#What is joint statement for India?

[arinzeture]

BRICS has declared the Gaza Strip an “inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian Territory” and called for a unified Palestinian governance under the Palestinian Authority.

BRICS also called for the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and all parts of the occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as the release of all hostages and detainees held in violation of international law.

In a joint declaration, the bloc reaffirmed its support for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and an independent State of Palestine. The statement also endorsed full Palestinian membership at the United Nations.

The member states expressed ��grave concern” over Israel’s continued military operations in Gaza and the blocking of humanitarian assistance, strongly condemning the use of starvation as a weapon of war.

Brazil’s president says the world must act to stop what he describes as an Israeli “genocide” in Gaza as leaders from 10 emerging BRICS nations gathered in Rio de Janeiro.

“We cannot remain indifferent to the genocide carried out by Israel in Gaza, the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and the use of hunger as a weapon of war,” President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told leaders from China, India and other nations on Sunday.

[hadleysmis]

Amrit the revolutionary

Much like many adaptations of Les Misérables, the character of Marius (hereinafter: Amrit) is the leader of a rebellious group which demands change and the demolishment of the current governing system.

In the movie of Kundan, Amrit is shown to carry many books. This suits his character as he is a university student as well as a revolutionary. What we don't see in detail is which exact books he carries, save for one.

Right before he begins his song of patriotism of his country as an Indian freedom fighter, we get a lingering shot on the book, 'The Indian War of Independence of 1857'.

The book, as the title says, was a historical revisionism of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. There were many wars between the British and India before the colonisation (1857-1947) spanning almost one hundred years, and this rebellion was the last before joining the British Empire.

The rebellion was a national uprising against the British authority that was increasingly consolidating power through the East India Company.

This book in particular was influenced by the histories of the French revolution, American revolution, and from the Maratha conquests.

Written by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar initially in Marathi, the book was a response to the celebrations by Great Britain on the 50th anniversary of the said Rebellion as a victory of the British Empire.

In the book, Savarkar stated that both the British and the Indians committed cruel and brutal acts during the uprising. Although he argued that the said violent acts by the Indians were justifiable given its historical context.

The side which was not justifiable was of course was the British, as Savarkar describes the gigantic force as oppressive and disproportionate. For example, a British Colonel (James George Smith Neill) had the blood of Indians on his hands in figures that were greater than all of the English people killed during the Rebellion. To reiterate, the numbers of deaths caused by one person was greater than all the loss their side faced during the Rebellion.

As the English scrubbed their histories clean, they described the aforementioned Colonel as bold, brave, and humane, while simultaneously positioning Indians as cruel. (His actions in the Rebellion so much as being described as an act stemming from 'love for humanity.')

Many British colonial tactics in multiple lands were to divide and oppress. There would be divisions in the native people which kept them from teaming up and fighting the oppressive higher power. For example, in Malaysia it was ethnicity, and in India it was religion.

This book, in contradiction to Savarkar's later works, emphasised the Hindu-Muslim unity, and the need of joint effort in the freedom of their country. Savarkar further argued that the divide between Hindus and Muslims were 'unjust and foolish' in the current times (of course, as of the book's initial publications).

As he was writing from the United Kingdom, the project of the book was received positively from the Indian nationalists in Britain as well as Indian students who had been hiding their open support or sympathy for India out of reasonable fear of the consequences.

The book was meant to direct the public eye to the Indian Independence Movement (not to be confused with the Quit India Movement).

As the British printers, publishers, and offices were against the book's creation and political statement, thereby marking it as inflammatory and seditious, there were multiple intra as well as international attempts to halt and rid of any printing process. For example, the British foreign office applied pressure on the French government to prevent the book's publication in Paris.

Of course it did end up evading the British's attempt in censorship as it was ultimately printed in the Netherlands in 1909. The copies were coated with covers of 'The Pickwick Papers' and other literary classics, and once it arrived in India, it came to be highly revered by political extremists.

The attempts at censorship did not end until the independence of India and Pakistan. As for the Indian students who were in Britain before this time, they were not able to access the contents due to its exclusion in the British Library.

An anonymous publisher rushed for a translation of the book in English. Meanwhile, as other editions published, the book was translated into Urdu, Hindi, Punjab, and Tamil. The book found another surge of print after World War II (which then would match the time of Kundan and the Quit India Movement).

Back to the film, there were many ways a freedom fighter would protest the British rule. Through this book and for the duration of his song, Amrit is shown to be an an ardent supporter of the Congress. Of course, he also names a lot of prominent figures, largely comprising of INC (Indian National Congress) members.

There are many messages and information one can take away from Amrit using the book as reasoning and engine for the rebellions which culminated into the Quit India Movement. It also, I suppose, gives a more nuance of his political stance in how the independence would be achieved. I would probably say, as it was only a brief attention on the book, that he had hoped for Hindu-Muslim unity.

Anyway, I'm researching things as I go, so I won't draw any deeper conclusions from this as I am not confident in much of history, unfortunately. As I read more about Indian history in regards to the timeline and context discussed in Kundan, I'm sure my opinions and summaries will become more solidified.

Resources I used:

Special thanks to this blog, which I used for many information and resources regarding Kundan. If you also want a brief summary of the film's events without watching the film, you can take a couple of minutes to read this blog entry:

[mariacallous]

Hello, this is Kostyantyn Nechyporenko. I’m a researcher at the Kyiv Independent’s War Crimes Investigations Unit.

In this issue of The Witness, our newsletter about Russian war crimes, I’ll talk about how Russia exploits poverty in Asian and African countries to recruit soldiers for its war against Ukraine.

On Aug. 1, 2024, the Indian government told its parliament that it knew of eight Indian citizens who died in Ukraine while serving in the Russian army. The exact number of Indians serving in the Russian military is unknown, but the government knows of 63 Indian nationals who "have sought early discharge" from the Russian army.

At the first glance, this news may seem strange. Russia’s population is almost three times bigger than Ukraine’s – why would Russia look for soldiers abroad?

Moreover, why would it recruit soldiers from the other side of the continent and spend resources on logistics instead of finding "volunteers" nearby, from the countries that are culturally closer, where people may speak Russian and have even served in an army that is similar to that of Russia?

Russia doesn’t limit itself with India. In June, the Kyiv Independent published a video of a questioning of a Nepali POW who fought for Russia in Ukraine. Russian special services send hundreds of people to conduct secret or semi-secret recruitment in dozens of countries. Ukrainian military intelligence has said that Russians are recruiting citizens of at least 21 countries for the war in Ukraine.

The list includes post-Soviet countries, as well as Serbia, and a number of countries in South Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. This list is probably not exhaustive, as videos and photos of alleged citizens of Somalia, China, Vietnam, Cameroon, and Ghana participating in the war on the side of the Russians have surfaced.

What do we know about Russia’s international recruitment and why it’s conducting it?

The recruitment is active in the countries where Russia can afford to not care about locals’ discontent, where there won't be even a diplomatic note of protest or condemnation.

It is telling that the reaction of the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry to Russian recruitment of its citizens was to propose to set up a "joint committee" with Russia to address the following issues: "payment of compensation for the deceased and the wounded, the plight of the uncontactable Sri Lankans, and the possibility of voluntary returns." Despite the obviously abusive attitude towards the Sri Lankans in the Russian military, the statement has no hint of resentment or dissatisfaction.

One might think that the point of international recruitment is to give the impression that Russia’s war is supported by a large number of countries. However, there seems to be not enough publicity to support this version. There is no evidence of a systematic public campaign by the Russian state and Kremlin-controlled media that would highlight that volunteers from around the world are joining their fight.

From what I've seen, most videos and photos of foreigners in the Russian army show that Russian recruiters tend to target poor and embattled countries.

Syria is the most appalling example. After years of brutal campaigns in support of the Assad regime, Russia is taking advantage of the country’s dire economic situation, lack of essential goods and staple foods, and many Syrians struggling to provide for their families. Some public sector employees, for example, can earn as little as $20 a month. For many Syrians, the promise of a soldier’s wage of $300 to $3,000 per month is very tempting. In addition, recruiters often promise non-combat roles, "work in the rear," or even "guarding facilities" thousands of miles away from the combat zones. Often, it’s deliberate deception.

Those who accept the offers risk ending up in so-called "meat assaults" – this is what Ukrainians call Russian tactics in which waves of infantry with little or no mechanized support attempt to wear down the defenders of Ukrainian fortified positions with continuous attacks. Such tactics are not uncommon in the Russian army, known for its blatant disregard for casualties.

This is exactly what happened to one of the Syrians who was lured to Russia with the promise of "guarding gold mines in eastern Siberia" and a tempting salary, where he quickly found himself in the ranks of the Russian army. In an audio message to his uncle, he describes how he was forced to walk over the bodies of killed soldiers and how horrified he was to see scorched earth and burned trees on battlefields.

Technically, such recruitment isn’t a war crime. But if you ask me, exploiting poverty, dire living conditions, and unemployment to send people far from home to die in an unprovoked and ill-motivated war is not just predatory recruitment. It is a crime.

