The Axiom Mission 4 launched aboard a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre in Florida at 2:31 am Eastern Time (12 Noon IST).
This is the fourth private astronaut mission to the International Space Station. The crew is traveling to the orbiting laboratory on a new SpaceX Dragon spacecraft. The targeted docking time is approximately 7 am Eastern Time (4pm IST) on Thursday, June 26.
Once docked, the astronauts plan to spend up to 14 days aboard the orbiting laboratory, conducting a mission comprised of science, outreach, and commercial activities. Peggy Whitson, former NASA astronaut and director of human spaceflight at Axiom Space, is in command of the mission, while Indian Space Research Organization Astronaut Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla serves as pilot. The two mission specialists are European Space Agency project astronaut Slawosz Uznanski-Wisniewski of Poland and Tibor Kapu of Hungary.
The astronauts are using the new Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit (AxEMU) spacesuit which provides them with advanced capabilities for space exploration while providing NASA with commercially developed human systems needed to access, live and work on and around the Moon. The advanced spacesuits ensure astronauts are equipped with high-performing, robust equipment and are designed to accommodate a wide range of crew members.
The Ax-4 mission is going to be conducting major research. The research complement includes around 60 scientific studies and activities representing 31 countries, including the U.S., India, Poland, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Nigeria, UAE, and nations across Europe.
This will be the most research and science-related activities conducted on an Axiom Space mission aboard the International Space Station to date
NASA and ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) are collaborating to launch several scientific investigations.
These studies include examining muscle regeneration, growth of sprouts and edible microalgae, survival of tiny aquatic organisms, and human interaction with electronic displays in microgravity.
The first private astronaut mission to the station, Axiom Mission 1, lifted off in April 2022 for a 17-day mission aboard the orbiting laboratory. The second private astronaut mission to the station, Axiom Mission 2, also was commanded by Whitson and launched in May 2023 with four private astronauts who spent eight days in orbit. The most recent private astronaut mission, Axiom Mission 3, launched in January 2024; the crew spent 18 days docked to the space station.
The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology, and human innovation that enables research not possible on Earth. For more than 24 years, NASA has supported a continuous human presence aboard the orbiting laboratory, through which astronauts have learned to live and work in space for extended periods of time.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
Twelve days of conflict between Israel and Iran, topped with the United States intervening, got the whole world on the edge of its seat. Israel had targeted nuclear facilities and military establishments in Iran to cripple its nuclear program as it was believed Iran was on the path of developing a nuclear bomb.
However, Israel’s limited munition could not penetrate Iran’s nuclear establishments located deep under the mountain. This is when the US intervened and used “bunker busters” to destroy the establishments. While the US claimed the mission was successful, experts think otherwise. Now, when Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire announced by US President Trump, a stark question emerges — what did the United States really gain by getting involved in the conflict?
The US showcased dramatic airstrikes using advanced B-2 bombers and the bold statements claiming Iran’s nuclear program has been crippled appear to be far from reality. According to a Pentagon report, Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact and has been pushed back by only a few months. Trump hinted at regime change but the idea has also been dropped. Furthermore, Iran targeted US bases in the Middle East, challenging the “invincibility” of the US military’s might. In fact, the Trump administration appears to be walking back its loftiest ambitions after the dust has settled.
Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact
Despite multiple strikes by Israel followed by a massive strike by the US, Iran’s nuclear program remains largely intact. While satellite images show damage from above, sites like Fordow reportedly recieved repairable damage because of its depth. There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is experiencing a temporary setback, but it will not take much time for the Islamic country to get back on track.
Source: Times of India
And this time, Iran may get fiercer with the enrichment of uranium, making it bomb-ready. As of now, reports suggest it has achieved 60 percent enrichment, and for a bomb, it needs over 90 percent enrichment. The enriched uranium did not get hit during the strikes, which was clear as agencies reported zero radiation leak at the attacked nuclear establishments including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan.
The core objective of the US strikes was to cripple Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the results have been underwhelming. Critical components like uranium centrifuges survived the strikes or can be repaired quickly, which means Iran could restart enrichment within months of the attack.
American intelligence also determined that Iran had safeguarded its most sensitive nuclear materials. In fact, Tehran reportedly moved much of its 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile out of the targeted facilities much before the strikes. Iran currently has around 480 kg of highly enriched uranium kept at an unknown location.
Little surprise, then, that international inspectors like the IAEA reported they could “no longer account” for this stock of uranium in the aftermath. In short, Iran’s nuclear program lives on, and any damage inflicted was minimal and reversible. Iranian engineers have most likely already started restoring the bombed sites.
Tehran kept its uranium and its defiance
Iran achieved two goals. It preserved the enriched uranium and also maintained an attitude of defiance. Its leadership rapidly signalled that they will not bow down to the strikes and abandon the nuclear program. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, pointedly remained silent on the strikes, projecting an image of resolve.
