Roy is a well-published author who covers many genres, fiction, biography and translation. In this translation of eight Tagore short stories, all of more or less the same length save one that is longer at 30 pages, he successfully evokes the sense of mystery and suspense. At the same time, Roy has expertly handled the human relationships so marvelously evoked by Tagore – “the warmth between a mother and a child which was akin to the early morning sunlight of springtime… the only ties that take root are those born of love and affection.”And “it is true that the feminine gender cannot tolerate suspense… it is impossible to run household affairs when suspense and mystery takes centre stage.”

One might cavil at the term horror in the title; perhaps mysteries, riddles or suspense would have been more accurate in describing these stories. Certainly, there is excitement, and even a surprise twist at the end in the story A Yielded Wealth, while Tagore’s intentions are also shown as moralistic, anti-capital, anti-greed, with respect for religion and religious practices. In his telling, wealth can lead to self-delusion and poverty – “The colossal treasure loomed around him like a monstrous grin … it lacked everything that defines life. It was dead, a creature from the realm of death, a phantom.” Human tendencies to jealousy and suspicions are portrayed, as are Tagore’s frequent references to societal strata, caste, the priesthood and Brahminism.

As also Tagore’s metaphysical observations, from nearly being cremated while still alive to the reality of life; from fear of death to fear of life itself. And Tagore’s teasing assertions – “women don’t make mistakes. And even if they do, it is not the job of an intelligent man to point it out to them… And as is the sarcastic truth of existence, the world around continued at its usual pace.” There are some solecisms and misusages in the text, which are aberrational since the translation is otherwise excellent and accurately reflects Tagore’s lofty prose; much more so than other, much inferior, translations that have appeared even recently of some of the same stories.

Prasun Roy is to be complimented for bringing some of Tagore’s short stories to the English-speaking audience with a superb rendering. The Bard in Love is in the form of a biography and covers the young, middle-aged and elder Tagore’s various infatuations. In terms of chronology, they might be summarized as six, starting with when he was still a child and focused on his elder sister-in-law Kadambari then 11, two years older than him, who resided in the same house and suffered from neglect by her negligent husband. The second was the daughter of a family friend in Bombay named Annapurna; the third an English young woman called Lucy with whose family he lodged in London. The fourth was his wife Mrinalini who was 10 when Tagore married her at age 23.

She had five children and long predeceased him. There next was Ranu from Banaras who started as a pen friend aged 11 and later became the famed patron of the arts Lady Ranu Mukherjee in Calcutta. The last, when Tagore was of an advanced age and in poor health, was the Argentine Victoria Ocampo. From the authors’ telling, and by inference, it appears that all these relationships, save with the wife, were platonic though intensely felt by both the parties involved. The limitations and burdens of living in a large joint family are well recorded. Much of the reported dialogue and incidents of the early period are necessarily fictional but it is clear that as a boy, Tagore was lonely and seemingly had few male friends. He was thrown into the ‘sweet honey of friendship’ with Kadambari ‘the first person who lent him confidence [and] his severest critic.’

Travelling to London in 1878 aged 16 with his elder brother, a relationship developed between Tagore and the proverbial landlady’s daughter Lucy Scott even as the boy ‘began to grasp the wonderful freedom that women could enjoy in England.’ By nature, write the authors, ‘he was fearful of women’ but in his letters home he ‘started to frankly compare the orthodox culture back home with the free-minded …fresh behaviour seen in the Western world.’ This alarmed the Calcutta family, and Tagore was recalled home leaving ‘without degree or distinction’.

It needs to be noted that for all his admiration of female freedom, he was socially reactionary and his daughters were married to male partners when they were only children. Tagore, say the authors, was ‘completely under the spell of his father’s persona.’ When his marriage was arranged to a girl from a ‘rustic background’, Kadambari, still childless, was heartbroken, the more so because of her husband’s neglect in favour of other women. She committed suicide four months after Tagore’s marriage, a tragic figure in this narrative. Tagore’s wife herself died aged 29 in 1902. Tagore was a relentless traveller struck by wanderlust, both within and outside India, but from 1901 he was focused on his school at Shantiniketan.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1913 and despite the attendant fame, the authors assert Tagore was lonely, and even tried to raise his dead wife through seances. In 1924, aged 63, he met the Argentinian Victoria Ocampo, who urged him to sketch and then paint; ‘I have awakened a great painter within the soul of a great poet,’ she stated. The book states ‘The doodling he had taken up in the company of Victoria became a means of expression. At almost 70, he immersed himself in the world of painting.’ Tagore enjoys such status in Bengal and indeed in India that any effort to interpret or humanize him risks becoming controversial. In these two books the authors have approached the subject with skill and delicacy, and in the second, adroitly combining fact and fiction.

The prose is usually fluent save for some idiomatic and stylistic errors which required correction. A negative feature of the second text is the excessive use of adjectives; any noun hardly exists without a descriptor, which becomes irritating. The authors would have done better in avoiding yearning for purple prose. A glossary and index would have been useful if not essential. These are faults attributable to the publishers. Readers, even familiar with Tagore’s work, will derive considerable enjoyment and something new from both these works

(THE WRITER IS A FORMER FOREIGN SECRETARY)

Whenever a film like Dhurandhar releases, the reaction follows a wearyingly predictable pattern. On one side, a segment of critics dismisses it as state-sponsored propaganda; on the other, enthusiasts embrace it as a long-overdue call to patriotism. Yet, to step into a crowded theatre in Delhi, Mumbai, or Lucknow is to witness a phenomenon that bypasses these ideological skirmishes. What we see is not an audience succumbing to a “message,” b ut a p ublic experiencing the profound catharsis of recognition.