Still, Russia needs more people to fight. Their tactics and strategy require many troops, no regard for casualties, and treating soldiers as “expendables.” Therefore, the search for new soldiers never stops.

One of the recruitment ads got a lot of attention on Ukrainian social media because of its somewhat comical wording and lack of consistency. It begins with the words “Contract work for real men in Moscow” and ends with “The women are back in action! Recruitment in Rostov-on-Don has opened for you!” However, those who mocked the ad missed a very important part: the ad promised a one-time bonus of 2.3 million rubles (about $25,000, a great deal of money for Russia) for signing the contract. This shows how much the Russian army needs more recruits and how unwilling the Russian leadership is to intensify the mobilization at home. Foreign mercenaries are a different case — they can be paid less, and there are no political consequences at home if they die or get seriously wounded.

As I was writing this newsletter, the military juntas of Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali sent a letter to the UN Security Council condemning Ukraine's alleged support for rebels in the Sahel. Following the successes of the Tuareg rebels in their battles against the Wagner, many Ukrainian military bloggers have speculated that they are being supported and perhaps even trained by the Ukrainian special services. Whether this is true or not is hard to say now. But Mali and Burkina Faso are definitely on the list of countries where Russians actively recruit soldiers.

This war may be taking place on the territory of just two countries in Eastern Europe, but it has truly global implications.

[eretzyisrael]

Hamas didn’t invade Israel on Oct. 7 for its amusement. The barbaric sneak attack is a part of the pogrom intended to wipe out the Jewish state. It was a crime against humanity, and not just because of its savagery. We would all be worse off if Israel ceased to exist. The same cannot be said for Islamic terrorists.

Israel’s contributions to the modern world are momentous. When not dodging bullets, rockets, and homicide bombers, Israelis have since 1948 developed:

Copaxone and Rebif, drugs that treat multiple sclerosis, and Exelon, which treats mild to moderate dementia in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients.

The PillCam, “a minimally invasive ingestible camera in a capsule that allows visualization of the small bowel.”

The water desalination process.

The Sniffphone, “that can actually ‘sniff out’ diseases.”

And SpineAssist, “​​the first-ever spine robot” that has the “ability to provide real-time intraoperative navigation.”

The Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, responsible for some of the inventions listed above, has also produced diabetes and flu vaccines, is using T-cells to treat damaged spines, and is a pioneer in industrial — and medical — uses nano materials. 

Other impactful Israeli products include drip irrigation, a revolutionary microprocessor called the 8088, the ​​NIR heart stent, voice-over-internet protocol, the ​​USB flash drive, the Waze navigation app, ReWalk, “a commercial bionic walking assistance system,” and “the first commercially viable firewall software.” 

Our own security has benefited from Israel’s labor and work ethic.

“Many Israeli innovations are present in upgrades to U.S. Air Force fighters and Army equipment,” says the international law firm Smith, Gambrell & Russell. One important advance in particular is the helmet-mounted display system for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

So we have a country of 9.23 million, mostly desert, that is only 75 years old, is “surrounded by enemies” and in a constant state of war, which has “no natural resources,” yet “produces more start-up companies on a per capita basis than large, peaceful, and stable nations and regions like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and all of Europe.” It is the only nation outside of the U.S. that Warren Buffet invests in.

Have the Palestinians or Hamas, currently at war with Israel, done anything that compares to what the Israelis have achieved? More broadly, beyond the Allahista terrorist groups, what has Islam contributed to the modern world?

Not much.

Since 1901, Jews, who total 0.2% of the world’s population, have won 189 Nobel prizes for physics, medicine, chemistry and economics. Over that same period, Muslims, who make up nearly a quarter of the global population, have won four.

If it seems as Islamic groups, Hamas and Hezbollah prominent among them, are more interested in spreading nihilism, committing atrocities, and destroying civilization than making the world a better place, well, then there’s a good reason for it. That is exactly what the heroes of an increasingly large number foolish Westerners are aiming for.

Meanwhile, Israelis see themselves “as having a role in the world to repair the world,” says Chemi Peres, managing partner and co-founder of the venture capital firm Pitango, chairman of the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation, and son of the late Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

“We call it tikkun olam, and here at the Peres Center we have a mission statement, which is to introduce innovation and new ideas and new technologies, not only for ourselves but to solve the problems of the world.”

Islam is part of that world, but too many of its adherents live to do just the opposite. 

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

[suryablogs123]

Process of Getting Mutual Consent Divorce in India

Introduction

In India, mutual consent divorce lets couples end their marriage peacefully if they both agree. They file a joint petition, settle things like child custody and alimony ( financial support one spouse pays to the other after separation or divorce. It is meant to help the dependent spouse maintain a standard of living similar to what they had during the marriage.) and attend court hearings. There’s a six-month waiting period to confirm the decision.

This process is quicker and less stressful than a contested divorce. Both partners work together to avoid long legal battles. It’s a smooth way to move on with life respectfully.

First, File the Divorce Petition

The first and foremost step in a mutual consent divorce is to file a divorce petition in the family court. This petition is jointly filed by both husband and wife, requesting the court for the separation from their marriage life. The petition should include:

Details of the marriage: Such as the date and place of marriage, and any children from the marriage.

Mutual consent: Both parties must confirm they are agreeing to the divorce voluntarily and have settled matters like alimony, property division, and child custody (if applicable).

Grounds for divorce: While mutual consent does not require proving fault, the couple must state that they are no longer able to live together peacefully.

Now the question may arise: How can I get a quick divorce? Following Once the petition is filed, the court will schedule a hearing to record both husband and wife’s statements on oath. This is the simple beginning of the divorce process which is processed by divorce attorney.

It is a formal beginning to the legal process of a parting of ways, a notice to the other party that one is indeed desirous of a dissolution of marriage.

You Both Should Have Respective Lawyers

Even though a mutual consent divorce is totally based on agreement between both husband and wife, it is still important for each person to have their own lawyer or attorney on their side at the same time you don’t know How much does it cost for divorce in India? But that is totally based on the circumstances. Having separate legal representation ensures that each spouse's rights and interests are properly protected throughout the process. Here’s why:

Independent Advice: A lawyer can provide unbiased legal advice to ensure that each spouse understands their rights, obligations, and options.

Document Preparation: Lawyers will help draft the divorce petition, settlement agreements, and any other necessary documents, ensuring everything is legally sound and meets court needs or requirements.

Representation in Court: Each lawyer represents their client during court proceedings, including the first and second motions, In order to make sure that their client's best interests are represented.

Even in a mutual consent divorce, having separate legal lawyers where the two lawyers are representing the two spouses and the divorce process is conducted fairly and properly for both of them.

The Court will Pass the Order for the Statement on Oath

Once the divorce petition is filed, the court will schedule a hearing where both husband and wife must have to appear. During this hearing, the judge will pass an order for the husband and wife to make their statements under oath or the statement of truth. This is an essential or most important step in the mutual consent divorce process, where both parties confirm that they are voluntarily seeking the separation from their marriage life with the help of mutual consent divorce.

Both spouses should confirm that they have mutually agreed on important matters such as alimony or financial support, child custody, and property division. The court will ensure that both parties fully understand the legal consequences of divorce and that their consent is genuine. This formal process ensures transparency and avoids future disputes or problems.

The statements provided in court under oath, and this step is very important because it seals the mutual consent divorce. After that, the statements are recorded and the court will review the second motion and the manner in which the divorce is to be concluded. This step makes the decision of the couple final and advances to other critical procedures that lead to the final divorce.

Cooling Period of 6 Months Given in the Hope of Reconciliation

Cooling-Off Period: After the first motion, the court typically imposes or provides a cooling-off period of 6 months in mutual consent divorce cases. This waiting period is provided by law for the couples in order to get together or for the reconciliation, reconsider before the divorce.

Purpose: The main objective or motive of this cooling-off period of 6 months is to encourage reconciliation. It provides both husband and wife an opportunity to change their decision and possibly solve their problems or resolve any differences or conflicts that have been going on before finalizing the divorce.

Opportunity for Counseling: During this period of time, the couple may consider attending counseling sessions or discussions, either voluntarily or as suggested by the court. This could help them to address their issues between both and can be an opportunity to reconsider before finalizing the divorce.

Prevents Impulsive Decisions: The cooling-off period acts as a safeguard to ensure that both parties are making a well considered and informed decision. It helps prevent rushed or impulsive or compulsive actions when emotions are running high.

Reconciliation or Withdrawal: During this time, there are a lot of possibilities that  the couple can decide to reconcile, they can request to withdraw the divorce petition. This process stops the divorce process and can lead to the happiest life for them before finalizing the judgment.

Waiver of Cooling-Off Period: In certain situations, such as if the couple has been living separately for a long time or there is an irretrievable or incurable breakdown of the marriage, the court can give the mandatory 6-month cooling-off period. In such cases, the court can proceed or move on with the second motion and finalize the divorce really very soon.

Final Step: After the cooling-off period, both husband and wife still wish to proceed or process with the divorce, the second motion is scheduled or calendered. This final motion allows the couple to confirm their decision for the divorce, and the court can then pass the final decree of divorce.