According to media reports, people of Iran took to the streets and raised anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a show of nationalist fervour after the attack. While the US was hoping for a regime change following the attack, it seems that the result was completely opposite to what the US expected, and it sparked rally-round-the-flag sentiment.
Iran has consistently insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and vowed to rebuild any lost capability. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared Iran would rebuild and continue its nuclear project once the conflict is over. Iran believes that it has the right to nuclear technology and that it is non-negotiable.
On the other hand, Israel partnered with Washington in the campaign. Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has boasted of a “historic victory” against Iran. However, in the same breath, he vowed that Israel would strike again if Iran rebuilds its nuclear project. This admission shows that even Israel realises Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could be restored.
Iran’s retaliation shattered the US aura of invincibility
The outcome of the conflict is not limited to the nuclear program of Iran. It is widely believed that American forces in the region are untouchable. However, Iran demonstrated a willingness and capability to hit back directly at US targets, something that once was almost unthinkable. In retaliation for the US actions, Iran launched ballistic missiles at US bases in the Middle East.
Not to forget, this is not the first time Iran has challenged the US’s might in the region. In January 2020, during a peak in US-Iran tensions, Iran fired 16 ballistic missiles at the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq that housed US troops. Around 30 US soldiers were wounded in that attack. While the attack occurred five years ago, it set a precedent. Iran proved it could directly strike US military installations and inflict real harm, and it repeated the same following the US strikes on its nuclear establishments. Notably, during the recent flare-up, the US embassies and bases were on high alert.
Iran also defied the ceasefire announcement by the US President as it fired missiles at Israel following Trump saying that both the countries have agreed to a ceasefire. It shows Iran is willing to test red lines. If anything, the conflict exposed American troops to harm and chipped away at US deterrence, as Iran demonstrated it can retaliate and challenge US power directly.
Washington drops talk of regime change in Tehran
Following the announcement of strikes by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Trump suggested regime change in Iran. In a post on Truth Social, he said, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” The remark was a clear sign that the US desired the end of Iran’s ruling system. This was not a statement that could be ignored. It implied US involvement in Iran had a goal beyond destroying its nuclear program.
Source: Truth Social
However, the talks of regime change were quickly buried under the ground. Notably, hours before Trump’s desire for a change in regime in Iran, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had publicly stressed that it was not about regime change but to neutralise Iran’s nuclear facilities. The talks of regime change have faded away quietly since the announcement of ceasefire.
No clear strategic benefit for the United States
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US gained little of tangible value from this entanglement. Iran’s nuclear capability is bruised, there is no doubt. However, claiming that it has been destroyed would be exaggerating. It has only been delayed by a few months. Tehran still holds the enriched uranium and can resume its program. The issue is, it is no longer traceable by international agencies.
The Iranian regime remains as strong as ever, having survived the confrontation without conceding its core positions. Washington’s brief flirtation with regime change rhetoric has been shelved, and the US now finds itself effectively reverting to containment and negotiation rather than revolution in Iran.
The US has gained no new support. If anything, European powers are now warning they may reimpose UN sanctions on Iran if a new nuclear agreement is not reached. In other words, despite the military fireworks, the solution still points back to negotiations and sanctions, the same toolkit used before the bombs fell.
Moreover, the US has come down to compromise mode. Trump recently said in a Truth Social post that China can continue buying Iranian oil and hoped it will buy from the US too. The gesture suggests Washington felt pressure to stabilise oil markets and placate Beijing amid the Iran crisis. It appears that the confrontation produced economic and geopolitical headaches for the US.
Source: Truth Social
In conclusion, while Washington’s high-profile intervention in Iran yielded no decisive victory, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are only dented, not destroyed. The lofty goal of a safer, non-nuclear Iran governed by different leaders has not materialised. The situation will remain tense in the region even if Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire, as Iran may resume its nuclear program in a matter of months and may even start working on developing an actual nuclear bomb in the coming months.
The question is, was it worth it? The evidence so far suggests the answer is a resounding no.
In a case of encroachment of temple land by an organisation to run the ‘St Joseph Matriculation Higher Secondary School’ in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has issued notice on a contempt petition against 5 IAS officers of the state.
As per reports, the bench of Justice KR Sriram and Justice Sunder Mohan issued notices to the following IAS officers:
P Amudha, Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management
S Madhumathi, Secretary, Department of School and Education
Dr B Chandramohan, Secretary, Department of Tourism, Culture, HR and CE
PN Sridhar, Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration
Sibi Adithia Senthilkumar, District Collector, Cuddalore
Two joint commissioners from the HR&CE Department are also named in the notices by the High Court. The said officers have been asked by the High Court to appear in person on July 10.