For the person in the seat, this is not about politics, it is about a story that finally feels like their own. What truly unsettles the critics is not the film’s creative liberty, but its disconcerting proximity to the truth. For decades, the Indian narrative on national security was filtered through the lens of external observers or buried in a sterile silence. As Vladimir Lenin once famously remarked, “Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important.” For many Indians, the events portrayed in the film are not distant episodes, but lived moments that reshaped the course of the nation. The impact of Dhurandhar stems from its rootedness in the “living tissue” of our collective memory. The world it portrays is drawn from wounds that have not yet scarred over. In the shadowy silhouette of “Bade Sahab,” the audience recognizes the architecture of figures like Dawood Ibrahim, whose networks once held our cities hostage.

By weaving together terror financing and organized crime, the film provides a coherent map for those who lived through the trauma of the 1993 Bombay serial blasts and the corrosive flood of fake currency that once crippled states like Uttar Pradesh under the shadow of gangsters like Atiq Ahmed. There is a tendency to label any film that explores national grit as “propaganda,” and in some circles, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction to label it as “anti-Muslim.” However, this ignores the deeper reality of resonation. When a film reflects the lived experiences of victims and the quiet victories of intelligence officers, it is not manufacturing a narrative, it is acknowledging one that already exists. The pushback from certain sections of society often has less to do with the film’s content and more to do with a refusal to accept a Naya Atmavishwas (new self-confidence) and Nayi Atmanirbharta (new self-reliance).

For decades, India’s response to crisis was one of restraint and hesitation. Dhurandhar encapsulates a “new template of response,” one that is resilient, proactive, and self-assured. Those who take issue with this movie are, in fact, highlighting their own discomfort with an India that is no longer content to be a perpetual victim. The problem lies in the psychology of the critic, not the resilience of the subject. This is, in many ways, a narrative war against terrorism. Terrorism, by its very nature, does not polarize its victims; a bomb does not ask for your political affiliation or your religion before it detonates. If the tragedy of terror is not polarized, our collective response to it should not be either. When we look at the global reception of such films, a glaring double standard emerges. The world has long applauded the “Top Gun” bravado of American cinema. From Zero Dark Thirty and Black Hawk Down to American Sniper and Lone Sur vivor, Hollywo o d has a long-standing tradition of releasing high-octane films following major military operations or wars to stir national pride and process collective trauma.

These films are celebrated globally as expressions of cultural confidence and “soft power.” Why, then, is Indian cinema subjected to a different yardstick? Our soft power is no longer just about the passive beauty of our heritage; it is becoming a deliberate, muscular articulation of our national journey. Just as Western cinema creates narratives to validate its national interest, India is now using the medium of film to define its own stance on the global stage. One of the film’s most powerful elements is how it portrays the actual face of Indian security, a face that is inherently pluralistic. We see this through characters like Jaskirat Singh Rangi and Shazia Bano. Rangi embodies the stoic, unwavering bravery that has long been a pillar of the Indian armed forces. Alongside him, the film briefly highlights figures like Shazia Bano, an undercover operative whose surgical precision and anonymity represent the silent service of many.

Their interactions serve as a reminder that the ramparts of Indian security are not manned by a single identity, but by a kaleidoscopic mosaic of faiths and backgrounds. Whether it is a Sikh officer or a Muslim operative, the film reaffirms that our survival is a collective endeavor. It reflects a secular reality where duty precedes identity, and where the fight against destabilization is a shared burden. Ultimately, the resonance of Dhurandhar lies in its ability to close the gap that has haunted Indian storytelling for decades.

It speaks to the everyday citizen who has grown up hearing about “incidents” and “threats” but rarely saw them presented with such coherence and agency. The debates surrounding the film are essential because they signal that India is no longer indifferent to how its story is told. For the person sitting in the darkened theatre, this is a moment of profound recognition. They are seeing the challenges they felt and the heroes they knew existed but rarely saw honoured on screen. At long last, the story finally belongs to them.

(The writers are, respectively, a spokesperson of the Bhartiya Janata Party, and a lawyer and public policy analyst.)

Germany is discovering that economic strength alone cannot compensate for demographic decline. As its workforce ages and birth rates remain low, the country is being pushed into a structural dependence on foreign labour ~ not as a stopgap, but as a long-term economic necessity. What is emerging is not merely an immigration trend, but a reconfiguration of how advanced economies sustain themselves. Into this gap steps India, with a demographic profile that is almost the mirror opposite.

With hundreds of millions of young people and limited capacity to absorb them into well-paying domestic jobs, India has long exported talent. What is new, however, is the nature of that export. For decades, the global image of Indian migration was tied to software engineers, doctors, and other highly educated professionals. That narrow channel is now widening into something far more economically consequential. Germany’s outreach to Indian workers is increasingly focused on vocational and mid-skill roles ~ bakers, mechanics, drivers, caregivers ~ occupations that are essential but unattractive to younger Europeans. This marks a significant shift.