This time helps the two partners to change their mind, mediate, and seek a divorce only when he or she is sure it will be beneficial.

Final Hearing and Second Motion Timeline in Mutual Consent Divorce

The second motion in a mutual consent divorce is the final step in the divorce process. It must be filed after the cooling-off period (6 months) has passed, but within 18 months from the date of filing the initial divorce petition. This is the final hearing where both parties reaffirm their decision to divorce.

Second Motion:  After the first motion, a 6-month waiting period is typically observed to allow the couple time to reconsider both spouses must appear in court again. They confirm that they still wish to proceed with the divorce after the cooling-off period and the court will verify that they both agree to the terms of the divorce.

Timeline for Second Motion: The second motion typically occurs after the six-month cooling-off period has ended. Both parties must appear before the court together to confirm they still wish to proceed with the divorce. This must happen within 18 months from the date the first petition was filed.If both parties remain firm in their decision, the court will proceed with granting the divorce.

Final Hearing: During the final hearing, the judge ensures that all issues, such as child custody, alimony, and property division, have been settled. If everything is in order and both parties consent to the divorce, the judge will pass the final divorce decree.

Divorce Decree: Once the final hearing is complete, and the second motion is confirmed, the court will issue the divorce decree. This legally ends the marriage and makes the divorce official.

The second motion and final hearing are the final steps before the divorce is finalized. The process generally takes about 6 months to 1 year, depending on the court's schedule and the specifics of the case. Once completed, both spouses are legally divorced.

Conclusion

A mutual consent divorce in India is an easy and peaceful way for both husband and wife to end their marriage life. It involves filing a divorce petition to the court, having separate lawyers, giving statements in court as an oath, and a 6-month waiting period before the final hearing.

Once everything is agreed upon and the court gives the final decision, the divorce is complete. This process is faster and less stressful when compared to contested divorce, allowing both people to move on with their lives. In order to proceed with all these you can approach a law firm chennai.

Reference

For Futher information or if you need to know more, Just click the link Icon Legal Services for expert support.

You Can also visit or contact us through Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedin.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

By  Ryan Faircloth

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, an outspoken human rights advocate in Congress, traveled to Qatar last year on the Middle Eastern country's dime, according to her annual financial disclosure filed in May.

Qatar has been widely criticized for abusing migrant workers and criminalizing same-sex relationships, among other alleged human rights issues. Omar attended the FIFA World Cup and met with Qatari government officials while she was in the Gulf nation last November and had her food and lodging paid for by the country. The cost of her trip wasn't disclosed.

A spokesman for Omar said the congresswoman "remains committed to upholding human rights and the rule of law around the world, and also to direct engagement with the regimes responsible for human rights abuses."

"That includes accountability for the vile labor practices and mistreatment of migrant workers in Qatar," spokesman Jeremy Slevin said in a statement Monday. "To that end, she sent a letter demanding accountability for these abuses ahead of the World Cup and specifically raised her deep concerns in her meetings with Qatari officials. She also visited our troops stationed in Qatar and got the opportunity to meet with the folks helping us with Afghan resettlement in Qatar."

-

-

Omar has been an outspoken critic of countries such as Israel and India in response to their human rights records. In July, she tweeted that there was "no way in hell" she'd attend the Israeli president's speech to Congress.

A month before that, she also made a point of not attending India Prime Minister Narendra Modi's joint congressional speech. Omar tweeted that her opposition was over "his government's human rights record."

In an interview with Business Insider about her Qatar trip last December, Omar said "there are no perfect countries that have a perfect record." She suggested that the next World Cup in 2026, which will be hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, could spark similar discussions.

"I wonder what kinds of conversations will be had, and how many people will object to that happening with the history of Indigenous people, of enslavement, of police brutality," Omar told Business Insider.

[theculturedmarxist]

U.S. foreign policy has set the country on a course destined to lead to a world of rivalry, strife and conflict into the foreseeable future. Washington has declared “war” on China, on Russia, on whomever partners with them.

That “war” is comprehensive — diplomatic, financial, commercial, technological, cultural, ideological. It implicitly fuses a presumed great power rivalry for dominance with a clash of civilizations: the U.S.-led West against the civilizational states of China, Russia and potentially India.

Direct military action is not explicitly included but armed clashes are not absolutely precluded. They can occur via proxies as in Ukraine. They can be sparked by Washington’s dedication to bolster Taiwan as an independent country.

A series of formal defense reviews confirm statements by the most senior U.S. officials and military commanders that such a conflict is likely within the decade. Plans for warfighting are well advanced. This feckless approach implicitly casts the Chinese foe as a modern-day Imperial Japan despite the catastrophic risks intrinsic to a war between nuclear powers.

The extremity of Washington’s overreaching, militarized strategy intended to solidify and extend its global dominance is evinced by the latest pronouncement of required war-fighting capabilities.

Recommendations just promulgated by the congressional bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission include developing and fielding “homeland integrated air and missile defenses that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.”

They were endorsed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley in his post-retirement interview where he proposed adding up to $1 trillion to the current defense budget in order to create the requisite capabilities.

President Joe Biden, in his weekend interview on 60 Minutes, reiterated the dominating outlook with buoyant optimism:

“We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake!; the most powerful nation in the history of the world.”

This is the same country whose war-fighting record since 1975 is one win, two draws and four losses — or five losses if we include Ukraine. (That tabulation excludes Granada which was a sort of scrimmage). Moreover, the U.S. stock of 155mm artillery ammunition is totally exhausted – as is that of its allies.

No Discussion

This historic strategic judgment is heavily freighted with the gravest implications for the security and well-being of the United States — and will shape global affairs in the 21st century.

Yet, it has been made in the total absence of serious debate in the country-at-large, in Congress, within the foreign policy community, in the media and — most astonishing — at the highest levels of the government as well.

The last lapse is evinced by the superficiality of the statements issued by Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Milley and their associates.

We have heard nothing in the way of a sober, rigorous explication of why and how China or Russian poses so manifest a threat as to dictate committing ourselves to an all-out confrontation.

Nor do we hear mention of alternative strategies, their pluses and minuses, nor are there candid expositions of the costs that will be incurred in their implementation. Most certainly, silence reigns as to what happens if this audacious, all-or-nothing strategy fails — in whole or in part.

The stunning rise of China along with the reemergence of Russia as a formidable power are developments apparent to attentive observers for quite some time.

For Russia, the landmark dates can be identified.

Russian Milestones

The first was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007. There, he made clear his rejection of the Western script that relegated Russia to a subordinate position in a world system organized according to principles and interests defined largely by the United States.

Whether fashioned as neo-liberal globalization or, practically speaking, American hegemony, it was unacceptable. Instead, Putin set forth the twin concepts of multipolarity and multilateralism. While emphasizing the sovereign status and legitimate interest of all states, his vision did not foresee conflict or implacable rivalry. Rather, it was envisaged demarcating international dealings as a collective enterprise that aimed at mutual gain based on mutual respect for each other’s identity and core interests.

Washington, though, interpreted it otherwise. In their minds, Putin had thrown a monkey wrench into the project of fashioning a globalized world overseen by the United States and its partners.

President George W. Bush’s administration made the judgment that an irksome Russia should be fenced-in and its influence curbed. That objective animated the campaign to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, the sponsorship of the doomed Georgian attack on disputed South Ossetia, on the attempt to block the building of a new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and on setting strict terms for commercial exchanges.

It culminated in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev and the bolstering of Ukraine as a power that could keep Russia in its place. The rest of that story we know.

Then, the image of Putin as a diabolical Machiavellian who works relentlessly to cripple the U.S. was given a thick layer of varnish by the Russiagate charade — a scheme concocted by presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton and her allies in order to explain how she could lose an election against somebody who started the fall campaign with a personal unfavorable poll rating of 67 percent.

The Chinese Challenge

The confrontation with China is not marked by equally clear events or decision points. Designation of China as the challenger to the U.S. position as global supremo crystallized more gradually.

It was the Middle Kingdom’s growing strength in every dimension of national power and capacity that stirred first anxiety and then fear. This challenging rival had become a threat to the foundational belief in U.S. exceptionalism and superiority. Hence, an existential threat in the truest sense.

(“This town ain’t big enough for both of us!” is a familiar line to Americans for the way it punctuates showdowns in hundreds of Westerns. Now it has spilled into foreign policy as a neat summation of Washington’s attitude toward Beijing. Instead, how about inviting the other guy for a drink at the Long Branch and a long talk? Dutch treat.)

The string of disputes over this or that issue were symptoms rather than the cause of the antagonism mixed with dread that has led the U.S. to treat China as a mortal foe. When we look at the chronology of events, it becomes evident that the U.S. bill of indictment does not come close to justifying that conclusion.

The fashionable — now official — view is that it’s all China’s fault.

President Xi Jinping & Co supposedly spurned the opportunity to join the outward-looking community of liberal nations; they have grown increasingly repressive at home — thereby, disqualifying themselves from partnership with the democracies; they have been aggressive in pushing their territorial claims in the South China Sea; they have not composed their differences with neighbors, most importantly Japan; and they have deviated from the Western (i.e. American line) toward Iran while mediating a modus vivendi with Saudi Arabia.