The notices were issued on a contempt plea filed by the petitioner, S Vinoth Raghavendran, alleging the non-compliance of an April 2024 order issued by the Madras High Court. In April 2024, the High Court had asked the state government authorities to find an alternate land for the St Joseph school that has been running on the encroached temple land.
S Vinoth Raghavendran is the state secretary of the BJP’s Spiritual and Temple Development Wing.
In his petition, S Vinoth Raghavendran had mentioned that the plot on which the St Joseph Matriculation and Higher Secondary School runs in Cuddalore belongs to a Hindu temple, and despite efforts, the encroachment has not been removed.
When the Madras High Court took up the writ petition, the state government advocate informed the Court that the as per an earlier order by the Court on a writ petition submitted by the school, the State authorities were directed to arrange for an alternate land to relocate the school, and make sure that the land is near the said town so students are not inconvenienced.
However, the proposal for the relocation has been pending with the state government for 5 long years. In April 2024, the Court had granted an additional 6 months to the State for providing land to relocate the school.
The petitioner S Vinoth Raghavendran has drawn the HC’s attention to the fact that despite the extension granted, no steps have been taken by the State authorities to provide an alternate site for the school, and to ensure the removal of the encroachment of the temple land.
The St Joseph Matriculation and Higher Secondary School has been running on land that belongs to the Devanathaswamy Temple of Thiruvanthipuram, the petitioner has said to the Court.
Three giant Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs), needed for the construction of underground section of Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-speed bullet train corridor are stuck at a Chinese port. The machines are vital to excavate a 21-km-long underground part of the high-speed rail corridor, from Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) to Shilphata, featuring India’s first undersea rail tunnel under Thane Creek.
The TBMs were manufactured in Guangzhou by the German tunnelling firm Herrenknecht. Two were slated to arrive in India by October 2024, while the third was supposed to have arrived earlier this year. Yet, till now, Chinese port authorities have not provided clearance, and no official reason for the delay has been made public.
Matter escalated to the External Affairs Ministry
Worried that the project could be delayed, the Ministry of Railways in India has approached the Ministry of External Affairs. The matter is now being taken up through diplomatic channels
This section of the bullet train line is among the most technically challenging, particularly the 7-km tunnel under Thane Creek. Delays in the arrival of the machines would affect progress, though officials insist the overall project timeline remains unaffected.
Post-Galwan scrutiny of Chinese goods
Following the latest Galwan Valley clash between Indian and Chinese troops in 2020, India further strengthened its Chinese investment and import policies. A few contracts of Chinese firms were cancelled, and an effort has been made vigorously to cut back on Chinese equipment dependence.
Before 2020, TBMs from China had found usage in the Mumbai Metro and coastal roads. However, newer projects, such as the Thane–Borivli tunnel, have taken to Herrenknecht-made machines.
India’s biggest TBM is stuck
India’s biggest TBM, which got stuck in China, is one of them. Its cutter head is 13.56 metres wide—almost double the width of the ones used for metro rail tunnels. It is designed to cut through complex terrain, including soil, rock, and mixed ground, with extreme precision.
Work has begun without TBMs
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, the company handling this stretch, is moving ahead with initial works. It won the ₹6,397 crore contract in June 2023 and has a timeline of just over five years to complete it.
Work on launching and retrieval shafts is underway—these include deep vertical shafts at BKC (36m), Vikhroli (56m), and Sawli (39m), and a 42-metre inclined shaft at Ghansoli.
The tunnel will descend up to 114 metres below Parsik Hill and needs to run through wetlands, residential areas, and water bodies. It’s a high-risk, high-reward part of the bullet train corridor.
Though NHSRCL and Afcons have not made a public statement, sources indicate attempts are being made by all concerned to settle the matter. For the time being, the construction goes on—but the clock is ticking. The bullet train schedule might get affected if the TBMs don’t depart China shortly.
A video of New York City (NYC) mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has gone viral on social media. The development comes amid the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict and the victory of Mamdani in the Democratic primaries.
The viral video is a snippet from Mamdani’s interview with controversial ‘journalist’ Mehdi Hasan, which was originally published on YouTube in December last year.
During the interview, Hasan asked, “And Mayor Mamdani, would he welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to New York City for whatever he comes for, given the US is not a signature to the ICC, so he can travel to the US, unlike a lot of other countries? Would a Mayor Mamdani welcome Benjamin Netanyahu to the city?”
MAMDANI: “As Mayor I would have Netanyahu arrested if he came to New York!”
“No. As Mayor, New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a city that our values are in line with international law. It’s time that our actions are also,” Zohran Mamdani brazened out.
“Even though the US is not a signature to the ICC?” Hasan inquired.
Zohran Mamdani had remarked, “No, it’s time that we actually step up and make clear what we are willing to do to showcase the leadership that is sorely missing in the federal administration.”
The controversies of Zohran Mamdani
He is an American politician and the son of ‘filmmaker’ Mira Nair and ‘author’ Mahmood Mamdani. Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, is currently running as a mayoral candidate for New York City (NYC).
