Hathras | Cultural Playground Virtual Meet opened new horizons for students at Doon Public School, Hathras, as the institution hosted a spectacular international exchange under the British Council’s RIDS program. From traditional games to cultural insights, the event fostered global connections, playful learning, and spirited exchange between India and Singapore.

What Was the Cultural Playground Virtual Meet?

As part of the RIDS (Reviving Indian and Diaspora Sports) initiative by the British Council, Doon Public School, Hathras, led a year-long series of international collaborations. In September, the school brought students face-to-face (virtually) with their counterparts in Singapore to celebrate the activity titled “Cultural Games Ground” — or Cultural Playground Virtual Meet.

Earlier in the year, Doon Public School had begun this strand of global engagement by launching the Cultural Playground project on September 20, 2025.

During this virtual meet, the fifth and sixth grade students of Doon and Singapore collaborated: Indian students showcased traditional games, Singaporean students presented their cultural games, and both groups exchanged understanding through dialogue, performances, and quizzes.

How the Exchange Worked — Games, Culture, Connection

Indian Side: Traditional Games Take the Stage

Students from Doon Public School, Hathras, organized themselves into four groups, each selecting one traditional game to present:

• Kho-Kho (India)
• Gala Panjang (from Malaysia/Singapore region)
• Fire on the Mountain (from Nigeria)
• Shisima (from Kenya)

These games were not only exhibited but also explained in detail, with rules, strategies, and cultural context woven into the presentations.

Singapore Side: Cultural Games Unveiled

Singaporean students reciprocated with four culturally significant games:

• Chapte (Singapore)
• Dayakattai (India heritage game)
• Masai Jump (Kenya)
• Dambe (Nigeria)

In particular, the Singapore team presented Chapte during the live virtual session, explaining rules, tactics, and sharing colorful scrapbooks.

Dialogue, Quiz & Engagement

After the games, both sets of students took part in an interactive quiz session, exchanging questions, clarifying rules, and satisfying their curiosity about unfamiliar games. The event buzzed with energy as everyone participated enthusiastically.

Voices from Participants & School Leadership

Student Reflections

Several Doon students shared excitement about learning foreign games and making cross-cultural connections. They said that discovering different gameplay styles and traditions expanded their horizons beyond geography and language.

Principal’s Message

Principal J. K. Agrawal applauded the students’ dedication and creative spirit. He emphasized that the initiative was more than just play — it was an exercise in cultural empathy, cooperation, and global citizenship. He remarked:

“Through this experience, they are learning that sports and games are not mere recreation, but tools to foster respect, collaboration, and a broader worldview.”

He also praised the British Council’s RIDS program for enabling such enriching international ties and expressed hope that similar collaborations would further strengthen students’ global awareness.

Top 5 Powerful Moments from the Cultural Playground Virtual Meet

1. Authentic Game Demonstrations
   Each group presented deeply rooted traditional games, dissecting rules, cultural lineage, and play strategies.
2. Cross-Cultural Reciprocity
   Language barriers faded as Indian and Singaporean students exchanged ideas, asked questions, and built bridges of understanding.
3. Quiz & Q&A Energy
   The quiz segment brought curiosity to life — students eagerly challenged and corrected each other, deepening comprehension with enthusiasm.
4. Scrapbook Integration
   Visual tools like scrapbooks added vibrant layers to presentations, helping explain game mechanics, history, and cultural significance.
5. Empathy and Worldview Shift
   By engaging intimately with foreign traditions, students felt a tangible sense of global unity — discovering that differences can become sources of fascination rather than distance.

Why the Cultural Playground Virtual Meet Matters

Promoting Intercultural Respect

At its core, Cultural Playground Virtual Meet cultivated cross-cultural respect by immersing students in each other’s heritage — showing that every game carries stories, values, and histories.

Enriching Educational Experience

This initiative steered learning beyond textbooks. It fostered inquiry, performance, critical thinking, and interpersonal exchange.

Nurturing Global Citizens

In an age of connectivity, early exposure to international dialogue helps students grow into empathetic, world-aware individuals.

Reviving Heritage Through Play

The project aligns with RIDS’ mission to revive heritage games and fuse them with modern platforms — a bridge between past and present.

Behind the Scenes — Organization & Collaboration

• Coordinators & Teachers
  The project was led by Rita Sharma, Namrata Agrawal, and technical lead Ritik Agrawal, with support from teachers like Naitik Rathore, Harshita Rawat, and Kapil Kumar.
• International Partners
  From Singapore, Miss Saigita and Miss Devsoma attended the event, guiding the exchanges and overseeing digital facilitation.
• Student Names
  Key contributing students included: Mahi Choudhary, Rajat Kumar, Ananya Gupta, Shivansh Rana, Goujal Agrawal, Harshvardhan, Ananya Sharma, Anushka Upadhyay, Nitya Dubey, Yash Thenua, Nishtha Pathak, Vani Kaur, Mahi Goyal, Anushri Tiwari, Daksh Singh, Manvi, Vedant Mahour, Mukta, Akarsh, Praveen Thenua, Vanya Kulshrestha, Gargi Kaushal.