Closer to home, China is accused of operating extensive spying networks in the United States designed to purloin valuable high technology; of systematically manipulating commercial dealings to their advantage; and they are extending their cultural influence in a porous American society.

In this bill of indictment no reference is made to dubious actions by the United States. Washington’s record as a global citizen is less than impeccable. Specifically in reference to China, it is Washington that made what are by far the most provocative moves.

Let’s recall the jailing of Huawei’s CFO in Vancouver at the Trump White House’s insistence on specious grounds (violation of Washington’s own illegal sanctions campaign against Iran) in order to thwart the company’s success in becoming a dominant player in the IT field. Former President Donald Trump himself admitted as much in stating that the United States might refrain from pursuing her prosecution were China ready to concede to his demands in the bilateral trade negotiations.

The ultimate provocation has been the series of steps in regard to Taiwan that signaled clearly Washington’s intention to prevent its integration into the PRC. Thereby, it crossed the most indelible of red lines — one that the United States itself had helped draw and had observed for half a century. It is tantamount to an Old Europe aristocrat slapping another in the face with his gloves in public. An unmistakable invitation to a duel that precludes negotiation, mediation or compromise.

Not Just a Rival

The United States finds it far easier to deal with manifest enemies, e.g. the U.S.S.R., than sharing the international stage with countries that match it in strength whatever degree of threat it poses to American national security.

The latter is far harder for Americans to handle — emotionally, intellectually, diplomatically.

Hence, the growing tendency to characterize China as not just a rival for global influence but as a menace. That results in a caricature of China’s ambitions and a downplaying of prospects for fostering a working relationship among rough equals.

An enormous amount of energy is being put into this delusional enterprise. The target is America itself. The project is a bizarre form of conversion therapy designed to substitute a confected version of reality for the irksome real thing.

Stunning evidence of this self-administered treatment is available on a routine basis in the pages of The New York Times. Every day we are treated to two or three long stories about what’s wrong with China, its trials and tribulations. No occurrence is too recondite or distant to be exempt from being used in an exaggerated diagnosis of social or political illness. The extremes to which the editors go in this re-education program is pathological.

The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.

By time that the Biden administration arrived in office, the scene had been set for the declaration of war and the taking of concrete steps in that direction. But it’s odd that such a momentous commitment should be made by such a lackluster team of individuals with a diminished, distracted president as its nominal head. That can be attributed to two factors.

First is the dogmatic worldview of the principals. Their outlook represents an absorption of Paul Wolfowitz’s notorious memo of 1992 laying out a manifold strategy for consolidating and extending U.S. world dominance in perpetuity.

Second is the neocon passion to shape other countries in the U.S. image. That blend was laced with a dash of old-fashioned Wilsonian idealism along with a drizzle of humanitarianism from the Responsibility to Protect movement (R2P).

[Related: Chris Hedges: R2P Caused Libya’s Nightmare]

This potent brew had become orthodoxy for nearly all of the U.S. foreign policy community. In addition, a rudimentary version has gained the adherence of the political class and has shaped the thinking of Congress to whatever extent its members do any thinking about external relations beyond habitual resort to convenient hackneyed slogans.

Alternative No. 1

Objectively speaking, alternatives did exist.

The first we might call inertial ad-hocism. Its features would have been the continued segmentation of the country’s external dealings into more-or-less discrete packets — geographical and functional.

The Middle East’s two sub-categories: Israel and the Gulf; the desultory “War On Terror” wherever; the aggressive promotion of neo-liberal globalization featuring the ensconcing of a heteroclite corporate/technocratic/political elite as guides and overseers; bilateral relations with new economic powers like India and Brazil to bring them into the neo-liberal orbit; business-as-usual with the rest of the Global South.

As for China and Russia, one would be treated as a formidable rival and the other as an overreaching nuisance to be stymied in places in Syria and Central Asia. Concrete steps to counteract the Chinese commercial and technological challenge would have been taken either unilaterally or in hard-nosed direct bargaining. Support for Taiwan would have increased but stopped short of ruffling Beijing’s feathers by calling into question the One-China Principle.

The foundational premise of this approach is that an ever-deepening neo-liberal system would pull China into its field as a politico-economic centrifugal magnet. Hence, by an incremental process a potential challenge to American-Western hegemony would be gradually neutralized, avoiding a direct confrontation.

Russia, for its part, could be treated more roughly: the post-2014 sanctions tightened, its approaches in Syria and on other matters rebuffed and the quiet build-up of Ukraine continued. This, in essence, was the tack taken by former President Barack Obama and Trump.

Today’s uniform assumption that a momentous battle with the Chinese is written in the stars, the culmination of a zero-sum rivalry for global dominance, is of relatively recent vintage.

Not so long ago, the consensus was that the most sensible strategy composed two elements.

The first was peaceful engagement emphasizing economic interdependence leading to China’s participation in a more-or-less orderly world system whose rules-of-the-road might have to undergo some modification but where power politics was restrained and contained.

(Regarding the restructuring of existing international organizations, the IMF stands out. Since its post-war founding, the United States has held veto power over any or all of its actions. It adamantly refuses to relinquish it despite the drastic shifts in the constellation of global financial and monetary power. Hence, the IMF serves as a de facto subsidiary of the State Department. This state of affairs soon will prove absolutely unacceptable to China and the BRICs.)

The second was a measure of military balancing to remove any temptation as might exist in Beijing for empire-building while reassuring neighbors. The open question focused on exactly where and how the balance should be struck.

That was the prevailing perspective until roughly the second Obama administration. These days, that approach has lost its place in the mainstream of foreign policy discourse. There is no fixed day or event, though, that marks the abrupt and sharp change of course.

This disjointed incremental line of approach has its advantages despite its leaning toward conflict. Paramount is that it avoids locking the United States into a position of implacable hostility vis a vis China. There is no embedded logic propelling us toward armed conflict. It implicitly leaves open the possibility of U.S. thinking moving in a more positive direction.

Whatever the odds of such an evolution occurring, and on the arrival in the White House of a president with the bold vision of a true statesman, such a development would not be excluded as it is by the current mobilization for generational “war.”

Alternative No. 2

There is another, radical alternative grounded on the belief that it is feasible to fashion a long-term strategy of nurturing ties of cooperation with Russia and China. Taking some form of partnership, it would be grounded on a mutual commitment to the maintenance of political stability and fashioning mechanisms for conflict avoidance. This is by no means as far fetched as first glance might suggest — in concept.

The idea of a great power concert comes to mind. However, we should envisage an arrangement quite different from the historic Concert of Europe that emerged at the Conference of Vienna in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.

One, the objective would not be a buttressing of the status quo by the dual strategy of refraining from armed conflict among the underwriting states and suppressing revolutionary movements that could endanger existing monarchies. Its attendant features were the concentration of custodial power in the Big 5 co-managers of the system; the stifling of political reform across Europe; and the disregard of forces appearing outside their purview.

By contrast, a contemporary partnership among the major powers would presume a responsibility for taking the lead in designing a global system based on the mutually reinforcing tenets of openness, sovereign equality and the promotion of policies that deliver plus-sum outcomes.

Rather than rule by a directorate, international affairs would be structured by international institutions modified in terms of philosophy, multilateral decision-making and a measure of devolution that empowers regional bodies.  There would be an established pattern of consultation among those governments whose economic weight and military capacity quite naturally should be expected to play an informal role in performing system maintenance functions and facilitating the involvement of other states. Legitimacy would be established through conduct and performance.

The drastic fall in respect for U.S. world leadership will facilitate that process — as the BRICs’ successes already demonstrate.

The crucial starting point for such a project is a meeting of the minds among Washington, Beijing and Moscow — accompanied by dialogue with New Delhi, Brasilia et al.

There is reason to believe that conditions, objectively speaking, have been conducive to an undertaking of this order for several years. However, it was never recognized in the West, much less seriously considered — an historic opportunity lost.

“The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.”

The most significant sufficient factor is the temper of Chinese and Russian leadership. Xi and Putin are rare leaders. They are sober, rational, intelligent, very well informed and capable of broad vision.

(China’s traditional goal always has been to exact deference from other countries while bolstering their own strength — not to impose an imperium on them. Much less do they share the American impulse to arrange the affairs of the entire world according to a universalization of their own unique civilization.  Therein lies an opportunity to avoid a “war of transition.”

However, there is no American leader on the horizon who recognizes this overarching reality and who seems prepared to grasp the opportunity to “bend the arc of history.”  Obama briefly toyed with the idea — before relapsing into the stale rhetoric of American exceptionalism: “We’re number One — you better believe it. Nobody else is even close!”)

While dedicated to securing their national interests, above all the well-being of their peoples, neither Xi nor Putin harbor imperial ambitions. And both have long tenures as heads of state. They have the political capital to invest in a project of this magnitude and prospective. Washington, unfortunately, has not had leaders of similar character and talents.

As for U.S. allies, no counsel of restraint can be expected from that quarter. Those loyal vassals have moved from being craven irrelevancies to active, if junior, partners in crime.

