actually done? Because every few months, we hear the same promise. 10 years ago, on the night of 28 and 29 September, 2016, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded not with a traditional full-fledged war, but with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad. Today, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says terrorism will be eliminated. Pakistan's official statements repeatedly pledge the complete eradication of terrorism. Yet nothing changes. Just days ago, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Shehbaz Sharif was asked when Pakistan would stop harbouring terrorists and when Hafiz Saeed would be prosecuted. He walked away without answering. So, Pakistan can issue statements and condemn terrorism. But terrorism is not defeated by press releases. This is where Pakistan and its military lose credibility. For a decade, India's position has been increasingly clear: if terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate, India reserves the right to act against it. The strikes of 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in 2025 show that India's counter-terror posture has moved far beyond diplomatic warnings. So, Pakistan cannot demand to be taken seriously as a victim of terrorism, while failing to answer difficult questions about terrorism emanating from its own soil. If Islamabad genuinely wants the world to believe its promise to end terrorism, the formula is simple: no selective action. No double standards. No convenient silence. Act. Eliminate the very mindset that propagates terrorism. But would Pakistani military ever want to do that?

After the Uri terror attack, the Indian Army crossed the Line of Control and carried out precise surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. India responded with a calibrated military operation against terrorists backed by Islamabad instead of a full-fledged war.

The Verdict | 10 years, repeated promises: Will Pakistan really ever act against terror?

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process.&nbsp;The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation.&nbsp;The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly.&nbsp;Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.&nbsp;In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence.&nbsp;Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive.&nbsp;The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident.&nbsp;Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered.&nbsp;And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known.&nbsp;So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

Let’s be absolutely clear about one thing: women’s safety is not negotiable. Whether it is a university campus in Punjab, a workplace in Delhi, a street in London, or a home anywhere in the world – every woman has the right to feel safe, and every allegation of sexual violence deserves to be taken seriously, investigated properly, and acted upon through due process. The alleged LPU case has raised serious questions about campus security and how institutions respond when students believe their concerns are not being heard. An FIR has now been registered against unknown persons, and a special investigation team has been constituted to investigate the allegation. The university has denied the circulating claims and calls them rumours. This is precisely why a transparent, credible investigation is needed. But there is another line that must be drawn just as firmly. Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender. In fact, when a protest turns violent, the original issue can get buried under the violence. Be loud and relentless. But do not become destructive. The larger cause must not be forgotten. Across the world, the conversation on women's safety has to move beyond outrage after an incident. Fight for women’s safety, demand accountability and protest if you must. but don't destroy the very place where justice is supposed to be delivered. And one more thing: in an age of social media, unverified claims can become combustible within minutes. Before we forward, accuse, or mobilise, we have a responsibility to establish what is actually known. So be careful. Raise your voice, but also keep fact-checking so that the larger cause is not lost.

Protest is a right. Destruction is not. Breaking windows, damaging classrooms, attacking vehicles, or vandalising a campus does not make the truth come out faster. It does not protect women, and it certainly does not punish any offender.

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

Pakistan signed the Mecca Defence Pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye with a very clear promise: an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three. So here's an uncomfortable question for Field Marshal Asim Munir: what is the impact of this pact?Where is this pact when the Saudis are being attacked by Houthis?Saudi Arabia is facing repeated Houthi missile and drone attacks. Riyadh has been seeking additional military assistance.And what's Pakistan's response?They condemned it. They called for restraint.But no military response under the Mecca Pact.And here's Munir's rather weak reason for not getting involved: the agreement still needs mechanisms and frameworks before its operationalised.That creates an awkward little problem: if an attack on one is an attack on all, when exactly does "all" actually mean all?There is another irony Pakistan cannot escape. While presenting itself as a pillar of regional security, Pakistan is killing civilians in Afghanistan.Just today, Pakistan carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, killing 3 locals.Was the Mecca Pact designed as a defence alliance or as a diplomatic declaration that sounds strongest before the first shot is fired?Alliances are ultimately tested not by signatures, ceremonies or speeches. They are tested when an ally calls for help.The Mecca Pact is being tested by reality, and it seems to be failing so far.

The Mecca Defence Pact faces scrutiny as Houthi attacks target Saudi Arabia while Pakistan has not mounted a military response.

Pakistan signed the Mecca Defence Pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye with a very clear promise: an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three. So here's an uncomfortable question for Field Marshal Asim Munir: what is the impact of this pact? Where is this pact when the Saudis are being attacked by Houthis? Saudi Arabia is facing repeated Houthi missile and drone attacks. Riyadh has been seeking additional military assistance. And what's Pakistan's response? They condemned it. They called for restraint. But no military response under the Mecca Pact. And here's Munir's rather weak reason for not getting involved: the agreement still needs mechanisms and frameworks before its operationalised. That creates an awkward little problem: if an attack on one is an attack on all, when exactly does "all" actually mean all? There is another irony Pakistan cannot escape. While presenting itself as a pillar of regional security, Pakistan is killing civilians in Afghanistan. Just today, Pakistan carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan, killing 3 locals. Was the Mecca Pact designed as a defence alliance or as a diplomatic declaration that sounds strongest before the first shot is fired? Alliances are ultimately tested not by signatures, ceremonies or speeches. They are tested when an ally calls for help. The Mecca Pact is being tested by reality, and it seems to be failing so far.

