Deeply shocking to read this official US statement, which contains absolutely no expression of regret or condolence for the loss of innocent Indian lives. How can a “friend” and strategic partner be so deeply insensitive? Why couldn’t a non-compliant commercial vessel have been stopped using other, non-lethal means? Is it not possible to disable a ship's propulsion or steering without firing missiles targeted to kill civilian crew members? Practically every merchant ship navigating these crucial waters has Indian crew on board. Are they all considered fair game for US missiles now? This approach is unacceptable and I hope @DrSJaishankar had said so to @marcorubio.

Why are we indirectly justifying the US action by referring to OFAC and using terms like non- compliance? These are illegal actions even if the ships are not Indian- flagged. Our concern is that Indian seamen have been killed and no regret has been expressed by CENTCOM. If India and the US cooperate on maritime security in the Indian Ocean, hold elaborate naval exercises, subscribe to the concept of the Indo- Pacific, the US can’t be indifferent to killing Indian seamen in the Indian Ocean whatever the circumstances.

The representative of a country that uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy against India, still harbours jihadi groups on its soil, has sheltered Osama bin Laden for years before he was taken out by the Americans, whose fingerprints are there even on the 9/11 terrorist attack, whose nationals figure prominently in the UN list of international terrorists, whose military chief is a religious fanatic and believes Muslims and Hindus cannot co- exist, incredibly wants India to condemn attacks on Pakistan by home- based ethnic minorities long persecuted by Pakistan or radicalised Pakistani ethnic groups who are a product of a jihadi ethos Pakistan has itself nurtured all these years. The Pakistani PR’s grandstanding is almost comical.

Why not spell out precisely what India should do concretely and visibly to protect our stakes because the presumption is we are not doing what needs to be done. How should we counsel and restrain Trump? How do we restrain Israel? How do restrain Iran’s attacks against the Gulf states? How do we persuade the Gulf states not to allow their airspace to be used by the US for attacking Iran? What do we tell the UAE? How do we persuade Iran to allow unhindered passage through Hormuz? Why has Europe been marginalised? Why Japan too? Why are China and Russia not effective in protecting their political and economic stakes? India as current BRICS chair has not been able to forge a consensus despite Russian and Chinese support? What could be a concrete diplomatic plan of action? @ShashiTharoor

x.com/i/status/2062151639239… Tomato prices keep on changing every 2/3 days on account of a number of reasons. Wrong to compare tomato prices on yearly basis. @TamalBandyo

Sons and daughters of many politicians and bureaucrats have made America their home and acquired US citizenship. It is high time guidelines, rules and regulations need to be formulated in this regard. In the changing global scenario, this is a must. There should not be any scope for personal conflict of interest on geo political issues. As I said the other day, this is only applicable to politicians and bureaucrats, as they are responsible for the welfare and security of the nation. No such restrictions are required for private citizens or their children.

The EU- Pakistan joint communiqué issued after Kaja Kallas’ visit to Pakistan contains the following paragraph: “The Pakistan side briefed on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The EU side briefed on Russia’s war against Ukraine. Both sides expressed support to peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter.” This paragraph has many very objectionable elements. By accepting this language in the text the EU accepts that Jammu and Kashmir is an international issue that can legitimately figure in a joint statement between Pakistan and a third party. The implication is that Jammu and Kashmir remains an unsettled issue territorially. India’s clear position is that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Worse, an equivalence between Ukraine and J& K is established. If Pakistan briefs Kaja Kallas on the Kashmir issue, she briefs Pakistan on the Ukraine issue. The EU is also terming J&K as a conflict, which is Pakistan’s formulation. The EU is also accepting that the J& K conflict should be resolved in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. Even the Chinese formulation contains a reference to bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan. By bracketing J&K and Ukraine, Kaja Kallas willingly have up that option and played Pakistan’s game. We should reject this para strongly and state our position on J& K firmly.