An Odious Spectacle

It is stomach-churning to observe the leaders of Europe lining up for slap-on-the-back meetings with Bibi Netanyahu in Tel Aviv while he inflicts atrocities on Gazans. Barely a word of concern for 2 million civilians, just the hurried dispatch of more weapons diverted from the Ukrainian killing fields.  This odious spectacle was eclipsed by Biden’s disgraceful performance this week in Jerusalem.

Summit meetings by Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden always have concentrated on either small-bore issues or instruction on what their opposite number should be doing so as to conform to the U.S. view of the world. Both are wastes of precious time insofar as the imperative to foster a long-term, common global perspective is concerned.

The sensible approach to inaugurate a serious dialogue might be a president with statesmanlike qualities who sits down alone with Putin and Xi for an open-ended session and asks such questions as: “What do you want, President Putin/President XI? How do you see the world 20 years from now and your country’s place in it?”

Would they be prepared to expound an articulate response?  Putin certainly would. That is exactly what he has been proposing since 2007 — on numerous occasions vocally or in his writings.  Instead, he was stonewalled, and — since 2014 — treated as a menacing pariah to be defamed and personally insulted.

Here is Barack Obama’s take:

“The Russian President is a ‘physically unremarkable’ man, likened to ‘the tough, street-smart ward bosses who used to run the Chicago machine.”

This comment from Obama’s first volume of his published memoirs, The Promised Land, says more about his own inflated yet vulnerable ego than Putin’s character.

In fact, it was the Chicago machine along with money and encouragement from the Pritzker network that made Obama what he became.

Contrast: when Bismarck met Disraeli at the 1878 Berlin Conference — going so far as to invite him, a Jew, home twice for meals — he did not nag the British prime minister about trade restrictions on German exports of textiles and metallurgical goods or the systematic British abuse of tea plantation workers in Assam.

Nor did he comment on the man’s physique. Bismarck was a serious statesman, unlike the people in whose custody we place the security and well-being of our nations.

The upshot is that Putin and Xi seem puzzled by feckless Western counterparts who disregard the elementary precepts of diplomacy. That should be a concern as well — except by those who intend to conduct the U.S. “war” in a linear manner that pays little attention to the thinking of other parties.

The vitriol that is thrown at Putin with such vehemence by his Western counterparts is something of a puzzle. It is manifestly disproportionate to anything that he has done or said by any reasonable measure — even if one distorts the underlying story of Ukraine.

Obama’s condescension suggests an answer. At its core, their attitude reflects envy. Envy in the sense that he is subconsciously recognized as clearly superior in attributes of intelligence, knowledge of contemporary issues and history, articulateness, political savvy and – most certainly – diplomatic skill.

Try to imagine any U.S. leader emulating Putin’s performance in holding three-hour open Q & A sessions with citizens of all stripes — responding directly, in detail, coherently and with good grace. Biden? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz? British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? French President Emmanual Macron? Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission? Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallis?

Even Obama, from whom we’d get canned sermons cast in high-minded language that distills into very little. That’s why the West’s political class assiduously avoids paying attention to Putin’s speeches and press conferences — out of sight, out of mind.

Act in reference to the make-believe cartoon instead of the real man.

The Ukraine Era

These days, in the Ukraine era, the rigid Washington consensus is that Vladimir Putin is the quintessential brutal dictator — power mad, ruthless and with only a tenuous grip on reality.

Indeed, it has become commonplace to equate him with Hitler — as done by such leading lights of the U.S. power elite as Hillary Clinton and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with “opinion makers” galore. Even 203 noble Nobels lend their collective brains and celebrity credentials to an “open letter” whose second sentence pairs Russia’s attack on Ukraine with Hitler’s assault on Poland in September 1939.

Sadly, the idea that those who make those decisions should bother to know what they are talking about is widely deemed as radical if not subversive.

In regard to Putin, there is absolutely no excuse for such painful ignorance. He has presented his views on how Russia visualizes its place in the world, relations with the West and the contours/rules of a desired international system more comprehensively, historically informed and coherently than has any national leader I know of.  Shouted declarations “we’re No. 1 and always will be – you better believe it” (Obama) are not his style.

The point is that you may be troubled by his conclusions, question his sincerity, suspect hidden strands of thought, or denounce certain actions. However, doing so has no credibility unless one has engaged the man based on what is available — not on cartoon caricatures. So, too, should we recognize that Russia is not a one-man show, that it behooves us to consider the more complex reality that is Russian governance and politics.

President Xi of China has escaped the personal vilification thrown at Putin — so far.  But Washington has made no greater effort to engage him in the sort of discourse about the future shape of Sino-American relations and the world system for which they are destined to be primary joint custodians.

Xi is more elusive than Putin. He is far less forthright, more guarded and embodies a political culture very different from that of the United States or Europe. Still, he is no dogmatic ideologue or power-mad imperialist. Cultural differences too easily can become an excuse for avoiding the study, the pondering and the exercise in strategic imagination that is called for. 

Shaping the World Structure

The approach outlined above is worth the effort – and low costs that it entails. For it is the understandings among the three leaders (and their senior colleagues) that are of the utmost importance.

That is to say, agreed understandings as to how they view the shape and structure of world affairs, where their interests clash or converge, and how to meet the dual challenge of 1) handling those points of friction that may arise, and 2) working together to perform ‘system maintenance’ functions in both the economic and security realms.

At the moment, there is no chance that American leaders can muster the gumption, or have the vision, to set out on this course. Neither Biden and his team, nor their Republican rivals are up to it.

In truth, American leaders are psychologically and intellectually not capable of thinking seriously about the terms for sharing power with China, with Russia or with anybody else – and developing mechanisms for doing so over different timeframes.

Washington is too preoccupied with parsing the naval balance in East Asia to reflect on broad strategies. Its leaders are too complacent about the deep faults in our economic structures, and too wasteful in dissipating trillions on chimerical ventures aimed at exorcising a mythical enemy to position ourselves for a diplomatic undertaking of the sort that a self-centered America never before has faced.

A drive to revalidate its presumed virtue and singularity now impels what the U.S. does in the world. Hence, the calculated stress placed on slogans like “democracy versus autocracy.” That is a neat metaphor for the uneasy position in which Uncle Sam finds himself these days, proudly pronouncing enduring greatness from every lectern and altar in the land, pledging to uphold a standing as global No. 1 forever and ever.

But the U.S. is also constantly bumping its head against an unaccommodating reality. Instead of downsizing the monumental juggernaut or applying itself to a delicate raising of the arch, it makes repeated attempts to fit through in a vain effort to bend the world to fit its mythology. Invocation of the Concussion Protocol is in order — but nobody wants to admit that sobering truth.

This is close to a condition that approximates what the psychologists call “dissociation.”  It is marked by an inability to see and to accept actualities as they are for deep-seated emotional reasons.  

The tension generated for a nation so constituted when encountering objective reality does not force heightened self-awareness or a change in behavior if the dominant feature of that reality is the attitudes and expressed opinions of others who share the underlying delusions.

Michael Brenner is a professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. [email protected]

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Biden, don’t let differences over Ukraine tank your relations with Lula

The bad blood between the US and Brazil actually goes way back, but upcoming meetings provide chances for new collaboration.

Next month, President Biden could hold two separate meetings with Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

These meetings, which reporting suggests could happen at both the UN General Assembly in New York and the G20 in India, represent an opportunity to kickstart a lackluster U.S.-Brazil relationship. Past tensions between the U.S. and Brazil, exemplified by the fallout from the 2010 Tehran Declaration, serve as a cautionary tale to the Biden administration to not let a difference in perspective on Ukraine cloud other areas of potential collaboration. 

Disagreements over the war in Ukraine have put the U.S.-Brazil relationship in hot water in recent months. On the campaign trail, Lula  suggested, with some controversy, that Ukraine and Russia are equally responsible for the conflict. Once in office, Lula’s visit to the White House in February was short and understated; Biden initially only offered $50 million to the Amazon Fund, a figure so low it was omitted from the official joint statement.

Additionally, Lula’s proposal to create a peace club of nonaligned countries appears to have been a nonstarter in Washington. In a particularly heated back and forth, Lula said the U.S. should stop “encouraging” the war and start talking about peace. U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby responded by accusing Lula of “parroting Russian and Chinese propaganda.” 

Most observers agree that Ukraine has become something of a flashpoint for U.S.-Brazil relations and soured expectations of a more expansive reset in the wake of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s 2022 electoral defeat. 

Despite this international criticism, Lula has continued to speak about the need for a negotiated peace settlement in Ukraine. Just last week, the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said this week’s BRICS summit should be used to debate the war in Ukraine. Lula sees a universalist foreign policy as crucial to becoming a major global player in an increasingly multipolar world, which involves taking on global issues of international security like Ukraine that have historically been left to the great powers. 

In other words, Biden isn’t going to change Lula’s mind on Ukraine, and Lula doesn’t seem likely to give up on what has become one of his signature foreign policies. As a result, the two presidents shouldn’t allow disagreements over Ukraine to spill over into other areas of cooperation.

Continue reading.

[pumpkinhrat]

[ID: a set of 7 images with text.

Image 1: The world is waking up. Keep fighting for Palestine.