The controversial Democrat is currently a member of the New York State Assembly. He has a vicious record at peddling Hinduphobia and defaming India.
In August 2020 (months before the publication of eulogies in the Indian media), the famed son of ‘filmmaker’ Mira Nair was found leading a hate mob, demonising Hindus as ‘Harami (bastards),’ at Times Square.
NYC Candidate for Mayor Zohran Mamdani led a mob of protestors in Times Square calling Hindus as bastards and heaping abuses upon Lord Rama, who is worshipped by Hindus
“Who are the Hindus? Harami (Bastards),” the mob was heard yelling. Mamdani remained unflinched despite the dehumanisation of the Hindu community by his supporters. He instead began spewing vitriol against Ram Mandir.
“I am here today to protest against the BJP government in India and the demolition of the Babri Masjid that attempted to build a temple on the ruins of it,” claimed Zohran Mamdani.
He made it clear that the hate mob that he was leading at Times Square in August 2020 belonged to Khalistani extremists.
Screengrab of the August 2020 tweet of Zohran Mamdani
The video coincided with the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, which was performed by none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Around the same time, Zohran Mamdani peddled vicious disinformation on X (formerly Twitter) about the re-constrcution of Ram Mandir. For context, a Ram Mandir always existed at the very site in Ayodhya since time immemorial.
Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb destroyed part of the temple and built a disputed structure on top of the temple foundation. The historical wrongdoing was corrected on 6th December 1992 by karsevaks.
Through years of litigation, the Hindu site finally got the greenlight to begin the reconstruction of the temple at the same site where it existed before.
On 15th May, he crossed all limits of civility by dubbing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a ‘war criminal.’
If India PM Narendra Modi held a rally at MSG and wanted to do a joint presser with you as mayor, would you? Stringer: No Lander: No. Mamdani: No. "And this is someone who we should view in the same manner that we do Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a war criminal."
“No. And this is someone who we should view in the same manner that we do Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a war criminal,” Zohran Mamdani remarked on being asked about the possibility of joint presser with the Indian Prime Minister in New York.
The reference to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a ‘war criminal’ in the same breath stems from his deep-seated anti-Semitism. Earlier, Zohran Mamdani passed on signing a resolution ‘condemning the Holocaust.’
He also refused to sign a resolution, which recognised 77th anniversary of Israel. His innate hatred for Jews and Israel became crystal clear after he targeted Israel for responding to October 7 terror attack by Hamas.
“He condemned Israel the day after October 7th, regularly gives interviews on unapologetic antisemitic platforms and just proudly accepted an endorsement from a disgraced former fire-alarm pulling Congressman who denied October 7th rapes before walking that back,” New York State Assembly member Sam Berger pointed out.
Despite all this, the Indian media heaped praises on Zohran Mamdani in several news articles and interviews.
A new project worth ₹1,000 crore will be launched by the government to encourage the domestic manufacture of rare earth magnets, which are essential parts for industries like electronics, electric vehicles and defense, reported CNBC-TV18. The plan’s main objective is to boost India’s ability to produce about 1,500 tons of rare earth magnets.
A significant contribution will be made by India Rare Earth Limited (IREL), which will provide original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) involved in the production of magnets with about 500 tonnes of rare earth raw materials. According to the sources, five to six businesses are currently interested in breaking into the rare earth magnet manufacturing market.
The government is aware of worries that some companies would prefer importing fully finished components rather than procuring magnets domestically, even though it views the situation around rare earth magnets as stable at the moment. Officials are contemplating about changing the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme’s Domestic Value Addition (DVA) requirements if needed to promote localized manufacturing in order to address this.
Although less than 20% of India’s geological potential has been explored, the country is home to the third-largest rare earth reserves in the world.
What do the experts say
Experts in the field believe the time is right to accelerate exploration and develop indigenous capabilities. While monazite, a crucial source of neodymium for rare earth magnets, is abundant in India, Arun Misra, CEO of Hindustan Zinc and Executive Director at Vedanta, stated that there are substantial technological and legal barriers.
He conveyed, “The first step is to remove monazite from the atomic minerals list and open it up for private mining investment.” Since China and Japan presently possess the technology to extract neodymium from rare earth chlorides, he maintained, the nation needs to make significant investments in R&D and smelting technology.
He asserted that while beach sand is processed by Indian Rare Earths Ltd. to produce rare earth oxides, the value-added chain ends there. “Just mining monazite and making chlorides is not a solution. We need to develop ways to produce neodymium so we can manufacture permanent magnets,” he added.
What is the centre’s plan
Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy stated on 24th June that the government will decide within 15 to 20 days whether to implement a plan to subsidize domestic manufacture of rare earth magnets. Consultations with stakeholders are being held to decide how much of a subsidy will be provided under the plan.