Context & Broader Relevance

The RIDS Program & Cultural Revival

The Reviving Indian and Diaspora Sports (RIDS) initiative by the British Council encourages schools internationally to preserve and exchange traditional sports heritage. Doon’s project is a vibrant example of this mission in action.

Global Role of Virtual Exchanges

During times when travel may be limited, virtual meets like these have become powerful platforms for international collaboration and cultural learning.

Similar Efforts in India & Abroad

Efforts in other institutions also echo this model — educational institutes globally are weaving heritage sports into curricula to build cultural identity and global linkages.

The Cultural Playground Virtual Meet at Doon Public School, Hathras, was a poignant celebration of games, culture, and connection. It showed how simple play can become a profound bridge—melding curiosity with compassion, competition with communion.

UAE, Sep.29,2025:The Asia Cup Final 2025 Controversy has dominated cricket discussions after India defeated Pakistan in a thrilling match in Dubai. While India celebrated a five-wicket win to secure the championship, the post-match events involving the trophy presentation overshadowed the cricketing brilliance on display-

Former Pakistan cricketers, including Kamran Akmal, Shoaib Malik, Shoaib Akhtar, and Ramiz Raja, have voiced strong criticism of both Pakistan’s performance and India’s refusal to accept the trophy from Mohsin Naqvi, Pakistan’s Home Minister and ACC President.

India’s Victory and the Trophy Refusal That Sparked Debate

India chased down 147 runs in 19.4 overs, thanks to a stellar 69 not out by Tilak Varma and 33 runs by Shivam Dube. Despite this emphatic win, the moment turned controversial when Team India refused to accept the trophy.

According to BCCI officials, the decision was taken collectively by the players in advance, citing political sensitivities. But for Pakistani cricketers and fans, the refusal felt like an insult to the spirit of the game.

Kamran Akmal Slams Batting Failures

Former wicketkeeper Kamran Akmal did not hold back. He called Pakistan’s batting the biggest weakness of the tournament.

“You don’t become a good team by chanting modern cricket slogans. Preparation and selection matter. Batting struggled throughout the Asia Cup. Constant experiments with the batting order hurt us badly,” Akmal said on The Game Plan YouTube channel.

He urged the management to play players in their natural positions instead of unnecessary experiments, warning that otherwise Pakistan would continue to collapse against stronger teams.

Shoaib Malik Points Out Lack of Awareness

Ex-captain Shoaib Malik criticized the team’s lack of game awareness. Speaking on Tapmad, Malik highlighted that both batting and bowling strategies failed.

“When three wickets had fallen, Pakistan needed to change gears. Instead, they repeated mistakes. Game awareness was zero. In-form batsmen should have been sent up the order,” Malik said.

He emphasized that conditions were misread, and Pakistan failed to adapt with either batting or field placements.

Shoaib Akhtar Blames Management and Captaincy

Former speedster Shoaib Akhtar was even more direct, pointing fingers at the team management and captaincy.

“This is not just about players. It’s poor decision-making by management. I call it senseless coaching. We needed 175 runs; 147 was never enough against India,” Akhtar said on Tapmad.

He further criticized bowling changes, questioning why pacer Haris Rauf was introduced when spin wasn’t working, instead of exploring alternatives.

Ramiz Raja Questions Pakistan’s Mental Strength

Former PCB Chairman Ramiz Raja acknowledged that Pakistan had India under pressure in the powerplay, but the team failed to capitalize.

“Once again, Pakistan handed over a winning game to India. Mental toughness is lacking. Bowlers like Kuldeep Yadav and Jasprit Bumrah showed how to fight back, but Pakistan doesn’t have such resilience,” Ramiz said on his YouTube channel.

Ramiz concluded that India’s technique, mental strength, and adaptability were far superior in this tournament.

Reactions on India’s Trophy Decision

The trophy controversy turned out to be the biggest headline.

• Kamran Akmal: “Not accepting the trophy goes against the spirit of cricket. If you had issues, raise them in meetings, not on the ground.”
• Pakistan captain Salman Agha: “Refusing the trophy was an insult to cricket itself.”

BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia clarified that the refusal was a collective decision by the players, supported by captain Suryakumar Yadav.

Fans in Islamabad Express Anger and Hope

In Islamabad, fans gathered at parks, restaurants, and homes to watch the high-voltage clash. Their reactions were mixed:

• Some praised Pakistan’s early bowling.
• Many criticized the middle-order collapse.
• Several felt captaincy errors cost the game.

Yet, fans expressed hope that the team would learn from mistakes and return stronger.

India vs Pakistan Rivalry

The India-Pakistan rivalry has always been more than just cricket. With trophy refusals, heated statements, and back-to-back matches, this rivalry often transcends sports, fuelling political and emotional narratives on both sides.

The Asia Cup Final 2025 Controversy only added another layer to this storied rivalry, making it one of the most talked-about sporting events of the year.

Lessons from Asia Cup Final 2025 Controversy

The Asia Cup Final 2025 Controversy will be remembered not only for India’s brilliant win but also for the heated aftermath. Former cricketers from Pakistan have raised valid concerns about batting failures, leadership flaws, and lack of awareness.

At the same time, the trophy refusal by India has sparked a debate on sportsmanship vs politics in cricket.