Image 2: Spain and Ireland demand the EU reconsiders its trade deal with Israel. “The expanded Israeli military operation in the Rafah area poses a grave and imminent threat that the international community must urgently confront.” - Pedro Sánchez and Leo Varadkar. (Source: The Guardian)

Image 3: Canada, Australia, NZ call for immediate ceasefire in Gaza ahead of Rafah assault. “We are gravely concerned by indications that Israel is planning a ground offensive into Rafah. A military operation into Rafah would be catastrophic.” - Joint Statement by PMs of Canada, Australia and NZ. (Source: Reuters)

Image 4: Indian port workers refuse to send weapons to Israel. “Women and children have been blown to pieces in the war. Parents were unable to recognise their children killed in bombings which were exploding everywhere.” - Water Transport Workers Federation of India. (Source: India Today)

Image 5: Japan’s Itochu cuts ties with Israeli military contractors. “Taking into consideration the International Court of Justice’s order on January 26, and that the Japanese government supports the role of the Court, we have already suspended new activities.” - Itochu Chief Financial Officer Tsuyoshi Hachimura. (Source: Reuters)

Image 6: What can you do? A. Pressure your representatives and government officials. Make calls, write letters, sign petitions. B. Protest against the genocide. Find local protests near you and take to the streets. C. Share this post and others like it. Spread the news of Israel’s crimes and educate your friends and family.

Image 7: Stand on the right side of history. Keep fighting. Stop the genocide.

End ID]

The systems supporting genocide, apartheid and occupation are entrenched.

But they are more exposed now than ever.

They are breaking. Keep pushing.

[mobilemasalaa]

Saina Nehwal and Kashyap - Mobile masala

After Seven Years, Saina Nehwal and Kashyap Part Ways

Published on: July 15, 2025By: Mobile Masala News DeskCategory: #trendingcelebritynews | #paparazzi

In what comes as a surprising revelation to the public and sports fraternity, Indian badminton stars Saina Nehwal and Parupalli Kashyap have officially confirmed their separation after seven years of marriage. The couple, once considered a power duo in Indian sports, issued a joint statement on Monday evening confirming that they have mutually decided to part ways.

📢 Joint Statement Confirms Split

The official statement reads:

“After thoughtful consideration and mutual respect, we have decided to part ways. Our journey together has been meaningful, and we continue to hold immense respect for each other as individuals and athletes. We request the media and fans to respect our privacy at this time.”

While the couple has remained tight-lipped about the reasons behind their separation, sources close to the duo suggest that professional commitments, personal growth, and shifting life priorities played a role in the decision.

🏸 A Love Story That Inspired Millions

Saina and Kashyap tied the knot in December 2018 after years of friendship and mutual admiration, both on and off the court. Their relationship was seen as a rare blend of companionship and competitive spirit, often supporting each other in international matches and training camps.

Fans have followed their journey from Olympic wins and Commonwealth medals to their romantic wedding and shared social media moments.

“This is heartbreaking. They were the Ranbir-Alia of Indian sports,” wrote a fan on X (formerly Twitter).

📸 Fans React, Social Media Buzzes

As news of their separation broke, social media was flooded with posts under hashtags like #SainaKashyapSplit, #SainaNehwal, and #ParupalliKashyap. While many expressed sadness, others appreciated the dignified way the couple handled the announcement.

Popular hashtags trending alongside the news:

#trendingcelebritynews

#controversialcelebgossips

#lifestyleandhealthtips

#paparazzi

🎬 From Court to Headlines: Why the Breakup Is Big News

In an age where celebrity stories dominate headlines, the Saina-Kashyap breakup stands out because it bridges the gap between sports and pop culture. The couple’s relationship had often been covered not just by sports media but also in lifestyle, fashion, and entertainment columns.

This news is already sparking conversations across entertainment platforms, drawing comparisons to high-profile Bollywood breakups.

latest celebrity news

trending celebrity news

controversial celeb gossips

bollywood entertainment news

lifestyle and health tips

trending film news

paparazzi

new movie reviews (for sidebar/article suggestion interlinking)

💭 What’s Next for the Two?

Both Saina and Kashyap continue to be active in India’s badminton ecosystem, with Saina mentoring young players and Kashyap rumored to be taking on a new coaching role. Insiders say that both are committed to their careers and will continue to collaborate professionally where required.

📰 Final Word

Though their personal chapter has closed, Saina Nehwal and Parupalli Kashyap remain icons of Indian sports, inspiring millions with their dedication and achievements. Their respectful parting serves as a reminder that even in personal loss, grace and dignity can prevail.

📲 For more updates on trending celebrity news, Bollywood gossip, and exclusive paparazzi moments, stay tuned to https://www.mobilemasala.com

#trendingfilmnews #paparazzi #controversialcelebgossips #criticalfilmreviews #lifestyleandhealthtips #bollywoodentertainmentnews #trendingcelebritynews #latestcelebritynews #newmoviereviews

[digitalphotoco]

India Business Visa 2025 | Complete Guide for Foreign Entrepreneurs & Investors

India is emerging as one of the most dynamic economies in the world—a global hub for innovation, startups, and investments. With a robust manufacturing base, thriving digital ecosystem, and strategic market access to Asia, it has become a top destination for foreign entrepreneurs and investors.

What is the India Business Visa?

The India Business Visa is a non-immigrant visa granted to foreign nationals for engaging in legitimate business-related activities. It allows you to explore commercial opportunities, hold meetings, conduct trade discussions, and manage partnerships without the intention of employment or earning income in India.

There are two major types:

Regular Business Visa (sticker visa issued by Indian Missions)

e-Business Visa (electronic visa for short stays and quick processing)

Who Should Apply?

The Business Visa is intended for:

Entrepreneurs exploring investments

Foreign investors establishing companies

Business executives attending meetings, trade fairs, or expos

Professionals conducting market research

Board members of foreign or joint-venture companies in India

Individuals managing ongoing projects or client relationships

Types of India Business Visas

1. e-Business Visa

Validity: Up to 1 year

Entries: Multiple

Max Stay Per Visit: 180 days

Application: Online (no physical visit required unless requested)

Ideal for short-term business visits such as client meetings, contract signings, or trade shows.

2. Regular Business Visa (Sticker Visa)

Validity: Up to 5 years

Entries: Multiple

Application: Through Indian Embassy/Consulate

Registration Required: If stay exceeds 180 days per visit or cumulative stay exceeds 180 days/year

Recommended for foreign nationals managing long-term business operations or partnerships in India.

Eligibility Criteria

To apply for an India Business Visa, applicants must:

Hold a passport with at least 6 months of validity

Be a person of assured financial standing

Have a clear and legitimate business purpose

Provide an invitation from an Indian business entity

Not be involved in employment or money-earning work in India

Note: Citizens from certain restricted countries may face additional vetting or documentation requirements.

Documents Required

Though specific requirements vary by visa type and nationality, the standard documents include:

Valid passport (with at least 2 blank pages)

Completed online application form (for both e-visa and sticker visa)

Passport-size photo (as per Indian visa specs)

Business cover letter from your company

Invitation letter from the Indian company

Company registration documents (optional but recommended)

Proof of financial solvency (bank statements, tax returns)

Travel itinerary and accommodation details

For the e-Business Visa, all documents are uploaded digitally. For regular business visas, in-person submission or biometrics may be required.

What Activities Are Allowed?

With a valid India Business Visa, you can:

Attend trade shows, exhibitions, and product launches

Conduct market research or feasibility studies

Participate in board meetings or technical discussions

Negotiate or sign business agreements

Visit Indian partners or factories

Oversee ongoing projects or supplier contracts

Set up or monitor company operations (non-remunerative)

Prohibited Activities:

Full-time employment

Income-earning activities within India

Journalism, academic study, or religious work

Visa Validity, Stay Rules & Extensions

You can stay in India up to 180 days per visit

Business visa validity ranges from 6 months to 5 years

If your stay exceeds 180 days (either per visit or cumulatively), FRRO registration is mandatory within 14 days of arrival

Extensions must be applied for before the visa expires, but are generally only granted in exceptional cases

Best Practices for a Smooth Visa Experience

Apply 2–4 weeks before your travel date

Cross-check your documents for accuracy and completeness

Use official government portals or authorized visa centers only

Keep digital and printed copies of your application, visa approval, and passport

Ensure clarity in your invitation and business letters—these documents often determine approval speed

If required, register with FRRO immediately to avoid legal penalties

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. How long does it take to get an India Business Visa?

e-Business Visa: 3–5 working days

Regular Business Visa: 5–15 working days, depending on the Indian Mission’s processing time

Q2. Can I convert a Business Visa into an Employment Visa later? No, visa conversions are not permitted within India. You must apply for a new visa from your home country.

Q3. Is there a minimum investment required for a Business Visa? No fixed investment amount is required. However, you should show financial capacity and business legitimacy.

Q4. Can I apply without an Indian business partner? No. A formal invitation letter from an Indian business entity is a mandatory requirement.

Q5. What happens if I overstay on a Business Visa? Overstaying your visa can result in fines, blacklisting, or deportation. Always apply for an extension in advance if needed.