Heavy Industries Ministry Secretary Kamran Rizvi highlighted that the plan will be submitted to the union cabinet for approval if the overall incentives exceed ₹1,000 crore. The Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel, Kumaraswamy, informed, “One Hyderabad-based company is showing interest. They have promised that they will deliver 500 tonnes by this year-end, December. We have (had) discussions with the Mines Minister. Our Secretary and our ministry are working on, ultimately, a decision (will be taken) I think within 15-20 days.”
Many nations, notably India, experienced significant disruptions in the production of semiconductor chips and automobiles as a result of China’s recent curbs on exports of essential metals. The secretary pointed out that the government and business are considering other procurement options, such as Japan and Vietnam, in the interim, as the actual production of rare earth magnets is expected to take around two years.
Neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets are examples of rare earth magnets. It is utilized in high-performance automotive applications such power steering motors in passenger cars and electric vehicles with internal combustion engines, as well as traction motors in two-wheelers and electric vehicles.
How will the new scheme help
The incentive will make it easier for corporations to invest in building processing facilities so they can turn rare earth oxides into magnets. The only rare earth repository in India is Indian Rare Earth Magnets Ltd, a PSU under the Ministry of Atomic Energy. The officials mentioned that they possess sufficient rare earths to produce 1,500 tons of magnets.
According to Kamran Rizvi, secretary in the ministry of heavy industries, the amount of incentives to be provided would determine whether or not the plan will move to the union cabinet.
“It depends on the level of incentives. If it is less than ₹1,000 crore, (heavy industries) minister and finance minister can do it. If it goes beyond ₹1,000 crore, it has to go to the cabinet. We do not know the quantum of subsidy required yet, stakeholder consultations are on, as the minister pointed out, so varied responses have come. Somebody wants 50 per cent, somebody wants 20 per cent, so it will be subject to a competitive bid, then we will know the quantum of support required,” he outlined.
The officials emphasised that 30 automakers requested permission from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) two weeks ago to import rare earth magnets from China in order to avoid production being adversely affected by the scarcity.
In a move that exposes glaring ideological contradictions, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has launched a vigorous campaign to revive Urdu in the state’s education system, even as his government continues its vehement opposition to Hindi a language he dismisses as “imposed.” This dual stance raises urgent questions about linguistic authenticity, historical revisionism, and political appeasement in India’s youngest state
The anti-hindi stance
At the India Today Conclave 2025, CM Reddy unequivocally declared, “Hindi is not the national language,” questioning why Prime Minister Modi aggressively promotes Hindi while neglecting Telugu India’s second-most-spoken language. He highlighted the removal of Telugu from civil service exams as evidence of systemic marginalization. In a sharp quip, Reddy revealed his personal motive for learning Hindi: “Modi ji ko thokne ke liye Hindi seekha” (I learnt Hindi to take on Modi). His stand aligns with southern states like Tamil Nadu, which reject the Centre’s three-language policy under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 .
The urdu promotion agenda
Simultaneously, Telangana has embraced Urdu as its second official language statewide a move ratified by the assembly in 2017 and actively implemented. Urdu is now used in government communications, education boards, and public services. This policy cites Urdu’s historical significance: it was the administrative language under the Nizams and remains vital to accessing Telangana’s archives (most pre-1948 records are in Urdu or Persian). As journalist Moses Tulasi argues, “If Telangana students are to read their own history, Urdu must be revived”
The contradiction critics weigh in opponents, particularly the BJP, accuse Reddy of hypocrisy
Urdu was enforced in Nizam-era Telangana despite only 11% Urdu speakers, marginalizing Telugu, Marathi, and Kannada communities. Its revival risks reopening old wounds. Urdu’s promotion is seen as appeasement of Telangana’s 13% Muslim population a key Congress vote bank. Critics note Reddy’s Cabinet lacks Muslim representation despite their electoral support. BJP leader G. Kishan Reddy asks “Why oppose Hindi as ‘imposition’ while state-imposed Urdu gains official traction?”. He notes Telugu itself struggles for implementation in government offices.
Urdu’s non-native roots in Telangana
Demographic Imposition: During the Nizam’s rule (1724–1948), Urdu was enforced as the sole official language despite Telugu speakers constituting 50% of Hyderabad State’s population, compared to a mere 11% Urdu speakers. This was a deliberate act of cultural erasure, not organic linguistic evolution.
Geographic Origin: Urdu evolved in the Meerut-Delhi region (Uttar Pradesh) as a camp language (“Zaban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla”) of Mughal armies, absorbing Persian and Arabic vocabulary. Its presence in Telangana began only with the Bahmani and Qutb Shahi invasions, making it an imported language not an indigenous one.