It suggests that the future of global labour mobility will not be confined to elite skills, but will extend deep into the backbone of everyday economies. A quieter consequence may unfold within India itself. As vocational pathways abroad become more attractive, domestic attitudes toward skilled trades could begin to shift, challenging long-standing preferences for white-collar careers. This may gradually elevate the status of technical training, but it could also intensify competition for certified skills at home, forcing Indian industry to rethink wages, training quality, and retention in sectors it has long undervalued. Policy is catching up with necessity.

Bilateral arrangements such as the Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement signed in 2022, along with a sharp expansion in skilled worker visas, indicate that Berlin is moving from ad hoc recruitment to a more institutionalised pipeline. Private intermediaries and training programmes are emerging to bridge language, certification, and cultural gaps. In effect, a transnational labour market is being engineered in real time. Yet this convergence is not without tension. For Germany, reliance on foreign workers raises questions about integration, social cohesion, and long-term dependence. For India, the outward flow of young workers ~ especially those with technical training ~ could deepen domestic skill shortages even as it boosts remittances.

The arrangement is mutually beneficial, but not without asymmetries. More fundamentally, this moment reveals a broader truth about the global economy: demographic imbalances are beginning to override traditional boundaries of nation, skill, and class. Countries with ageing populations will increasingly compete for workers, while those with youth surpluses will become suppliers in a global labour marketplace that is more structured, and perhaps more unequal, than before. The Germany-India corridor is an early example of this shift. If it expands at scale, it may redefine not just migration patterns, but the very idea of where work belongs ~ and who moves to sustain it.

A slowdown in core infrastructure sectors is often treated as a passing statistical blip. It rarely is. When the industries that power an economy ~ energy, transport inputs, and basic materials ~ lose momentum simultaneously, they reveal stresses that are usually building out of sight. What appears as a modest deceleration is, in fact, a signal that the system is running into constraints it cannot easily shake off.

The recent weakening in February ~ before the war in West Asia began – across key sectors is especially telling because it is not demand alone that is faltering. Energy-linked segments ~ crude oil, natural gas, and refinery outputs – are showing strain, pointing to deeper supply-side fragilities. These are not sectors that fluctuate lightly; they sit at the base of industrial activity. When they contract, the effect is not contained. It travels outward, raising input costs, squeezing margins, and dampening investment appetite across the board. What complicates the picture is timing.

This softening has emerged even before external shocks ~ particularly geopolitical tensions in West Asia ~ fully translate into sustained energy price volatility. That matters. It suggests that the economy is entering a period of external uncertainty from a position that is already less robust than headline growth numbers might imply. In such a scenario, shocks do not merely disrupt; they amplify existing weaknesses. Policymakers may take comfort in fiscal headroom and ongoing capital expenditure programmes, but these levers work with a lag. Infrastructure spending can sustain demand, yet it cannot immediately resolve bottlenecks in fuel supply or global price shocks. Without addressing these constraints, stimulus risks cushioning symptoms rather than correcting the underlying imbalance. There is also a structural asymmetry becoming visible.

Gains in sectors like steel and coal, while important, are not broad-based enough to compensate for the drag elsewhere. Infrastructure growth works best when it is synchronised ~ when energy, construction materials, and industrial inputs move in tandem. A fragmented pattern of growth, where a few sectors outperform while others stall, leads to inefficiencies that ripple through production cycles. This has direct implications for industrial output and, by extension, economic growth. A moderation in the Index of Industrial Production is not just a statistical adjustment; it reflects a slowing conversion of inputs into finished economic activity.

Over time, this feeds into employment, income generation, and consumption ~ areas that have so far been cited as buffers of resilience. The larger question, then, is whether domestic demand can continue to offset these pressures. Consumption has held up, aided by public spending and relative macroeconomic stability. But demand cannot indefinitely compensate for rising input costs and tightening supply conditions. At some point, higher energy prices and weaker industrial throughput begin to erode purchasing power and investment confidence. What is unfolding is less a cyclical dip and more an early-stage stress test. If external disruptions persist, the slowdown in core sectors could evolve into a more entrenched constraint on growth. The risk is not of a sharp downturn, but of a gradual loss of momentum ~ harder to detect, and harder to reverse.

Iran has land borders with seven countries ~ Iraq (1,600 km approx.), Turkmenistan (1,150 km approx.), Afghanistan (920 km approx.), Pakistan (910 km approx.), Azerbaijan (690 km approx.), Turkey (530 km approx.) and Armenia (45 km approx.). Across waters, its maritime neighbours include Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain. This geographical understanding is necessary as the US-Israel led War on Iran has led cornered Iranians to strike selected targets across neighbouring countries as part of an escalation to a regional war, deliberately spread by Iran.

Countries chosen to be counterattacked by Iran are those that are considered US allies or have strategic US assets. Naturally, countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar have been subjected to Iranian missile or drone attacks. The recent ‘hit’ of the major gas facility at Qatar, is one such carefully chosen target. Even co-sectarian Azerbaijan has reportedly been targeted by the Iranians (though disputedly so) as it is a rare Israeli ally in the region. Counterintuitively, while Israel had provided up to 70 per cent of all militaristic hardware to Shiite-Azerbaijan, the high temple of Shiite sensibilities i.e., Iran, had supported Azerbaijan’s predominantly Christian rival, Armenia, in the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia War.

Most Arab Sheikhdoms are automatic targets of Iran as they have been staunch US allies; they have hosted US military bases, and some have even pursued the Abrahamic Accords with Israel. Qatar and Oman were notable oddities, in that Iran refused to attack them initially. The reason was simple, Tehran initially viewed Qatar and Oman as neutral middlemen or mediators, who offered their services for communicating with the US-Israel duo, earlier. Historically also, Qatar and Oman had maintained positive relations with Iran (unlike other Arab Sheikhdoms), despite being predominantly Sunni-dominated.