His characterisation of the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration is driven by partisan politics. The US was not the sole negotiator. Russia, China. France, UK and Germany were involved. The deal was ratified by the UNSC. The Iranian nuclear programme was subject to stringent IAEA inspections. Iran committed itself not to develop nuclear weapons under the JCPOA. The real issue is not Iran’s nuclear programme but eliminating the last anti- Israel bastion in the region. A bastion that has supported anti Israeli groups in the region. One that has developed missile capabilities to target Israel. In other words, the real goal is regime change. Trump has claimed obliteration of Iran’s nuclear capability. If so, why is the nuclear issue centre stage? As regards enriched uranium stockpile Iran agreed to dilute it irreversibly to 3.67 % as per Omani mediator. Iran’s top leadership was decapitated to bring about regime change, but without success. Trump’s call for countries of the region to join the Abraham Accords, including Iran, indicates Trump’s real goal. Israel’s security is the core issue. @dmuthuk

These chops produced a finely chopped economy- sky high inflation, a BoP crisis, rotten banking sector with 15% NPAs, Off Balance sheet accounting with oil bonds and corruption that would put Nero Caligula to shame. This obsession with credentialism is what keeps India mediocre

In 1973, India's fx reserves were half the oil import bill, inflation = 20% and IND borrowed from IMF for imports It is tempting to use INR depreciation to take potshots at the PM, but seasoned journalists should know that when you pull the trigger in haste, you miss the mark.

How much of the rupee's fall actually shows up as inflation in the country? The rupee went from ₹45 to about ₹96 per dollar in 15 years. Does that mean your savings lost half their value? Depends on where you spend. 1⃣If your expenses are in dollars, yes. You need more rupees to buy the same dollar. Your rupee savings have literally halved in dollar terms in the last 15 years. 2⃣But if your expenses are in India, no. A kilo of basmati rice going from ₹60 to ₹140 is domestic inflation, not how the exchange rate moved. Having said that, the exchange rate does pass through to your everyday prices in two ways. - Direct: when you buy imported products like whey protein, electronics, or olive oil. - Indirect: through crude oil. India imports 85% of its oil. Oil feeds into diesel. Diesel feeds into transport. Transport feeds into the price of everything. How much of this actually shows up as inflation? Economists have a word for it: exchange rate pass-through. There is an article on the RBI website on the same. The finding: for every 10% fall in the rupee, inflation goes up by about 0.7%. It passes through, but not as dramatically as most people fear. How to reduce the possible effects of rupee depreciation on our investments? Read our latest newsletter: zerodhavarsity.substack.com/…

Rich people be like I don't have a smartphone. I have a full-time secretary (she has four smartphones).

In a multi religious society like India’s followers of different religions should live and let live. Conversions violate this basic principle. Hinduism doesn’t believe in conversion. India is a vastly majority Hindu country. This ethos of the country should define relations between followers of different faiths. Charity should be a social, humanitarian act, not one of religious doctrine or one with religious overtones. Why should charity be a mission? The history of conversions in India has been politically destructive. Other countries should not interfere in our internal affairs on behalf of any religious group. This only creates suspicion and mistrust.

Colon (:) introduces something. You usually use it when what comes after is a list, or an explanation, or even a reveal. An example is “she had one rule: never apologize” or “this is a list of things you should get from the market: eggs, tomatoes…” It’s also used as the eyes in a smiley face :) Semicolon (;) connects two complete thoughts that are related but could stand alone as separate sentences. It’s stronger than a comma but softer than a full stop. An example is “Frank never apologized; he didn't think he was wrong” It’s also used as the eyes in a winking face ;)

A rather annoying cartoon from a self- satisfied country of 5.6 million people with no historical or civilisational depth, or experience of handling complex and diverse societies or the depth of challenges that a country of 1.4 billion people faces. Resorting to an offensive snake charmer stereotype of India, that has a racist overtone. India does not need Norwegian oil. It has huge oil rich countries in its neighbourhood. Doesn’t need to charm them as India is a huge market, being the second largest importer of oil. The cartoon reflects the shallowness of Norway’s journalism as this is the country’s largest newspaper.