Suppression of Telugu: The Nizam’s Urdu-only policy systematically excluded Telugu from education and administration, sparking the Telangana Armed Struggle (1946–51). As historian Moses Tulasi notes, “Not making Telugu the state language majorly contributed to the un-doing of the Nizam state”. Reviving Urdu today echoes this oppressive legacy.
Political double standards
Reddy’s stance reveals a calculated appeasement strategy, While he questions, “What has Modi done to promote Telugu?”, his government diverts resources to Urdu spoken by just 11% of Telangana today, ignoring truly native tribal languages like Gondi, Koya, and Lambadi. Reddy dismisses Hindi as lacking “benefits”, yet Urdu, once the language of the Nizamati eliteis, has been repackaged as the people’s tongue. This ignores that Urdu’s script and vocabulary alienate Telugu’s Dravidian linguistic base.
The larger agenda
This agenda is not new as it mirrors the Samajwadi Party’s demand for Urdu translations in UP assemblies a move CM Yogi Adityanath rightly condemned as attempts to “make children maulvis” rather than scientists. Meanwhile, AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi weaponizes Urdu as “India’s language of Independence”, whitewashing its divisive history.
Conclusion: Whose legacy is Telangana protecting?
Telangana’s true linguistic heritage lies in Telugu a classical language spoken by 77% of its people and its tribal dialects. Promoting Urdu as “native” is historical fraud. If the CM genuinely opposes linguistic imperialism, he must explain why fighting Hindi a language uniting India’s heartlandtakes precedence over reviving the Nizam-suppressed Telugu itself. The answer lies not in culture, but in vote-bank politics that sacrifices Telugu pride at the altar of minority appeasement.
In a move that exposes glaring ideological contradictions, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has launched a vigorous campaign to revive Urdu in the state’s education system, even as his government continues its vehement opposition to Hindi a language he dismisses as “imposed.” This dual stance raises urgent questions about linguistic authenticity, historical revisionism, and political appeasement in India’s youngest state
The “ceasefire” between Israel and Iran, which was announced by U.S. President Donald Trump in recent times, is already beginning to show cracks as the two nations continue to exchange blows despite a commitment to halt hostilities. If the ceasefire was celebrated as a diplomatic success only a few hours ago, the situation on the ground is still strained, raising fundamental doubts on how long the peace will endure, if at all.
Iran denies firing new missiles, but strikes kill Israeli civilians
The Iranian military on Tuesday denied firing any new missiles into Israel in the “last few hours.” This came after missiles hit a residential building in Beersheba, a southern Israeli city, and killed at least five individuals. The attack followed immediately after the announcement of the ceasefire and has left the world in doubt regarding Iran’s claim.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi had previously tweeted on social media that Iran’s military offensive against Israel had proceeded “until the very last minute at 4 a.m.,” indicating the offensive didn’t cease right after the ceasefire was announced.
US brokered ceasefire: A promising beginning, now in question
The United States-brokered ceasefire was announced by President Trump through an X (formerly Twitter) post at 3:32 a.m. IST. He announced that the ceasefire would be rolled out in phases within the coming 24 hours and that both sides would be expected to be “peaceful” and “respectful.
Trump had praised Iran and Israel for displaying what he referred to as “Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence” to bring to a close what he had termed the “12-Day War.” However, with the new missile attacks and civilian casualties within hours thereof, the credibility of the ceasefire is now in doubt worldwide.
As Iran has repeatedly made clear: Israel launched war on Iran, not the other way around.
As of now, there is NO "agreement" on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations. However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no…
Trump’s frustration grows as Nobel hopes take a hit
Trump himself has openly complained of being snubbed for the Nobel despite making several peace agreements as president. He frequently refers to his administration’s work in the Abraham Accords as well as North Korea diplomacy as his peace-making achievements.
Celebrated Indian geostrategist Brahma Chellaney commented on the subject, putting up on X that Trump’s latest bombing of Iranian nuclear sites could ironically enhance his opportunities for a Nobel Prize win. Chellaney noted that the award has traditionally gone to leaders who have violent histories, describing it as a “not-for-peace” award in most instances.
He penned, “By bombing Iran, Trump has paradoxically moved closer to his dream of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. This not-for-peace prize has, after all, gone to several warmongers.”
By bombing Iran, Trump has paradoxically advanced his ambition to win the Nobel Peace Prize. This not-for-peace prize has, after all, been awarded to several warmongers:
• 1906: Theodore Roosevelt — champion of “Big Stick” diplomacy and an aggressive foreign policy, who…
Pakistan nominates Trump for the 2026 Nobel peace prize
Throwing in a shocking twist, the Pakistani government has officially nominated Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. In doing so, Pakistani leaders complimented Trump’s “decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.” The action has sparked mixed reactions around the world and will continue to complicate Trump’s peace narrative.