Therefore, Iran wanted to avoid opening too many fronts and inadvertently uniting the theatre. But that stand changed after Iran’s South Pars gas field (shared with Qatar) was attacked. Iran was left with no choice but to indulge in energy symmetry by targeting Qatar’s LNG facilities. Also given that the US did have major military bases in Qatar (AL Udeid Air Base is the biggest military base in the region) and Oman has had strategic “Access Agreements” with the US that allow usage of Omani airbases and ports ~ the shift in stand was justified in Iranian eyes.

Logic soon morphed to that if they were US allies and supporting the ‘enemy’ (read, the US), then they are fair game to be attacked. However, one neighbouring country which remains untargeted, even though Iran has had an uneasy past with it, and is yet again becoming a close ally of the US, is Pakistan. In fact, both countries support militant groups across each other’s borders. Both have conducted retaliatory cross-border strikes against such groups. The two have punted on rival factions in the Afghanistan theatre. There is also sectarian dissonance as Iran is predominantly Shia, and Pakistan is predominantly, Sunni, with a track record of suppressing their respective minorities.

And most importantly, even though the US no longer has a military base in Pakistan anymore (after the Shamsi Airfield was closed) ~ Islamabad has been fawning, courting, and obsequiously falling-over backwards, to ingratiate itself with Washington DC and with US President Donald Trump, in particular. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has generously called Trump a ‘man of peace’ and openly supported his candidature for the Nobel Peace Prize for ostensibly stopping wars. Besides praising the Pakistani political leadership, Trump has been unusually vocal about the top Pakistani Military leader, Asim Munir, by calling him “my favourite Field Marshal”, “great, great, guy” and even said that meeting him was “an honour”! Now, given this recent and desperate wooing of the US by the Pakistanis ~ a question arises if the Iranians could target Pakistan next? After all, the Pakistanis are hardcore allies of Arab Sheikhdoms like Saudi Arabia and UAE, and have strong militaristic tie-ups and mutual- commitments to safeguard each other in any eventuality.

The 910 km long Iran-Pakistan border is also ‘softly’ manned on both sides, as both countries have far greater conventional military threats on other fronts. If the current War on Iran is focused on its Southern/Central military bases, ports and facilities ~ the Pakistani build-up is similarly focused along the Durand Line (Af-Pak border) and the Line-of-Control (along with India). This situationally also makes a potential Iranian strike against the Pakistanis relatively easy. So, what stops Iran from building even more ‘indirect political pressure’ by opening yet another big front ~ with Pakistan ~ to escalate the war, and push the US and its allies to call for restraint and negotiations. Perhaps the prohibitive ‘cost’ (military, financial, and diplomatic) of opening yet another front and the risk of getting stretched too thin, weighs on the mind of Iran.

Secondly, China along with Russia remains a major Iranian support, at least diplomatically. With substantial Chinese stakes in Pakistan e.g. assets like the Gwadar port as part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the Chinese may have cut a side-deal and secured their interests to the consequential benefit of Pakistan. Also, unlike many Arab Sheikhdoms, Pakistan has specifically denied the US the right to use it as a launching base to target Iran. Islamabad is also supposedly ‘neutral’ and has offered to mediate talks between the US and Iran.

However, if the situation evolves dramatically and that ‘forces’ Pakistan to take a side in the war owing to multiple pressure points, it too could attract Iranian attention. There are crippling economic reasons for Islamabad to not forego its ‘neutrality’ and get entangled on the third front (after India and Afghanistan) ~ but its increasing reliance on the US (therefore susceptible to Trump’s coercion) and prior commitments towards ensuring the security of some Arab Sheikhdoms could make it difficult for Pakistan to continue its ‘neutrality.’ For the Iranians, Pakistani territory always affords the only ‘nuclear targets’ in the region, should things take a decidedly sectarian turn, or if Iran wants to dramatize the war. So far both Iran and Pakistan are treading carefully and avoiding stepping on each other’s toes, but the situation is fast evolving, and nothing can be ruled out.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)

India is not a “dalal nation” like Pakistan in global geopolitics, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said during an all-party meeting called by the government to brief the Opposition on the Middle East conflict.

According to reports, the minister made the remarks after Opposition MPs highlighted that Pakistan is reportedly mediating talks between the United States and Iran while New Delhi is sitting silent.

He also reportedly told the attendees that Pakistan has been “used” by the US since 1981 and that there is nothing new in such mediation efforts.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday publicly offered to host the US-Iran peace talks. US President Donald Trump had posted a screenshot of Sharif’s X post on X, apparently endorsing the idea.

The United States and Iran have been talking to each other through regional intermediaries. Before calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday, Trump had spoken to Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir.

After their conversation, Sharif had spoken to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the conflict.

Pakistan, a country that has long been accused of sponsoring terrorism, playing the mediator’s role between the US and Iran has sparked concerns.

The Opposition has been questioning the government’s foreign policy, with Congress leader Tariq Anwar slamming the government for being a “mute spectator”.

“Pakistan is performing the mediator’s role while we are still mute spectators,” Anwar said after the all-party meeting.

He said that the meeting was unsatisfactory and reiterated the Congress party’s demand for a debate in the House.