Conclusion: Your Gateway to India’s Thriving Business Landscape

India is not just a destination, it's an opportunity. With one of the world's fastest-growing economies, supportive investment policies, and a vibrant consumer market, it offers immense potential for foreign entrepreneurs, investors, and corporate leaders.

The India Business Visa is your passport to this opportunity. Whether you're exploring ventures, signing deals, or building strategic alliances, this visa gives you the legal and professional foundation to operate confidently in the Indian market.

Plan wisely. Apply early. Expand globally with India.

[banarjeenikita]

How to Get a Loan for Purchase of Commercial Property in India

Investing in commercial real estate—such as office spaces, retail shops, showrooms, or warehouses—can yield substantial returns and long-term capital appreciation. However, acquiring such assets typically requires significant funding. That’s where a loan for purchase of commercial property comes into play. These specialized loans, offered by banks and financial institutions, help individuals and businesses finance the acquisition of income-generating commercial assets.

In this guide, we walk you through the complete process of obtaining a commercial property loan in India, from eligibility to documentation and tips for faster approval.

What Is a Commercial Property Loan?

A loan for purchase of commercial property is a secured loan granted for the acquisition of non-residential real estate. This can include:

Office buildings

Retail outlets or shops

Warehouses or storage facilities

Showrooms or industrial units

Co-working or business spaces

These loans are available to both salaried and self-employed individuals, as well as companies, trusts, and partnership firms, depending on the lender’s terms.

Eligibility Criteria

Although each lender may have slightly different requirements, the typical eligibility criteria include:

Age: Applicant should be between 25–65 years

Income: A stable and verifiable source of income is necessary

Credit Score: A CIBIL score of 700+ is usually preferred

Business Vintage: For self-employed professionals, 2–3 years of stable business operations is a must

Property Type: The property should be freehold, approved by local authorities, and have clear title ownership

Many banks also evaluate the rental income potential of the commercial property when determining loan eligibility.

Documents Required

To apply for a loan for purchase of commercial property, you'll typically need the following documents:

Personal Documents

PAN card and Aadhaar card

Passport-sized photographs

Address proof (electricity bill, rental agreement, etc.)

Income Documents

Salary slips (for salaried individuals)

ITRs for the past 2–3 years

Bank statements (6–12 months)

Balance sheet and profit & loss statement (for self-employed)

Property Documents

Agreement to sell

Title deed and chain of ownership

Approved building plan

Property tax receipts and NOC (if applicable)

Some lenders may also require a valuation report and legal clearance from an independent third-party assessor.

Loan Features

Here are some key features of a typical commercial property loan in India:

Loan Amount: Up to 70% of the property value

Tenure: 10 to 15 years

Interest Rate: Generally ranges between 9% to 13% (varies by lender and profile)

Processing Fee: Usually 1% to 2% of the loan amount

Repayment: Through EMIs (Equated Monthly Installments)

Some financial institutions also allow step-up EMIs and balloon payments for business owners with fluctuating incomes.

How to Apply for a Commercial Property Loan

1. Compare Lenders

Research banks and NBFCs offering loans for commercial real estate. Compare interest rates, processing fees, tenure, and service quality.

2. Check Eligibility

Use online eligibility calculators provided by most lenders. Ensure you meet the basic income, credit, and property criteria.

3. Apply Online or Offline

You can apply through the lender’s website or visit a branch. Many third-party loan aggregators also facilitate application and documentation.

4. Submit Documents

Upload or submit the required documents. The bank will conduct background verification, credit checks, and property evaluations.

5. Loan Approval & Disbursement

Once approved, the loan is disbursed either directly to the seller or into an escrow account, based on the agreement.

Tips to Increase Approval Chances

Maintain a good credit score

Opt for properties in prime or approved commercial zones

Ensure complete and accurate documentation

Choose a joint loan if needed to boost eligibility

Avoid properties with legal or structural irregularities

Final Thoughts

Securing a loan for purchase of commercial property in India is a strategic move for investors and entrepreneurs seeking rental income or long-term value growth. By understanding the eligibility criteria, preparing the right documents, and selecting the right lender, you can simplify the process and make confident investment decisions.

Always consult with a financial advisor or property consultant to ensure your loan terms align with your investment goals.

[vistatexture]

Discover the Art of Stucco Limewash Texture Plaster – Premium Wall & Floor Finishes by Vista

Revive your walls with the timeless appeal of Stucco Limewash Texture Plaster, a luxurious blend of tradition and innovation. Offered by Vista Luxury Texture, the trusted name and Best Limewash Texture Company in India, this breathable, eco-friendly plaster gives every space a refined, natural aesthetic.

What Makes Stucco Limewash Texture Plaster Unique?

This texture brings together the coarse charm of traditional stucco and the elegant softness of limewash, creating surfaces that age beautifully over time. Perfect for those seeking a textured yet minimalist look, Limewash Concrete Plaster is ideal for both heritage-style homes and modern industrial interiors.

Whether it’s a feature wall, exterior façade, or a boutique interior, this finish blends durability with beauty.

Why Choose Vista – The Best Limewash Plaster Company

Vista Luxury Texture stands apart with:

Handcrafted textures by skilled artisans

Natural lime-based, breathable materials

Custom finishes designed for your aesthetic vision

Being the Best Limewash Plaster Company in India means delivering not only great textures—but lasting impressions.

Our Premium Texture Collection

Our texture offerings go far beyond stucco limewash. Explore our most in-demand surface styles:

✅ Limewash Concrete Texture

Give your walls a vintage industrial vibe with Limewash Concrete Texture, offering weathered tones and natural softness.

✅ Limewash Concrete Plaster

A matte-finish plaster that offers depth and sophistication—perfect for minimalist, modern designs.

✅ Microtopping Floorings Texture

Ideal for seamless, joint-free finishes, Microtopping Floorings Texture provides a stylish and functional solution for floors and walls.

✅ Microtopping Plaster

Turn any old surface into a sleek modern space. Microtopping Plaster works on furniture, floors, walls, and countertops.

✅ Microtopping Floorings

Stylish, durable, and low-maintenance—Microtopping Floorings are the top choice for contemporary and commercial interiors.

✅ Italian Wall Texture

Inspired by classical European interiors, Italian Wall Texture adds depth and layered richness to your décor.

✅ Natural Stone Finish Texture

Mimic nature with Natural Stone Finish Texture, offering earthy, raw beauty with the flexibility of a crafted finish.

Designed to Endure. Styled to Inspire.

Vista Luxury Texture crafts finishes that are both timeless and trendy. Whether you're creating a modern retreat or restoring a traditional space, our surfaces make a bold design statement.

From Limewash Concrete Texture to Microtopping Floorings and Natural Stone Finish Texture, we bring vision and texture to life.

[24worldnewsnet]

Trump threatens extra 10% tariff on nations siding with BricsUS President Donald Trump has warned that countries which side with the policies of the Brics alliance that go against US interests will be hit with an extra 10% tariff.Trump has long criticised Brics, an organisation whose members include China, Russia and India, which was designed to boost countries' international standing and challenge the US and western Europe."Any country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy," Trump wrote on social media.A deadline for countries to agree a tariff deal with the US had been set for 9 July but US officials now say they will begin on 1 August.So far, the US has only struck trade agreements with the UK and Vietnam. However, Britain and America have still not reached a deal over taxes for UK steel imported by the US. Since taking office in January, Trump has announced a series of import taxes on goods from other countries - arguing they will boost American manufacturing and protect jobs.In April, on what he called "Liberation Day", he announced a wave of new taxes on goods from countries around the world, although he quickly suspended his most aggressive plans to allow for three months of talks up until 9 July. Asked whether the taxes would change on 9 July or 1 August, Trump said on Sunday: "They're going to be tariffs, the tariffs are going to be tariffs."He added that between 10 and 15 letters would be sent to countries on Monday advising them on what the new tariff rate will be if a deal had not been reached. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick clarified that the taxes will come into force on 1 August.On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had told CNN: "President Trump's going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level."Trump's threat to countries working with Brics nations emerged after members criticised US tariff policies as well as proposing reforms to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and how major currencies are valued.Last year, the list of Brics members expanded beyond Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.The countries in the bloc account formore than half of the world's population. Brics leaders, who are holding a two-day meeting in Rio de Janeiro, have called for reforms to global institutions and positioned the alliance as a platform for diplomacy amid escalating trade conflicts and geopolitical tensions.A joint statement by finance ministers of the Brics nations on Sunday criticised tariffs as a threat to global economy, bringing "uncertainty into international economic and trade activities".Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chambers of Commerce, said it would be challenging for countries to move away from doing business with China.He told the BBC's Today programme: "Shifting away from China...in a number of sectors is far more difficult to achieve in the world in practice."You look at the dominance China has in a number of sectors - EVs, batteries [and] particularly rare earths and magnets, there are no viable alternatives to China production."During the Brics meeting in Brazil, leaders also condemned the military strikes on Iran in June, saying the attacks were a violation of international law. Over 12 days, Israel and the US struck targets in Iran, including its nuclear facilities before a ceasefire was agreed. The Brics summit was attended in person by world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. China's President Xi Jinping missed the event for the first time, with Premier Li Qiang standing in for him.Russia's President Vladimir Putin, who has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court against him over alleged w

[articlebasket]

Trump Blasts BRICS as Anti-U.S., Threatens New Import Tariffs Amid Geopolitical Tensions

In a fiery statement that has sparked reactions across the globe, former U.S. President Donald Trump sharply criticized the BRICS alliance, calling it “anti-American” and “a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty and trade.” His comments come amid heightened global economic tensions, with BRICS nations ramping up efforts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar and shift power dynamics in global trade.