A wider conflict? US-Iran tensions add fuel to the fire
Before the ceasefire, Iran had initiated “Operation Basharat al-Fath,” a retaliatory missile strike on an American military installation in Qatar. This was a response to American weekend airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. America unleashed 75 precision-guided bombs, including bunker busters.
Most of the Iranian missiles were intercepted by Qatar, though at least one struck the base, according to Qatar. The extent of damage is yet to be determined.
What lies ahead?
Even as the ceasefire deal had generated optimism for a halt to spiralling violence, the ground reality indicates that peace remains tenuous. Ongoing strikes, divergent statements, and larger regional tensions all indicate that the situation is still volatile.
For President Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize dream — once in sight — might now be escaping his grasp as violence comes to dominate over diplomacy. The world stands watch in suspense as two old enemies draw nearer and nearer to yet another possible outbreak.
Leaders of 32 NATO members converge at The Hague on Tuesday, June 24, for a NATO summit meticulously calibrated to navigate the return of Donald Trump to the global stage. However, Trump will have to witness his personal agenda being overtaken by exploding Middle East violence and existential questions about the alliance’s future.
This critical gathering is Trump’s first NATO engagement since 2019, and it unfolds against a backdrop of US-led airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a stalemated war in Ukraine, and profound European anxiety over American reliability. With Trump in power, European leaders arrive determined to demonstrate compliance with his longstanding demand for increased defense spending from EU nations while managing explosive regional crises that threaten to fracture the alliance.
Escalating Iran crisis will dominate proceedings
The summit’s carefully crafted agenda was immediately overshadowed by the Middle East crisis, ignited days earlier when Trump authorized U.S. forces to join Israeli strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities. This dramatic escalation triggered retaliatory missile attacks by Iran on a U.S. base in Qatar and pushed the region toward wider conflict despite Trump’s public declaration of a ceasefire.
European leaders, almost entirely excluded from pre-strike consultations, scrambled to contain the fallout during emergency sideline meetings. French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a blistering critique, declaring the strikes had “no international legality” and emphasizing that “diplomacy, not military action” must prevail. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer offered tepid support while pointedly noting the deployment of Royal Navy assets to “protect British interests.”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged the crisis would inevitably intrude on formal discussions, despite lacking any official place on the summit agenda. European diplomats expressed profound alarm about being dragged into another US-led Middle Eastern conflict without consultation, a stark reminder of Trump’s unilateralist tendencies that have long haunted the alliance.
“This administration doesn’t seek allied input when it counts,” observed former NATO policy director Camille Grand, noting that “the scars from previous Middle Eastern wars make meaningful coordination impossible.”
Defense spending victory masks deep divisions
The summit’s primary pre-planned agenda required members to dedicate 5% of GDP to defense by 2035 (with 3.5% allocated to “hard defense” capabilities and 1.5% to security infrastructure), a direct concession to Trump’s persistent demands. US officials hailed it as a “historic transformation” achieved through Trump’s “uncompromising leadership.” Yet this apparent unity concealed stark disparities and simmering resentment. Poland, already spending 4.7% of its GDP on defense, joined Estonia and Latvia in championing rapid increases, with Warsaw projected to hit the 5% target years ahead of schedule.
Conversely, Spain currently allocating a mere 1.3% led resistance efforts, dismissing the target as “economically ruinous” and demanding special exemptions. Italy and Canada face particularly steep climbs from their current levels of approximately 1.4% and 1.37% respectively.
Even supportive nations face implementation challenges: Germany controversially utilized a “temporary special fund” to reach its current 2.1%, while Italy explored counting infrastructure projects like a Sicilian bridge as “defense-adjacent” investments. Crucially, Trump secured an implicit exemption for the United States itself, which currently spends 3.4% of GDP on defense well below the new benchmark. This asymmetric burden has fueled accusations of American hypocrisy and exposed fundamental tensions about equitable burden-sharing that continue to undermine alliance cohesion.
Ukraine’s downgraded role signals strategic shift
In a stark departure from previous summits where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy commanded center stage, this gathering delivers a symbolic demotion that speaks volumes about Trump’s influence. Zelenskyy received an invitation only to Tuesday’s ceremonial royal dinner, pointedly excluded from Wednesday’s critical closed-door strategy session, where Ukraine’s future will be decided.
This marginalization reflects Trump’s well-documented antipathy toward the Ukrainian leader and skepticism about continued military aid. While NATO formally reaffirmed Ukraine’s “irreversible” path to membership, concrete commitments were conspicuously absent.
The sole concession allowing aid to Ukraine to count toward members’ defense spending calculations amounted to a largely symbolic accounting adjustment. No timelines for membership were established, nor were “expanded security guarantees” offered beyond vague assurances. Secretary General Rutte framed this minimalist approach as “the only viable path under present circumstances,” but Eastern European allies privately expressed dismay at what they perceive as abandonment. “This isn’t just about Ukraine’s security,” confided a Baltic diplomat, “it’s about whether America’s word means anything when strategic winds shift.”