“Meeting was unsatisfactory; Oppn’s primary demand is for debate in LS, RS on the West Asia situation,” he added.

However, Jaishankar countered the charge asserting that India is not silent on the matter and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told US President Donald Trump that the war must stop as it is harming the interests of all sides.

Pakistan relaying messages between Iran and US

A top government official in Pakistan has said that the country is relaying messages between Iran and the US with the aim to help de-escalate the West Asia conflict, according to reports.

“We are trying to broker US-Iran peace talks and have also offered Islamabad as a venue for the purpose. But it will be possible if Iran agrees to sit at the table with America,” a top official in the Shehbaz Sharif administration was quoted as saying.

He further claimed that Pakistan has handed over the US peace proposal to Iran and conveyed Tehran’s conditions to Washington.

“At the moment, Pakistan is relaying messages between the US and Iran. Islamabad not only handed over the 15-point proposal of the US to Iran but also Tehran’s demands to the Trump administration to ink a peace deal,” he added.

Iran on Wednesday rejected the 15-point US peace plan, insisting that the Islamic Republic will not allow the US President to dictate the timing of the war and end it on its own terms.

Citing an official with the knowledge of the details of the proposal, Iranian media outlet Press TV reported that Iran has set out five conditions to end the ongoing war.

“Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” Press TV quoted the Iranian official as saying.

The official further stated that Washington has been pursuing negotiations through intermediaries but Tehran views its proposal as “excessive” and disconnected from the reality of US failure on the battlefield.

The official called the US proposal “delivered via a friendly regional intermediary” a “ploy” to heighten tensions.

What are Iran’s conditions to end the war?

According to Press TV, the Iranian official outlined five conditions under which Iran would agree to end the conflict.

The Iranian conditions include a complete halt to “aggression and assassinations” by the enemy; the establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic; guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations; the conclusion of the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region.

One of the key conditions Iran has set to end the conflict is that it will continue to exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian response came after the US sent a 15-point proposal to Iran, asking the country to give up its nuclear ambitions and free the Strait of Hormuz for shipping. The US also offered to lift all sanctions and help in the country’s civil nuclear program.

US proposal to Iran asked the country to dismantle its current nuclear capabilities, pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons in the future, uranium enrichment to be stopped within Iranian territory, around 450 kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent to be handed over to the IAEA under a set timeline and dismantle nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo.

The US proposal had aslo asked Iran to stop funding proxy groups and keep the Strait of Hormuz open as a free maritime route.

In return, Iran would receive complete removal of international sanctions, US support for civilian nuclear development, including power generation at Bushehr and end of the “snapback” sanctions mechanism.

The Centre on Wednesday told political parties that more India-bound ships are expected to safely cross the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz despite the escalating conflict in West Asia, while asserting that the protection of Indian citizens, especially the diaspora in Gulf nations, remains its “primary objective.”

Opposition leaders, however, described the all-party meeting as “unsatisfactory” and demanded a full parliamentary debate.

The high-level meeting, chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh at the Parliament House complex, brought together top ministers including Home Minister Amit Shah, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, and Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, along with leaders from across the political spectrum amid growing global concern over the ongoing Iran–Israel–US conflict.

According to leaders present, the government emphasised that maritime movement critical to India’s energy and trade security is continuing. “More India-bound ships will cross the Strait of Hormuz soon,” a participant said on condition of anonymity, describing the development as a “diplomatic win” at a time when several countries are facing disruptions along key shipping routes.

Officials also highlighted a significant increase in India’s domestic gas production—from 28 per cent at the start of the conflict to nearly 60 per cent now—as part of contingency measures aimed at cushioning the impact of supply shocks triggered by the crisis.

At the core of the government’s messaging was the safety of Indian nationals in the region. “We don’t know how long the war will go on, but our main focus is to protect people,” a leader quoted the government as saying during the meeting. Another participant added, “Our people are the primary objective and the diaspora is our priority concern.”

The meeting followed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to Parliament a day earlier, in which he outlined the government’s response to the fast-evolving situation. Modi said seven empowered groups had been constituted to prepare strategies on fuel security, supply chains, fertilisers, and other critical sectors to mitigate the fallout of the conflict.

Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said after the meeting that the government had addressed all concerns raised by opposition parties. “All queries and confusion were clearly explained by the government,” he said, adding that leaders appreciated the initiative to convene the meeting at a “critical juncture.”

However, opposition leaders struck a markedly different tone. Senior Congress leader Tariq Anwar termed the meeting “unsatisfactory,” saying it fell short of providing substantive clarity. “An attempt was made to seek clarification from the government, but the meeting was unsatisfactory. It has been our longstanding demand that this issue be debated in both Houses of Parliament. Only then will people feel satisfied,” he said.

Anwar also questioned India’s diplomatic posture in the region, noting that “a conflict is already underway,” and suggested that New Delhi should play a more proactive role instead of remaining a “silent spectator.”

The opposition had earlier called for a structured debate during the ongoing Budget Session, with Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge arguing that a parliamentary discussion would ensure greater transparency and accountability.

The absence of Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi also became a political flashpoint. While Gandhi had initially cited prior commitments, his programme was later cancelled due to health concerns involving his mother, Sonia Gandhi. BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal criticised opposition leaders for skipping the meeting, accusing them of raising issues without contributing to solutions. “When the government was putting forth all matters, Rahul Gandhi and others were not present,” he said.