US, Sep.27,2025:Colombia President Visa Cancelled has sent shockwaves through international diplomatic circles. On Friday, the US State Department officially announced the revocation of the visa of Colombia’s leftist leader, Gustavo Petro–

This unprecedented move follows Petro’s recent remarks and public appearances in New York, which US authorities considered “provocative actions.” The decision has intensified discussions on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and diplomatic decorum.

According to reports from AFP, Petro had already departed New York for Colombia by Friday night, indicating that the cancellation will primarily affect his future US travel plans.

US State Department Statement on Visa Cancellation

The US State Department stated that the decision to cancel the Colombia President Visa Cancelled was based on actions that it deemed “provocative and contrary to the interests of the United States.”

While the department did not go into extensive detail, officials emphasized that such actions undermine diplomatic norms and could have implications for US-Colombia cooperation in trade, security, and regional policy.

For full details on the US State Department’s statement, visit US State Department.

Gustavo Petro’s Controversial Remarks

Gustavo Petro, a prominent left-wing leader in Colombia, recently made statements critical of US military actions. In an interview earlier this week, he condemned alleged US airstrikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea, labeling them as “dictatorial acts.”

Petro’s rhetoric aligns with his broader political stance but has provoked strong reactions from US officials. Critics argue that his public condemnation and participation in demonstrations supporting Palestine in New York crossed diplomatic boundaries, ultimately triggering the visa cancellation.

This incident underscores the tension between outspoken political statements and international diplomatic protocols.

Petro’s Visit to New York and International Response

Petro addressed supporters of Palestine during a public gathering in New York, a move seen as highly symbolic but controversial. The US authorities considered these actions provocative, particularly given the sensitive geopolitical environment.

AFP reported that despite the visa cancellation announcement, Petro had already left New York for Colombia, highlighting the decision’s long-term implications rather than immediate travel disruption.

Internationally, reactions are mixed. Supporters view Petro as a champion of free speech and a critic of US interventionism, while detractors see the visa cancellation as a justified diplomatic measure.

Political Implications for Colombia-US Relations

The Colombia President Visa Cancelled decision adds a new layer of complexity to US-Colombia relations. Key implications include:

• Strained diplomatic communication channels between Bogotá and Washington.
• Potential delays or cancellations of bilateral initiatives in trade and security.
• Increased scrutiny of Colombia’s foreign policy stance in the region.

Political analysts warn that this incident could influence upcoming diplomatic negotiations and international forums where Colombia participates.

Global Reactions to the Visa Decision

International media have widely reported on the visa cancellation. Outlets such as AFP and Al Jazeera emphasize the intersection of free speech, political dissent, and diplomatic protocol.

Analysts in Latin America note that the decision may embolden or polarize political actors in Colombia and neighbouring countries. It also raises questions about how the US handles visa privileges for foreign leaders who openly criticize its policies.

Visa Cancellations for Leaders

Visa cancellations for foreign leaders are rare but not unprecedented. Historically, the US has revoked visas of leaders deemed hostile or engaging in activities contrary to American interests.

This incident provides a case study in international diplomacy, highlighting the fine balance between respecting sovereign political expression and enforcing geopolitical norms.

For reference on past visa revocations, see Council on Foreign Relations.

What This Means for Future Diplomacy

The Colombia President Visa Cancelled situation illustrates several key trends in modern diplomacy:

• Increasing scrutiny of leaders’ public statements in foreign countries.
• Heightened sensitivity around international conflicts, including US military actions.
• Potential for visa policies to serve as diplomatic tools or sanctions.

Experts suggest that leaders engaging in international advocacy must carefully navigate the line between domestic political expression and actions that may provoke foreign governments.

Lessons from Colombia President Visa Cancelled

The revocation of Gustavo Petro’s US visa represents a significant diplomatic event. It demonstrates that political statements, public demonstrations, and international advocacy can have real-world consequences, even for sitting heads of state.

UN,Sep.27,2025:India’s response to Shehbaz Sharif at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has sent a strong diplomatic signal. Indian First Secretary Patel Gehlot used India’s Right to Reply to address the Pakistani Prime Minister’s claims. “If destroyed runways and burnt hangars are considered a victory, Pakistan can enjoy it,” Gehlot remarked, sharply countering Sharif’s statement that Pakistan had “won the conflict with India” and now seeks peace-

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN Speech Highlights

During his UN address, Shehbaz Sharif claimed that Pakistan had successfully defended its eastern borders and offered India an investigation into the Phelgam attack. He asserted, “We have won the conflict with India and now seek peace.” Sharif further stated that Pakistan’s foreign policy is based on mutual respect and cooperation and that any disputes should be resolved through dialogue. He also praised former US President Donald Trump, claiming he played a crucial role in averting full-scale war between India and Pakistan.

India Exposes Pakistan’s Terrorism Links

India’s response directly contradicted Sharif’s claims. Patel Gehlot highlighted Pakistan’s decade-long sheltering of Osama Bin Laden and stated, “This is the same Pakistan that hid Osama Bin Laden for ten years while pretending to be a partner in the fight against terrorism.” He criticized Pakistan for glorifying terrorism, calling Sharif’s speech a “theatrical display” of falsehoods.