The Trump-Rutte dynamic
The summit’s choreography is all about a single working session, brief statements, and minimal media access reflecting a deliberate effort to avoid provoking Trump, whose disdain for NATO is well-documented. New Secretary General Mark Rutte, hailed as a “Trump whisperer,” has skillfully navigated the President’s demands. He secured the spending pledge through months of shuttle diplomacy, framing it as essential to prevent Russian dominance. “If you want to maintain the British language and not switch to Russian in London, you have to defend yourself”, he said.
Damage control architecture: Flattering the unpredictable
European planners engineered this summit with surgical precision to avoid the chaotic scenes that marked Trump’s previous NATO appearances. The schedule was compressed into just 24 hours with a single working session eliminating opportunities for Trump to stage disruptive walkouts like his abrupt departure from the G7 summit. Diplomatic landmines were defused through minimalist documentation as a single-page communiqué replaced traditional lengthy negotiations vulnerable to presidential Twitter eruptions.
Psychological appeasement strategies included a lavish dinner hosted by King Willem-Alexander at the royal palace, a calculated nod to Trump’s well-documented affinity for pomp and monarchical recognition. These extraordinary measures aimed to forestall a repeat of Trump’s 2018 threat to withdraw the US from NATO altogether. “Every detail was stress-tested against potential volatility,” revealed a senior EU diplomat involved in preparations, “We’re not just managing policy differences we’re managing temperament.”
The looming identity crisis
Beyond immediate crises, this summit underscores NATO’s struggle to redefine its purpose in an era of American retrenchment. Rutte delivered a stark wake-up call during closed sessions, warning allies they must achieve a “quantum leap” in military readiness – including a “400% surge in air defense capabilities” or risk having to “learn to speak Russian.”
Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund observed, “The existential question isn’t whether NATO survives, but whether Europeans will finally invest seriously in their own defense sovereignty. Trump’s return removes any illusion of American permanence.”
Eastern Europe’s members push for permanent forward deployment of NATO forces along the Russian border, while Western states resist because of the astronomical costs. Simultaneously, the alliance faces mission creep as climate change, cyber warfare, and migration increasingly dominate security discussions.
A political storm has erupted over the alleged double standards of opposition MPs in handling judicial matters, as contrasting responses to cases involving two High Court judges—Justice Shekhar Yadav and Justice Yashwant Verma—have drawn widespread public attention and criticism.
Opposition MPs have strongly demanded the impeachment of Justice Shekhar Yadav following his alleged communal remarks during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event in December 2024. Justice Yadav was reported to have said, “This is Hindustan, and the country will run according to the majority,” while also supporting the Uniform Civil Code and criticizing certain Muslim community practices.
A total of 54 Rajya Sabha MPs, including members from the Congress, TMC, AAP, RJD, and other parties, signed an impeachment notice against him. However, discrepancies surfaced in the notice, with nine mismatched signatures and one MP’s signature appearing twice. Despite this, prominent leaders like Kapil Sibal have continued to push the demand, even threatening to approach the Supreme Court if the Vice President does not act on the notice.
In stark contrast, the same leaders have remained silent in the case of Justice Yashwant Verma, who faces serious allegations of corruption. In March 2025, a fire at his government residence in Delhi led firefighters to discover a large cache of burnt currency notes in a private storeroom accessible only to his family.
A Supreme Court committee comprising three judges submitted a 64-page report confirming the presence of the notes and claimed that Justice Verma and his private secretary attempted to influence fire officials to suppress the incident.
Despite the severity of the allegations, Justice Verma has neither resigned nor been assigned judicial work. The Supreme Court has recommended his dismissal, and impeachment proceedings are expected to begin soon. Nevertheless, opposition MPs, particularly Kapil Sibal, have defended him. Sibal praised Justice Verma as “one of the finest judges in the country” and accused the government of attempting to dismantle the collegium system.
Critics argue that this discrepancy in responses reflects the opposition’s selective approach driven by political convenience rather than principle. While the issue involving Justice Yadav has been framed as a communal concern, the silence over Justice Verma’s alleged corruption suggests a lack of consistent commitment to judicial integrity, observers say.
Social media users have also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy. “When a judge makes a communal remark, impeachment is demanded; but when cash is found at a judge’s home, he’s called the best,” one user wrote on X. Another remarked, “The opposition doesn’t mind corruption, they just need an issue to attack the government.”
Analysts believe that such selective outrage undermines the credibility of opposition parties and raises questions about their real priorities. “If political leaders genuinely want to uphold the judiciary’s independence and fight corruption, they must adopt a consistent stance across all cases, regardless of ideology,” a former judge noted.
As Parliament prepares to address both cases, the contrast in political reactions continues to fuel debate over ethics, impartiality, and the true motivations behind calls for judicial accountability.