Despite political differences, the meeting underscored the gravity of the situation unfolding in West Asia, where escalating hostilities have disrupted critical maritime corridors, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz—a key chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes—and heightened concerns over energy security and the safety of millions of expatriates, including a large Indian community.

With tensions showing no immediate signs of easing, the government signalled that it would continue close monitoring and coordination across ministries, even as political consensus on handling the crisis remains elusive.

Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Wednesday inaugurated the International Film Festival Delhi (IFFD) 2026 at Bharat Mandapam, Pragati Maidan, marking a significant step towards establishing the capital as a global film hub.

During the ceremony, a special audio-visual film on IFFD was presented, showcasing the journey of Indian cinema and the vision behind the festival.

The event featured a grand red carpet, cultural performances, gala premieres, and live acts celebrating the richness of Indian cinema. Several distinguished artists were also felicitated.

Addressing the gathering, CM Gupta described the occasion as a historic moment for Delhi, as it establishes a strong identity on the global cinematic platform. She said that Delhi has long been a centre of art, culture, and creativity, and IFFD is a natural extension of that legacy.

She emphasised that the festival is not merely about films but a celebration of dreams, emotions, and stories that connect society. Cinema, she noted, transcends language and geographical boundaries, fostering deeper human connections and offering new perspectives.

Highlighting Delhi’s growing stature, the Chief Minister said that through this festival, the capital is securing its place on the global film map and moving forward alongside major film hubs like Mumbai, Pune, and Goa. Hosting international filmmakers and artists at a world-class venue like Bharat Mandapam reflects Delhi’s diversity and cultural vibrancy, she added.

Special initiatives such as “Her Lens” are designed to provide a platform for women filmmakers, marking a progressive step towards inclusive and empowering cinema.

The event was attended by Delhi ministers and prominent personalities, including Sharmila Tagore, Kangana Ranaut, Hema Malini, Nimrat Kaur, Vicky Kaushal, and Sanya Malhotra.

Screenings of over 125 Indian and international films, along with gala premieres and star-studded showcases, will be part of the festival.

Delhi Cabinet Minister Parvesh Verma launched a sharp attack on the previous AAP government, citing findings from the CAG report and highlighting what he termed a serious breach of public trust in the construction of the controversial “Sheesh Mahal”.
Verma opened his speech during the budget session of the Assembly highlighting how the promises made to people were in contrast with the reality that followed during the previous government’s tenure.

Recalling the early days of past regime’s governance, the minister reminded the House of the promises made to the people of the national capital, including rejection of government bungalows, official vehicles, and security. “Within 20 days, the people of Delhi were misled. The promise of simplicity turned into a symbol of luxury,” he said.
Drawing a contrast betwwen the sufferings of the people during Covid pandemic and the attitude of the ruling party, he said, “When Delhi was struggling for oxygen with families searching for hospital beds, one file alone was marked ‘Most Urgent’. That file was for the construction of a palace,” he said.

Citing the CAG findings, Verma stated that not a single file related to water supply, sewer systems, pollution control, or even COVID infrastructure was marked with similar urgency in the past eleven years.

He highlighted that back in the day, the Central government had provided Rs 787.91 crore for COVID relief but a portion of it remained underutilized, adding that, “Funds meant to save lives were not fully used, but the cost of a bungalow, the so-called ‘Sheesh Mahal’, rose from Rs 7 crore to Rs 58 crore.”
He said had the amount been used for ICU beds back in the day, it could have, thousands of lives could have been saved.

According to the minister, the long list of items related to the Sheesh Mahal included luxury furniture, imported fittings, high-value curtains, expensive chandeliers, gym equipment, multiple televisions, designer interiors, mini bars, and barbecue units. “While people were asking for hospital beds, luxury was being installed piece by piece,” he remarked.

The Minister also raised concerns about environmental and procedural issues related to Sheesh Mahal, stating that several structures were demolished, while 28 trees were cut without proper permissions to make way for the project. “Not a single permission was taken to cut trees. Structures were removed and space was cleared for this project,” he claimed.
As per Verma’s claims, an additional structure was being planned on adjacent land. “This was not just one residence. Work had already started on another structure,” he added.
He also questioned as to how the tenders were handled and approvals were granted, alleging that they were structured in a way that competition was limited to select entities, while decisions appeared to be pre-determined.

The minister pointed out that approvals, estimates, and clearances were completed in a very short time, drawing contrast to the kind of time files related to public services took, while this project moved at an unusual speed.

Following Kerala Congress leaders, party’s national president Mallikarjuna Kharge on Wednesday alleged that the CPM and BJP have a secret deal in Kerala .

Addressing a UDF election rally in Kozhikode on Wednesday, Kharge said there is a strong undercurrent between the LDF and the BJP in Kerala. A vote for the CPM is a vote for the BJP and the BJP is trying to make the CPM win in the state assembly polls. “That is why the BJP has not fielded strong candidates in many constituencies,” he added.

Kharge criticized the LDF for standing with the BJP, not with the people. “If you want change, you should vote for the UDF,” he declared.

The Congress president said Kerala would collapse if the LDF comes to power again.

Stating that there has been no development in Kerala in the last 10 years, he said that the LDF government’s achievement is the increase in the number of bars and the debt of the state.

The Congress president claimed that the state has become the “second drug capital” in India, next only to Punjab in terms of drug-related cases. He alleged that the 10-year rule of the LDF has resulted in the degradation of the health sector.