India presented evidence of Pakistan running multiple terrorist camps and said, “There is no surprise that Pakistan’s charade has once again surfaced, this time at the Prime Ministerial level. Photos from Bahawalpur and Muridke camps during Operation Sindoor show terrorists being neutralized, proving Pakistan’s complicity.”

The Phelgam Attack and Pakistan’s Accountability

Patel Gehlot also referenced the Phelgam attack on 25 April 2025, where tourists in Jammu and Kashmir were brutally targeted. He said, “This is the same Pakistan that shielded the Resistance Front in the UN Security Council, absolving them of responsibility for the massacre.” India stressed that the country continues to face terrorist attacks on its civilians directly linked to Pakistan.

Pakistan’s False Claims vs India’s Evidence

India’s response highlighted Pakistan’s inconsistencies. Gehlot stated, “Pakistan’s ministers recently admitted to running terrorist camps for decades. Yet, their leadership continues to glorify extremists publicly. This administration’s true stance is now visible to the world.”

The Indian diplomat also addressed claims of war victory: “Pakistan’s army requested a ceasefire only after Indian Air Force strikes damaged several Pakistani airbases. If destroyed runways and burnt hangars appear as ‘victories,’ Pakistan is welcome to rejoice. The truth remains: Pakistan continues to be responsible for attacks on India’s innocent civilians.”

India’s Zero Tolerance Policy on Terrorism

Gehlot reiterated India’s strict stance against terrorism: “We will not distinguish between terrorists and their sponsors. Both will be held accountable. India will not succumb to nuclear blackmail or threats of terror. Our message is clear: zero tolerance against terrorism.”

He also emphasized the solution for peace: “If Pakistan is serious about peace, it must immediately shut down all terrorist camps and hand over wanted extremists operating on Indian soil.”

Diplomatic Context and Bilateral Agreements

India reminded the UNGA that all India-Pakistan matters have historically been bilateral, leaving no scope for third-party interference. India has consistently maintained this stance, reinforced recently by Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar. Regarding Phelgam, India stated that Operation Sindoor neutralized nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and eliminated over 100 terrorists, underscoring India’s proactive defense measures.

Clear Message to the World

India’s response to Shehbaz Sharif at the UNGA underscores the country’s firm position against terrorism and double standards in Pakistan’s foreign policy. By exposing evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in terrorist activities, India sent a strong message: genuine peace requires accountability, not theatrics.

UN.Sep.27,2025:Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Hamas released a blunt statement on Telegram calling Netanyahu’s speech “misleading” and accusing him of presenting “a long list of lies.” The exchange highlights deepening international tensions and renewed appeals for action to stop the devastation in Gaza-

Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech

In short, the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech contained five central accusations: that Netanyahu’s speech distorted facts, that Israeli rhetoric cannot erase reality on the ground, that the world must act to halt killing in Gaza, that Israel should be forced to withdraw, and that nations should recognize Palestine. Hamas called on global civil society and states to pressure Israel, describing the speech as an attempt to whitewash military actions.

The 5 Explosive Revelations in Hamas’s Statement

Hamas’s reply distilled its message into a compact, forceful critique. The Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech framed the speech as:

1. Deceptive — Netanyahu’s rhetoric was called “misleading,” with Hamas asserting that public statements won’t change the truth.
2. A catalogue of falsehoods — the statement accused Netanyahu of listing “lies.”
3. A call for justice — Hamas appealed to the world to stop what it described as “murder and devastation” in Gaza.
4. A demand for withdrawal — the group urged global actors to force Israel out of Gaza.
5. A push for recognition — Hamas urged states to recognize Palestine as a country.

These five elements formed the backbone of the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech, giving it a clear and combative tone.

Was Netanyahu’s Address Misleading — Hamas’s Claim

Hamas argued that words from the podium cannot obscure the facts seen by the world. The Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech asserted that, despite loud public assertions, Israel’s actions in Gaza are visible to the international community and cannot be wiped away by statements.

Netanyahu, during his UN address, reportedly described Palestinian statehood recognition as “madness” and called such moves “shameful.” Hamas countered that such language is disconnected from what Gazans are enduring and called on the global community to act practically rather than be swayed by rhetoric.

Calls to the International Community in Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech

A major thread of the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech was an explicit appeal to the international community: “stop the killing and destruction in Gaza.” Hamas urged governments, international organizations, and civil society to pressure Israel to withdraw and to recognize Palestine.

Beyond rhetorical appeals, the statement asked for tangible measures — diplomatic recognition, sanctions, or other actions that would compel Israel to change course. This part of the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech was aimed at transforming sympathy into action.

Netanyahu’s Key Points and Hamas’s Counterclaims

Netanyahu’s UN speech reportedly included a strong admonition against recognizing Palestine as a separate state and an insistence that Israel would do whatever is necessary to recover hostages and protect citizens. He even said that Israeli loudspeakers were broadcasting his address in Gaza — a rhetorical gesture intended to reach militants directly.

Hamas dismissed these moves in its Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech, claiming they were performative and failed to address civilian suffering. Netanyahu’s ultimatum — surrender arms, allow Israeli entry, and free hostages or face lethal force — drew a particularly scathing rebuttal in Hamas’s statement.

The Demand for Palestinian State Recognition

Recognition of Palestine featured prominently in the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech. Hamas urged countries worldwide to acknowledge Palestine as a sovereign state, framing recognition as a moral and political imperative in response to Israel’s actions.