Trump's remarks, made during a press event in Florida, signaled a return to his tough-talking foreign policy stance. He hinted at potential U.S. import tariffs aimed at punishing what he sees as “unfair economic behavior” by BRICS countries, including China, Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa—along with newer members like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A Familiar Tone from Trump

If elected again in 2024, Trump said he would consider sweeping economic measures to “restore balance” in U.S. trade. He didn’t hold back, branding BRICS as “a club of dictators and manipulators trying to undermine America.”

“We’re not going to let globalist alliances like BRICS run the show,” Trump said. “We’re going to put America first, again.”

This tone mirrors Trump’s previous actions during his presidency, when he:

Imposed heavy tariffs on Chinese goods during the U.S.-China trade war

Withdrew from multilateral trade agreements

Focused on renegotiating deals like NAFTA into USMCA

Questioned U.S. participation in alliances perceived as one-sided

What Is BRICS, and Why Is It in the Spotlight?

BRICS, originally formed as an informal bloc of major emerging economies, has grown significantly in influence. The group aims to shift global financial power away from Western-dominated institutions.

At the recent 2025 BRICS Summit, member nations discussed:

Launching a new global currency to rival the U.S. dollar

Greater cooperation in energy, trade, and defense

Increased diplomatic alignment on global issues

Membership expansion to include countries like Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia

Analysts say this evolution is designed to challenge the existing global order. According to global affairs expert Maria Lopes, “BRICS is clearly aiming to build a parallel world order. Trump’s reaction reflects real concern in Washington about losing leverage in global trade.”

Possible Tariffs and Global Impact

Trump hinted that if BRICS countries continue their so-called “currency manipulation” and “unfair trade practices,” he will implement fresh tariffs on imports. This could set the stage for a renewed global trade war.

Possible outcomes of such tariffs:

Higher prices for U.S. consumers on imported goods

Increased manufacturing costs for American companies reliant on BRICS suppliers

Retaliatory tariffs from BRICS members affecting U.S. exports

Strained diplomatic ties and reduced trade cooperation

“Increasing tariffs may sound tough, but it risks hurting everyday Americans through price hikes,” said John Caldwell, professor of international economics. “We’ve seen this play out before.”

BRICS Nations Respond

Leaders within the BRICS bloc quickly issued a joint statement, calling Trump’s comments “provocative,” “misinformed,” and damaging to global cooperation.

Key points from BRICS' response:

“BRICS exists to promote multipolarity and cooperation, not confrontation.”

“We welcome debate, but we reject threats.”

“Trump’s statements are a step backwards for global diplomacy.”

China, frequently targeted by Trump’s rhetoric, issued a strong response: “Any move to penalize fair trade will be met with firm countermeasures.”

What’s at Stake for the U.S.?

With BRICS expanding and gaining traction globally, the U.S. must reassess its role on the world stage. Some American policymakers argue that strategic engagement is a better option than confrontation.

However, Trump’s supporters see his stance as patriotic and necessary. His “America First” platform resonates with millions who feel that:

U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out by globalization

Trade deals often favor foreign nations

Washington elites have ignored domestic economic concerns

“Trump is tapping into a sentiment that America is being left behind,” said political strategist Carla Mendes. “Whether or not that’s true, it resonates with voters.”

A Fragile Global Landscape

The world is already dealing with multiple crises—Russia’s war in Ukraine, tensions in the South China Sea, inflation, and energy instability. Trump’s comments have added another layer of tension.

Critics argue that the U.S. should:

Invest more in domestic innovation and infrastructure

Strengthen ties with allies through respectful diplomacy

Avoid trade wars that could isolate the country further

Still, Trump’s message is clear: If elected, he will take aggressive steps to confront global alliances like BRICS that, in his view, threaten American sovereignty.

Final Thoughts

As the U.S. heads into a pivotal election season, global trade and foreign policy are once again front and center. Trump’s sharp rebuke of BRICS may rally his political base, but it also raises serious questions about how the U.S. should engage with a world rapidly moving toward multipolarity.

Whether this is campaign rhetoric or a preview of real policy, one thing is certain: the balance of global economic power is shifting—and how America responds will shape the next chapter of world affairs.

[amol2208]

India Business Visa for Foreign Nationals: Your Gateway to South Asia’s Emerging Market

India, one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, presents countless business opportunities for foreign investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. Whether you're exploring startup ecosystems in Bengaluru, manufacturing hubs in Gujarat, or finance corridors in Mumbai, the India business visa for foreign nationals is the essential document for conducting business activities legally within the country.

This visa serves as a bridge between international businesses and the dynamic Indian market, enabling foreign nationals to connect, collaborate, and create meaningful commercial engagements.

What is the India Business Visa for Foreign Nationals?

The India business visa for foreign nationals is a temporary visa granted to individuals visiting India for business purposes such as:

Participating in business meetings, negotiations, or trade discussions

Attending industry conferences, exhibitions, or seminars

Setting up joint ventures, partnerships, or subsidiaries

Exploring investment opportunities

Conducting technical discussions or installations (non-remunerative)

It does not allow the visa holder to take up full-time employment or earn income within India.

Eligibility for India Business Visa for Foreign Nationals

The India business visa for foreign nationals is available to citizens of most countries, subject to meeting the visa criteria and submission of valid documentation. Key eligibility includes:

Intent to conduct legitimate business in India

Invitation or contact from an Indian business organization

Financial standing to support stay in India

No criminal background or history of visa violations

Applicants must provide proof of their professional background and clearly outline the purpose of their business visit.

Required Documents for India Business Visa

Foreign nationals must submit the following documents when applying for an India business visa:

Passport (valid for at least 6 months and with two blank pages)

Completed visa application form (online or paper, depending on country)

Recent passport-sized photographs

Invitation letter from the Indian company detailing the business purpose

Company incorporation documents of the inviter (if needed)

Proof of financial resources (bank statements, tax records)

Return flight tickets and hotel reservations

The application may be filed online through the Indian Visa Application portal, or through the respective Indian embassy/consulate.

Validity and Duration

The India business visa for foreign nationals is typically issued as:

Short-term: Valid for 6 months to 1 year with multiple entries

Long-term: Up to 5 years for eligible applicants from select countries

Stay duration: Each visit may allow up to 180 days, depending on visa type

Applicants from certain countries may also be eligible for an e-Business Visa, which simplifies the application and approval process online.

India’s Business Environment: Why It Matters

India ranks among the top investment destinations in Asia, with strong indicators of economic growth and a large consumer base.

Key facts:

India’s GDP stood at $3.73 trillion in 2024 (IMF), making it the 5th largest economy

Over $83 billion in FDI inflows were recorded in 2023–24 (Source: DPIIT)

Major sectors attracting global business include IT, manufacturing, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, and fintech

India ranks 40th in the Global Innovation Index and 63rd in Ease of Doing Business (World Bank)

Given this context, the India business visa for foreign nationals is a strategic tool to unlock potential partnerships and market entry.

India Business Visa Statistics

In 2023, over 1.8 million business visas were issued to foreign nationals

The top applicants included professionals from the USA, UK, Germany, Japan, and South Korea

Over 220,000 e-Business Visas were issued to foreign travelers for short-term commercial visits

These numbers highlight the growing interest and reliance on the India business visa for foreign nationals for trade and business expansion.

FAQs on India Business Visa for Foreign Nationals

Q1. Can I work in India with a business visa? No. A business visa does not permit salaried work or employment. It is strictly for temporary business activities.

Q2. How long does the visa process take? Processing usually takes 3 to 10 working days, depending on the country of application and documentation.

Q3. Can I convert a business visa into a work visa or residence permit? No. Business visas cannot be converted to employment or residence visas inside India.

Q4. Is an invitation letter mandatory? Yes, an official invitation from an Indian business partner or company is required in most cases.

Q5. Is the India e-Business Visa different? Yes, the e-Business Visa is an electronic version of the business visa with a simpler application and shorter validity (usually up to 60 days with double entry).

Reference Links

Indian Visa Application Portal

Ministry of External Affairs - India

Invest India

IMF – India Economic Outlook

Conclusion: India Business Visa for Foreign Nationals Fuels Global Growth and Innovation

The India business visa for foreign nationals provides a legal, structured way for global professionals to access India’s rapidly growing economy. Whether you're a consultant seeking clients, a CEO exploring joint ventures, or a trader scouting suppliers, this visa empowers you to connect with one of the most diverse and promising markets in the world. With high approval rates and simplified processes, the India business visa for foreign nationals is a vital tool for meaningful, cross-border business expansion.