Speaking on the Sabarimala gold theft, Kharge accused the LDF government of allowing the looting of Lord Ayyappa’s gold, showing a complete lack of reverence and security. He expressed shock over the LDF government’s failure to protect even the sacred items within the shrine. Alleging that the Kerala government is actively shielding the perpetrators of the Sabarimala gold robbery, he said it has given an opportunity to all the accused in the gold robbery case to get a bail.

He claimed that instead of punishing the thieves, the government is creating opportunities for them to evade justice.

Addressing the House on Wednesday during the ongoing Budget Session, Delhi Assembly Speaker Vijender Gupta informed that another hoax call, specifically, an email, was sent to his office today.

According to the Speaker, the communication mentioned certain organisations allegedly linked to Naxalites and Pakistan-based units, and threatened an incident at 1:40 pm on Wednesday.

The Speaker further said that despite such threats, the House proceedings continued smoothly and without any interruption.

“I would further like to share that the email claimed 16 RDX-IEDs had been planted, with a plan to trigger blasts at 1:40 pm this Wednesday,” the Speaker mentioned.

He informed that in this connection, the Assembly had already forwarded the threat email received on Tuesday to the police, and the email received today has also been handed over to them.

Meanwhile, the Delhi Police Bomb Squad came to the Assembly premises again today and conducted a thorough search.

Gupta has said that the Assembly’s clear instruction to the police is to probe this matter from every possible angle.

He emphasised that it is imperative to unmask the terrorist and anti-national forces that are being encouraged or supported through various channels within this country.

“The truth behind who is providing them patronage must be revealed,” the Speaker stated.

On Tuesday, following the threat email, Speaker Gupta said that the House can’t be deterred by such threats and will keep functioning to serve the people of the national capital.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea challenging the Central government’s guidelines on playing the national song Vande Mataram at government and public functions, observing that the advisory neither imposes any penalty nor makes singing mandatory.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi termed the petition premature, noting that the guidelines were only recommendatory in nature. The Court indicated that it would examine such issues only if there were penal consequences or if compliance was made compulsory.

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly emphasised that the advisory did not compel individuals or institutions to play or sing the national song. It pointed out that the language of the guidelines itself suggested discretion, with no adverse consequences prescribed for non-compliance.

The Court also observed that, in the absence of any coercive element, the plea was based on apprehensions rather than an actual infringement of rights.

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, argued that even an advisory could lead to indirect compulsion and place pressure on individuals to conform. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on personal choice and freedom of conscience.

However, the Bench questioned whether any concrete instance of coercion or penalty had arisen and asked the petitioner to demonstrate any such compulsion.

The Court further observed that unless a person was actually forced to comply or faced consequences for non-compliance, a constitutional challenge would not arise. It indicated that if any such situation were to emerge in the future, the petitioner would be free to approach the Court again.

The Bench also remarked that administrative protocols, by themselves, do not violate constitutional rights unless backed by enforcement measures. It noted that the present challenge was based on apprehensions of discrimination, which did not have a reasonable nexus with the advisory in question.

The buzz surrounding the Congress party’s chief ministerial (CM) candidate for the 2026 Kerala assembly elections continues to dominate political discourse despite strenuous efforts by the party’s Central and state leadership to curb speculation.
The Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) is aiming to make a comeback, but internal disagreements over leadership roles and the projection of a CM face have caused friction.

Senior leaders K Sudhakaran and P K Kurien have come out in public in support of former Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala. Sudhakaran, who had publicly responded, during the seat-sharing discussion, by saying he would contest the assembly elections, was the one who started the debate over who would be the chief minister if the UDF wins . After that, P J Kurien also expressed his opinion openly.

Former KPCC president Sudhakaran, MP, has openly stated that he wants Ramesh Chennithala to become the chief minister if the UDF comes to power. He also said in an interview to the media that he would recommend Ramesh Chennithala for the post calling him a senior leader and a mature person. He clarified that he is recommending Ramesh Chennithala for the chief ministership if UDF gets the majority.

P J Kurien on Wednesday publicly said that Chennithala will become the chief minister if the UDF gets the majority in the Assembly. He made the statement while Chennithala was sitting on the stage at a UDF convention in Thiruvalla on Wednesday. “In any case, we will win when the results come and Ramesh will be the chief minister,” he asserted with confidence. “I have no doubt… Ramesh… will be the Chief Minister”.

However, Chennithala later made light of the statement, insisting that the party high command would decide who would be the CM once election results are out. He also said that the discussion about the chief minister’s post should not be raised now.

Satheesan sought to sidestep the direct “CM candidate” debate, asserting that the party does not fight elections by projecting a specific leader and that the high command would take a call on the chief minister’s post.

Rejecting the senior leader’s remark on the chief minister’s post, he clarified that this is all being said by individuals. There is no discussion on the top post in the Congress. The All India Congress Committee has a procedure where senior leaders have an understanding.

Satheesan clarified that what was done in Telangana and Karnataka will be done in Kerala after the elections.

More than nine lakh pilgrims have registered for this year’s Char Dham pilgrimage, which will begin with the opening of the portals of Gangotri and Yamunotri on April 19. The state government is expecting record footfall this season, with an average of over 30,000 devotees registering each day.

According to information shared by the state tourism department, more than 9.1 lakh devotees have registered to visit the Kedarnath, Badrinath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri shrines this season. Data from the department show that over 30,000 pilgrims have been registering daily since the process began on March 6.