The debate over recognition is longstanding and complex, involving legal, diplomatic, and security considerations. Hamas’s push in its response sought to shift the conversation from purely security-focused narratives to one emphasizing statehood and rights.

Humanitarian Appeal and the Call to Force Israel Out of Gaza

Hamas’s statement said the world is increasingly aware of what Israel is doing in Gaza and called for immediate steps to stop the humanitarian catastrophe. The Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech explicitly urged global actors to “force Israel out of Gaza,” a demand that underscores the severity of the group’s position.

Such language escalates expectations for strong international intervention — a scenario many states approach cautiously. Nevertheless, the humanitarian call remains central to Hamas’s messaging.

Diplomatic Implications of Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech

The Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech could have several diplomatic consequences:

• It may intensify calls for emergency sessions at international forums.
• It may increase pressure on countries to clarify their stance on Palestinian recognition.
• It could influence public opinion, potentially galvanizing civil society campaigns and protests.

For both regional and global diplomats, managing fallout from this exchange will be a priority in the coming days.

International Reactions and Media Coverage

Media coverage across the world reacted variably. Some outlets highlighted the walkouts by delegates when Netanyahu spoke, while others cantered coverage on Hamas’s Telegram statement. International actors typically urge restraint from both sides and renew calls for humanitarian corridors and hostage negotiations.

Readers seeking comprehensive coverage can consult established news sources and multilateral bodies for ongoing updates:

These outlets offer ongoing reporting and context that complement the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech narrative.

What This Means for Hostages and Civilians

Netanyahu addressed hostages directly, pledging that Israelis have not forgotten them. Hamas’s statement, as part of the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech, focused more on collective suffering and called for immediate pressure to end civilian casualties.

The human cost — hostages, displaced families, and casualties — remains the core humanitarian concern. Whatever diplomatic exchanges occur at the UN, they are inseparable from the urgent need for safe corridors, humanitarian aid, and credible hostage-negotiation mechanisms.

Why the Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech Matters Now

The Hamas Response to Netanyahu UN Speech is not merely a rhetorical retort; it is an appeal to the international community to move from words to action. By labeling Netanyahu’s address misleading and urging recognition and pressure, Hamas seeks to reshape global engagement.

UN, Sep.27.2025:India’s reply to Shehbaz Sharif at UN has once again exposed Islamabad’s double standards on terrorism and peace. After the Pakistani Prime Minister’s speech at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), India’s First Secretary at its Permanent Mission to the UN, Petal Gahlot, strongly rebutted Sharif’s claims-

Gahlot accused Pakistan of glorifying terrorism and reminded the world that it was Islamabad that had sheltered Osama bin Laden for a decade while pretending to be a U.S. ally in the war on terror.

Shehbaz Sharif’s Speech at the UN General Assembly

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addressed the UNGA with familiar rhetoric, accusing India of using the Pahalgam terror attack for political mileage and reiterating Islamabad’s desire for peace talks.

Sharif controversially credited former U.S. President Donald Trump for preventing war between India and Pakistan, a claim India has repeatedly dismissed in the past.

He insisted that Pakistan had “won the war” with India and was now ready for peace talks on all outstanding issues.

India’s Strong Counterattack

India’s reply to Shehbaz Sharif at UN was sharp and uncompromising. Petal Gahlot described Sharif’s speech as “ridiculous theatrics” and condemned Pakistan’s glorification of terrorism.

She reminded the global community that no amount of lies or propaganda could hide the truth: Pakistan continues to nurture terror groups responsible for attacks on innocent civilians in India.

Pakistan’s History of Shielding Terrorists

India’s representative cited Pakistan’s track record of protecting terrorists. The most striking example was Osama bin Laden, who was found hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011.

This fact continues to haunt Islamabad’s credibility whenever it tries to portray itself as a victim of terrorism rather than a sponsor.

The Brutal Incident India Highlighted

Petal Gahlot also referred to the Pahalgam massacre of April 25, 2025, when terrorists targeted Indian tourists in Jammu and Kashmir. The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front, an extremist outfit believed to have links with Pakistan.

Gahlot accused Islamabad of shielding the perpetrators from accountability at the UN Security Council, undermining global counterterrorism efforts.

The Osama bin Laden Connection Exposed Again

Revisiting the Osama bin Laden episode, India’s reply to Shehbaz Sharif at UN reminded delegates how Pakistan harbored the world’s most wanted terrorist for years.

Gahlot said, “This was the same Pakistan that sheltered Osama bin Laden for over a decade, while pretending to be a partner in the war on terror.”

This stark reminder reinforced India’s argument that Pakistan cannot be trusted when it speaks about peace.

India’s Message on Peace Talks

Shehbaz Sharif’s call for peace talks was met with skepticism in New Delhi’s response. Gahlot said that if Pakistan was truly sincere, it should immediately shut down terror camps operating on its soil and hand over terrorists wanted in India.

She added that genuine peace can only come when Pakistan stops exporting terrorism across the border.

Why India Calls Pakistan’s Claims Hypocritical

India has consistently accused Pakistan of hypocrisy: talking about peace in international forums while backing terror groups domestically.