आज मैने कई बार, “संबंध” शब्द का प्रयोग किया। कई नॉर्डिक भाषाओं में “संबंध” शब्द का अर्थ है, connection, relations, एक bond. हिन्दी में भी “संबंध” का अर्थ यही है। यह केवल शब्दों की समानता नहीं है। यह हमारे विचारों की निकटता को दर्शाता है: PM @narendramodi

This is factually wrong. Human history has been marked by urge to dominate, gain territory, destroying enemies, religious conflict, civil strife, violence, war, empire building. Look at the wars in ancient Greece even as its civilisation flourished. The Greek- Persian wars, the Peloponnesian wars, the Greek- Roman wars, Alexander the Great. Pax Romana was sustained by war and conquest, intense frontier expansion, foreign conquests, and brutal suppressions of internal rebellions. The Chinese civilisation has suffered warlordism, devastating civil conflicts, and staggering death tolls, political purges, and localized clan warfare. The Mongol invasions. The spread of Islamic civilisation occurred through relentless wars of conquest. War was integral to the civilisation built by the Ottomans. Look at western civilisation- empire building, incessant wars, slavery, exploitation of human beings, colonialism. See the war torn history of Europe. Look at India’s experience. See what happened even after the UN was established: Cold War, liberation struggles, Latin American conflicts. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia Libya , Syria, Iran etc. The idea that long periods of peace were interrupted by short periods of intense conflict in human civilisation does not stand scrutiny.

The lesson the Gulf monarchies have learned from the recent war is stark: They are platforms for U.S. power, not equal partners in American protection. That realization is driving a profound strategic shift. The Gulf states no longer appear willing to practice automatic alignment with Washington. Instead, they are applying Trump’s own worldview back onto the U.S. itself. “America First” is increasingly being answered with “the Gulf First.” thehill.com/opinion/internat…

Press reports fed by unnamed sources are appearing in our media about Track 2 talks being held between retired Indian generals and diplomats and their Pakistani counterparts in third countries . Lobbies, international and local, seem to be promoting such meetings and the idea of giving them publicity is to mobilise opinion in India in favour of resumption of a back channel dialogue between India and Pakistan. It is argued that these unofficial talks are filling up the vacuum created by the absence of an official level dialogue. Those behind these planted reports make the familiar arguments in favour of re- establishing channels of communication with Pakistan at some level so that trends in thinking can be assessed and potential misjudgments avoided. These Track 2 participants think they are serving a useful cause at a time when the US is rehabilitating Pakistan, Asim Munir has wormed his way into Trump’s favour, the war on terror has lost international resonance and our campaign to isolate Pakistan has failed. These re-surfacing lobbies think we should abandon the core of our policy towards Pakistan even without any signal of change in Pakistan’s core attitude towards India. They want us to become defensive because of improved US- Pakistan ties and ourselves open the doors to a dialogue with Pakistan to pre- empt US pressure. The usual defeatist attitude cloaked in pragmatic diplomacy. The idea is to dilute the message of Op Sindoor to Pakistan.

The Myth of Pakistan’s Nuclear Immunity: One year after India’s May 7–10, 2025, “Operation Sindoor,” the brief military campaign’s most enduring legacy may be the dismantling of the long-held belief that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal prevented India from launching major conventional strikes. By involving more than 120 warplanes in a massive beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagement and deploying long-range precision weapons such as air-launched BrahMos cruise missiles, India demonstrated it could impose punitive costs without crossing the nuclear red line. Through a calibrated operation lasting just over three days, India pierced the perceived immunity conferred by Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent — an umbrella under which Pakistan long exported terrorism with relative impunity by sending state-reared proxies across the border to carry out grisly attacks. With the Indian government signaling that future terror attacks will be treated as acts of war, India has redrawn the boundaries of escalation, reinforcing that proxy warfare will no longer go unanswered under its new doctrine.