The Mecca Defence Pact faces scrutiny as Houthi attacks target Saudi Arabia while Pakistan has not mounted a military response.

The Verdict | The Mecca Agreement is under scrutiny as Houthis attack Saudis

Stop calling the Satya Niketan building collapse an 'accident.' Call it human greed. Shame on every corrupt official, politician and owner whose corruption and negligence have led to students losing their lives. This tragedy was waiting to happen, and let me warn you - it can happen at many other places in Delhi.&nbsp;For those of you who have grown up in Delhi, or studied in South Campus colleges, you would know how cramped Satya Niketan has always been.&nbsp;For more than 15 years, Satya Niketan has been a chaotic mix of illegal expansion, hanging wires, and narrow lanes.&nbsp;I have three questions today.&nbsp;My first question tonight is to the MCD: how did you let house owners construct illegally?&nbsp;In most cases, there is no on-paper record of approvals. How are building after building allowed to expand, wall-to-wall, without any adherence to the law?&nbsp;What, and up to which rank, is corruption happening?&nbsp;My second question is to every political party that has governed Delhi so far: why did you not stop illegal violations in Satya Niketan, which were happening right under your nose?&nbsp;When you ruled Delhi, what were you doing?&nbsp;This has not happened suddenly. It has been allowed to happen. So if you are questioning, question yourselves too. Successive governments, for decades, have promised action against illegal construction. Notices are issued. Yet unauthorised construction continues across the city.&nbsp;And my third and final question is to the owners of these houses: when will your greed for money end?For some extra rent, you put students' lives in danger and break rule after rule.&nbsp;Unfortunately, in Delhi, enforcement often begins after the body bags come out, as they are now.Could this have been prevented? Yes, entirely.&nbsp;What's the solution now? Clean the local civic agencies of corrupt officials irrespective of rank, tighten the noose around local netas, audit every structure in Delhi and follow the rules laid out.&nbsp;The Satya Niketan tragedy is a heart-wrenching example of failed governance, corruption and negligence. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb, and preventive action needs to be taken from this very second. &nbsp;

Satya Niketan collapse called 'human greed', not an accident. The author blames decades of illegal construction, MCD corruption and political inaction; questions house owners' greed and demands accountability, audits and enforcement before more lives are lost.

Stop calling the Satya Niketan building collapse an 'accident.' Call it human greed. Shame on every corrupt official, politician and owner whose corruption and negligence have led to students losing their lives. This tragedy was waiting to happen, and let me warn you - it can happen at many other places in Delhi. For those of you who have grown up in Delhi, or studied in South Campus colleges, you would know how cramped Satya Niketan has always been. For more than 15 years, Satya Niketan has been a chaotic mix of illegal expansion, hanging wires, and narrow lanes. I have three questions today. My first question tonight is to the MCD: how did you let house owners construct illegally? In most cases, there is no on-paper record of approvals. How are building after building allowed to expand, wall-to-wall, without any adherence to the law? What, and up to which rank, is corruption happening? My second question is to every political party that has governed Delhi so far: why did you not stop illegal violations in Satya Niketan, which were happening right under your nose? When you ruled Delhi, what were you doing? This has not happened suddenly. It has been allowed to happen. So if you are questioning, question yourselves too. Successive governments, for decades, have promised action against illegal construction. Notices are issued. Yet unauthorised construction continues across the city. And my third and final question is to the owners of these houses: when will your greed for money end? For some extra rent, you put students' lives in danger and break rule after rule. Unfortunately, in Delhi, enforcement often begins after the body bags come out, as they are now. Could this have been prevented? Yes, entirely. What's the solution now? Clean the local civic agencies of corrupt officials irrespective of rank, tighten the noose around local netas, audit every structure in Delhi and follow the rules laid out. The Satya Niketan tragedy is a heart-wrenching example of failed governance, corruption and negligence. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb, and preventive action needs to be taken from this very second.

Satya Niketan collapse called 'human greed', not an accident. The author blames decades of illegal construction, MCD corruption and political inaction; questions house owners' greed and demands accountability, audits and enforcement before more lives are lost.

The Verdict | Satya Niketan building collapse wasn’t an accident. It was a failure of governance

the-verdict

The Verdict, News on The Verdict, stories on The Verdict, articles on The Verdict, The Verdict stories at Wion, The Verdict news, The Verdict latest news

the verdict

The Verdict | Trump endorses Netanyahu, but JD Vance declines to follow: A difference of principle or politics?

The Verdict | Trump, Putin and Xi superpower triangle can reshape diplomacy

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and price of a deal: Is India getting a fair bargain?

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: Growing economy, but who pays the price?

The Verdict | Modi's 3-front challenge: Protests, pressure from US and economy

The Verdict | Trump's Russia paradox: Peace in words, pressure in reverse?

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

The Verdict | Trump wants the midterms to be about him. Republicans may regret

The Verdict | You can jail Bolsonaro, but can you kill Bolsonaroism?

The Verdict | 10 yrs, repeated promises: Will Pakistan ever act against terror?

The Verdict | Fight for women’s safety, but don’t let violence bury the cause

The Verdict | The Mecca Agreement is under scrutiny as Houthis attack Saudis

Satya Niketan building collapse wasn’t an accident. It was failure of governance