This duality was once again evident in Sharif’s UN speech and the firm Indian reply that followed.

The Trump Factor in Shehbaz Sharif’s Speech

Sharif’s reference to Donald Trump’s supposed role in averting war between India and Pakistan sparked fresh controversy. India has repeatedly dismissed such claims, stating that no third-party mediation was involved in de-escalating tensions.

New Delhi maintains that all issues with Pakistan are strictly bilateral and will not involve external powers.

International Reactions to the Exchange

While the UN floor has often been a stage for fiery India-Pakistan exchanges, this year’s confrontation gained more attention due to the Pahalgam massacre and ongoing instability in South Asia.

Several analysts noted that India’s direct reference to Osama bin Laden served as a strong reminder of Pakistan’s tainted past.

The Larger India-Pakistan UN Debate

The India-Pakistan rivalry at the UN is decades old, with Kashmir often dominating the discourse. Each year, Pakistan raises the issue, and India counters with reminders of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism.

This year, however, India’s focus on the Pahalgam attack and bin Laden’s sheltering gave the rebuttal extra weight.

Expert Opinions on the Diplomatic Clash

Foreign policy experts praised India’s reply to Shehbaz Sharif at UN for being precise and hard-hitting.

According to strategic analyst Brahma Chellaney, “India has consistently highlighted Pakistan’s duplicity, but linking the Pahalgam massacre to Pakistan’s UN behavior strengthens the credibility of New Delhi’s case.”

Lessons from Past UN Confrontations

This is not the first time India has exposed Pakistan at the UN. In past years, Indian diplomats have countered references to Kashmir by pointing to Pakistan’s record on terrorism, minority rights, and democratic backsliding.

The trend has continued, with India ensuring that Pakistan’s attempts to globalize bilateral disputes are neutralized.

What Lies Ahead for India-Pakistan Relations

The heated exchange raises fresh questions about the future of India-Pakistan relations. While Sharif claims to want peace, India insists on accountability first.

Until Pakistan dismantles terror networks, meaningful dialogue appears unlikely. The latest UN spat only reinforces this deadlock.

India’s reply to Shehbaz Sharif at UN was a powerful reminder to the global community: Pakistan cannot hide its long history of supporting terrorism behind empty calls for peace.

By highlighting the Pahalgam attack and Osama bin Laden’s decade-long shelter in Pakistan, New Delhi made it clear that genuine dialogue will only be possible when Islamabad takes concrete action against terror.

New Delhi, Sep.27,2025:The presence of 27 Indians in Russian Army ranks has emerged as a serious concern for New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed on Friday that efforts are underway to secure the release of these citizens, who were reportedly recruited into Russia’s military amid the ongoing conflict with Ukraine-

MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, during a press briefing, said, “We have recently learned that some more Indian citizens have joined the Russian Army. Families informed us, and we are actively engaging with the Russian government to bring them back at the earliest.”

Families Raise Alarm, Ministry Confirms Cases

According to officials, several families contacted the Indian government after discovering that their relatives had joined the Russian Army under unclear circumstances. Some accounts suggest that individuals were misled with promises of lucrative jobs, only to be forced into combat roles once they reached Russia.

The MEA confirmed that approximately 27 Indians are currently in service with the Russian Army, and negotiations are ongoing for their safe release.

Previous Warnings from the Indian Government

This is not the first time such an incident has come to light. Earlier this year, the Indian government had issued an advisory warning citizens against joining foreign militaries, particularly in active conflict zones like Russia and Ukraine.

Despite repeated warnings, reports suggest that several Indians, especially from economically weaker backgrounds, were lured with job offers and ended up on the battlefield.

How Did Indians End Up in the Russian Army

Recruitment of foreigners in the Russian Army is not new. Reports indicate that Russia, facing manpower shortages due to the prolonged war in Ukraine, has been hiring foreigners with promises of citizenship and financial incentives.

Several Indians were reportedly offered jobs in construction or support services but later found themselves drafted into active military duty.

Diplomatic Efforts to Secure Release

India has raised this matter multiple times with Russian authorities. According to MEA spokesperson Jaiswal, “The government is in touch with Moscow to ensure the safe return of all Indians. We are closely monitoring the situation and pressing for their early release.”

This follows earlier successful efforts, where India managed to bring back a group of Indians who were stuck in similar circumstances in Russia.

Risks Faced by Indians in the Russian Army

The biggest concern is the safety of Indians deployed in active war zones. Reports from Ukraine’s frontlines highlight the dangers faced by foreign recruits, many of whom are inadequately trained and placed in high-risk positions.

For families in India, every day is filled with uncertainty about the safety and well-being of their loved ones.

International Reactions and Comparisons

The issue of Indians in the Russian Army is not isolated. Citizens from several countries, including Nepal, Sri Lanka, and African nations, have reportedly been recruited by Russia.

Nepal recently confirmed casualties among its citizens fighting for Russia, while Sri Lanka is also negotiating the release of its nationals. India’s case adds more diplomatic pressure on Moscow.

Russia-India Relations at Stake

While India and Russia share historic ties, the issue of Indian citizens in the Russian Army adds a new layer of complexity. Analysts suggest that while it may not derail bilateral relations, it could impact public sentiment and India’s stance on foreign recruitment.