In addition, the region’s largest tourism operating body, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (GMVN), has received advance bookings worth nearly ₹5 crore for its guest houses.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami expressed confidence in ensuring a safe and hassle-free pilgrimage for all devotees visiting the Char Dham shrines in the state.

“Given the state’s geographical conditions, the pilgrimage here is challenging. However, the safety of devotees will be our top priority. It is our responsibility to ensure that all pilgrims coming to Devbhoomi Uttarakhand complete their darshan without any difficulty,” Dhami said.

Dhami added that pilgrims will be provided advance disaster warnings, weather forecasts, and alerts with minimal margin of error.

“Prior to the commencement of the Yatra, officials will personally visit the routes to inspect and verify the arrangements. So far, no instructions have been issued to cap the number of devotees visiting temples during the Char Dham Yatra under normal circumstances,” the Chief Minister said, seeking to allay concerns amid speculation that the administration might limit pilgrim numbers this season.

Dhami further noted that despite repeated natural disasters in high-altitude areas last year, which disrupted the pilgrimage for over a month, more than 5.1 million devotees successfully completed their visits.

He added that this year, the state government’s priority is to ensure that no pilgrim faces inconvenience while visiting the four shrines and other parts of the state.

India on Wednesday categorically rejected the recent statement made by Pakistan in support of Kashmiri separatist leader Aasiya Andrabi, who was recently awarded life imprisonment by an NIA court, saying that Islamabad must stop “false narratives” and instead address its own human rights issues.

In a statement, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal asserted that Pakistan has “no locus standi” to comment on India’s internal and judicial matters.

However, Jaiswal added, “one is not surprised that a country, which has long been sponsoring terrorism, has come up with such a statement condoning violence and killing of innocent people.”

The MEA spokesperson further stated that instead of peddling lies and frivolous narratives, Pakistan should introspect on the grave and systematic human rights violations it continues to perpetrate.

Andrabi, the alleged chief of the proscribed women’s pro-separatist outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat, was given life imprisonment in a terror case. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in New Delhi also awarded a 30-year jail term to her two associates, Sofi Fehmida and Nahida Nasreen.

Andrabi’s group is allegedly part of the separatist organisation ‘All Parties Hurriyat Conference’ in the Kashmir valley, and the Government of India has declared it as a “banned terrorist organisation.”

The MEA spokesperson noted that such provocative remarks from Islamabad were expected, given its history of providing a safe haven to extremist elements.

He said that Pakistan “has long been sponsoring terrorism” and therefore condoning violence and killing of innocent people.

Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Wednesday, during the ongoing Budget session of the Assembly, tabled a detailed account in the House alleging serious financial irregularities in the construction of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence, widely referred to as the ‘Sheesh Mahal’.

Launching a scathing attack on the former chief minister, CM Gupta alleged that those who built a ‘Sheesh Mahal’ in Delhi have now moved into what she described as a ‘Sheesh Mahal-2’ in Punjab. She accused him of behaving like an emperor, claiming that he saw himself as a ruler and treated the people of the national capital as slaves.

On the Chief Minister’s request, the House referred the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on the matter to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities.

During the discussion, Gupta stressed that the issue was not merely about bricks, furniture, or interiors, but about exposing what she described as a ‘well-planned deception’ that had been hidden for years.

According to CM Gupta, the report also reflects a deeper moral decline, where a leader who projected himself as a representative of the common man allegedly embraced a lifestyle of excess and entitlement.

Questioning Kejriwal’s “common man” image, Gupta pointed out that he had once criticised former Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit for having 10 air conditioners; however, he himself allegedly built a residence equipped with 50 ACs and 70 fans.

Gupta also flagged concerns over the timing, noting that while Delhi was battling the COVID-19 pandemic, construction of the residence continued.

The Chief Minister further alleged that the property included high-end features such as a lift costing several lakhs to transport food, premium refrigerators, and imported coffee machines. She said as many as six private consultants were hired for different aspects of the project, including interiors, furniture, and landscaping.

Raising questions over the escalation of costs, Gupta asked how the initial estimate of ₹8 crore rose to ₹62 crore, stating that the matter requires an in-depth probe.

Presenting a detailed list, the Chief Minister alleged that the display of extravagance was not limited to Kejriwal alone, and that his associates also misused public funds extensively.

She stated that former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia spent ₹7.5 crore on his residence, while ₹2.33 crore was spent on the renovation of AAP leader Rakhi Birla’s residence. Former Speaker Ram Niwas Goel allegedly spent ₹3.23 crore.

She further claimed that former minister Gopal Rai spent ₹2.55 crore, Satyendar Jain ₹2 crore, and Imran Hussain and Rajendra Pal Gautam ₹3 crore each on upgrading their residences, while party leader and former minister Saurabh Bharadwaj spent ₹1 crore of public money on improvements to his residence.

CM Gupta argued that at a time when Delhi needed investment in roads, flyovers, and basic infrastructure, the then government focused on creating ‘world-class’ interiors for official residences.

“The promise of simplicity remained only a slogan, while the reality reflected a culture of extravagance,” Gupta alleged.

She also claimed that the residence was never opened to the public and was not used for public hearings, adding that ordinary citizens had no access.

The Chief Minister assured that her government would ensure every rupee of public money is spent on development and called for strict action against those found guilty. The House unanimously approved her proposal to refer the matter to the PAC.