India has so far maintained a delicate balance in its approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but the presence of 27 Indians in Russian Army service raises new diplomatic challenges.

What Families Are Demanding

Families of those trapped in Russia are demanding swift action. Many have appealed directly to the Prime Minister’s Office and the MEA, seeking urgent intervention.

Several parents have publicly spoken about being kept in the dark regarding their sons’ real situation until they received desperate phone calls from Russia.

Expert Views on Recruitment of Foreigners in Conflicts

Defense analysts highlight that the recruitment of foreigners during conflicts is a controversial practice. It not only puts individuals at grave risk but also creates diplomatic strains between nations.

Experts suggest that stronger awareness campaigns are needed in India to prevent citizens from falling prey to such recruitment traps.

Lessons from Past Cases

Earlier incidents involving Indians in conflict zones underline the need for vigilance. For example, several Indians stranded in war-hit Ukraine during the early days of the Russia-Ukraine war had to be rescued through Operation Ganga.

This current situation reinforces the importance of strict monitoring of recruitment agencies and job offers abroad.

The Road Ahead for Affected Indians

For the 27 Indians in Russian Army, the path forward depends heavily on diplomatic negotiations. India’s government is optimistic but has warned families that the process may take time, given the ongoing war situation.

Meanwhile, Indian missions abroad have been instructed to increase surveillance on dubious recruitment drives targeting Indians for foreign militaries.

The presence of 27 Indians in Russian Army service has sparked concern not only among families but also at the diplomatic level. While New Delhi continues to negotiate their release, the incident serves as a cautionary tale for citizens considering risky job offers abroad.

UK, Sep.26,2025:The UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 has taken the British political landscape by storm. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a bold new policy to curb illegal immigration, introducing a digital ID system that would make it significantly harder for undocumented migrants to work or rent homes in the UK-

Starmer argued that left-wing parties, including his own Labour Party in the past, have “avoided addressing public concerns” over illegal immigration for too long. Now, he says, it’s time for a “decisive, comprehensive approach.”

The plan — which requires new laws and extensive debate — comes in the wake of stricter US policies and rising public demand in Britain for stronger border control and immigration enforcement.

Starmer’s Digital ID Proposal Explained

At the heart of the UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 is the digital identity card system, which would become mandatory for anyone starting a new job, renting a property, or accessing certain public services.

The proposal aims to-

• Verify legal status before employment or tenancy agreements.
• Strengthen border control and reduce illegal entry incentives.
• Deter undocumented workers from entering the job market.
• Enhance national security by monitoring non-citizens more effectively.

Starmer described the plan as a “modern solution” to a “long-standing problem” that successive governments failed to address effectively.

Why UK Needs a Tougher Immigration Policy

Illegal immigration has been a top political issue in the UK for over a decade. According to the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, estimates suggest there are between 800,000 and 1.2 million undocumented migrants currently living in the UK.

Critics argue that illegal immigration-

• Undermines labour markets by driving down wages.
• Strains public services like healthcare and housing.
• Poses national security risks if individuals evade background checks.

The UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 aims to reverse these trends by tightening enforcement mechanisms and deterring illegal entry in the first place.

Starmer Slams Left-Wing Parties for Ignoring the Crisis

In one of his strongest statements yet as Prime Minister, Starmer took aim at his own political camp:

“For too long, left-wing parties — including Labour — have sidestepped the immigration debate. That stops now. We will tackle this issue from every angle.”

Starmer’s criticism was a clear attempt to reposition Labour as a party that can balance compassion with control — protecting national interests while still upholding human rights obligations.

How the Digital ID Will Work

The digital ID system, as outlined in the UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025, will operate as follows:

• Anyone starting a new job must present their digital ID via smartphone or online portal.
• The same applies when signing a rental agreement or applying for public services.
• The digital ID will verify immigration status in real-time, cross-referencing Home Office records.
• Employers or landlords who fail to check IDs could face heavy fines or legal action.

However, the government acknowledges the challenges: legislation must be passed, privacy concerns addressed, and alternatives provided for those without smartphones or passports.

Praise and Criticism

The announcement triggered immediate and polarizing reactions across the UK political spectrum.

Conservatives Call It a “Desperate Gamble”

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch criticized the plan, calling it a “desperate gamble” to regain voter trust.

“This is too little, too late. Labour ignored illegal immigration for years, and now they’re scrambling to fix it before the next election,” Badenoch said.

The Conservatives argue that Starmer’s proposal lacks enforcement mechanisms and could be exploited by those using forged documents.

Liberal Democrats Raise Privacy Concerns

The Liberal Democrats expressed concerns over data security and privacy, warning that the digital ID system could push migrants into hiding rather than bringing them into legal compliance.

“This plan risks creating a surveillance state where people fear sharing their personal data,” a party spokesperson said.

Privacy advocates also warned of potential data breaches and misuse of sensitive personal information by employers or landlords.

How Other Countries Handle Illegal Immigration

The UK’s plan is part of a broader international trend of governments tightening immigration laws.

• United States: Recently implemented stricter asylum rules and increased deportations.
• Germany: Expanded workplace checks and documentation requirements.
• Australia: Uses biometric verification systems for visa and work permits.

By introducing a digital ID system, the UK joins a growing list of countries leveraging technology to regulate immigration more effectively.

Explore how other countries manage immigration

Impact on Labour Market and Border Security

If implemented successfully, the UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 could reshape the British labour market and border policy.

• For employers: Mandatory verification could reduce exploitation of undocumented workers.
• For workers: Legal migrants may see improved wages and job security.
• For border control: Enhanced data integration could help track overstayers and illegal entries.

However, experts warn that enforcement will be key — without robust penalties, the system could become a mere formality rather than a deterrent.

What Critics and Experts Are Saying

Migration policy experts have offered a mixed verdict.

• Dr. Sophie Baldry, a migration researcher, said: “The digital ID proposal is ambitious but complex. Implementation challenges could undermine its effectiveness.”
• Immigration lawyer David Grieg warned: “Without strong data protection laws, this scheme risks violating civil liberties.”
• Economist Linda Moore noted: “It could reduce illegal employment but might also lead to labour shortages in low-skilled sectors.”

These views reflect the delicate balance between enforcement, ethics, and economic realities.

Political and Legal Challenges

Passing the UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 into law will not be easy. Starmer’s government faces:

• Legislative hurdles in Parliament, especially in the House of Lords.
• Legal challenges over privacy and human rights.
• Public skepticism, particularly from civil liberties groups and migrant organizations.

Yet, with immigration ranking as one of the top three voter concerns in recent polls, the Labour government is betting that a tougher stance could bolster its political standing.

A Defining Moment for UK’s Immigration Future

The UK Illegal Immigration Crackdown Plan 2025 is shaping up to be one of the most consequential policy battles of Starmer’s premiership. Supporters hail it as a long-overdue solution to a persistent challenge, while critics warn it risks overreach and unintended consequences.

US, Sep.26,2025:Trump 100% Tariff on Branded Drugs has sparked a storm across the pharmaceutical world. On Thursday, former U.S. President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new trade measure: a 100% tariff on all branded and patented pharmaceutical imports, effective October 1, 2025–

This move, shared on his platform Truth Social, will drastically reshape global pharmaceutical trade. For India—one of the largest exporters of medicines to the United States—the decision comes as a fresh blow after existing 50% tariffs already dented export margins.

Alongside medicines, Trump also slapped 25% tariffs on heavy-duty trucks, 50% tariffs on kitchen and bathroom cabinets, and 30% tariffs on upholstered furniture.

Details of the New 100% Tariff Policy

Trump declared that beginning October 2025.

• 100% tariff will apply to all branded and patented pharmaceutical products not made in the U.S.
• 50% tariff will apply to all imported kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and related furniture.
• 25% tariff will target heavy-duty trucks.
• 30% tariff will hit upholstered furniture.

He justified these tariffs as necessary to protect American manufacturers from “unfair foreign competition” and to safeguard national security interests.

Why Trump is Targeting Branded Drugs

At the core of Trump’s 100% Tariff on Branded Drugs lies his long-standing trade policy—”America First.” Trump has repeatedly accused countries like Ireland of offering low corporate tax rates to lure U.S. pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson.

By imposing heavy tariffs, Trump aims to force drug makers to shift production back to the U.S. instead of outsourcing to Ireland, India, or other low-cost countries.

Impact on Indian Pharmaceutical Exports

India exports around $12.7 billion worth of medicines annually to the U.S., according to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). While most are generic drugs, India also supplies branded formulations through leading firms like.

• Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
• Lupin Limited
• Sun Pharma

These companies already operate at thin profit margins. With tariffs doubling to 100%, many may find it unsustainable to continue branded drug exports.

North America contributes nearly one-third of Indian pharma companies’ profits, meaning any disruption could shake their financial stability.

Indian Generic vs Branded Drug Market in the US

• Generics dominate: Nearly 90% of U.S. prescriptions are filled with generic drugs, and half of them originate from India.
• Branded drugs matter less for India, but tariffs still hurt because they raise overall compliance costs.
• According to IQVIA, Indian generics saved the U.S. $219 billion in 2022 alone.

Experts warn that if tariffs extend to generics in the future, U.S. healthcare costs could skyrocket and shortages could worsen.

The Ireland Factor in Branded Drugs Tariffs

The biggest hidden target of the Trump 100% Tariff on Branded Drugs may be Ireland.

• Ireland hosts factories of over a dozen top pharma companies, including Merck, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.
• Products like Keytruda (Merck’s cancer drug) and Botox (AbbVie) are manufactured there for U.S. consumers.
• Trump has accused Ireland of running a “tax haven scam” at America’s expense.

This makes Ireland’s pharmaceutical exports a likely primary casualty of the tariff war.

Consequences for US Healthcare Costs

If tariffs are enforced strictly.

• Drug costs will rise in the U.S. due to reduced competition.
• Patients may face shortages, especially for specialized treatments like cancer and obesity drugs.
• Insurance companies could increase premiums.
• Hospitals may cut back on treatments that rely on imported branded drugs.

Ironically, while Trump’s policy is meant to protect American manufacturers, it may hurt American patients the most.

Expert Reactions and Global Trade Concerns

• GTRI experts warn Indian pharma exporters may be “priced out” of the U.S. market.
• Reuters analysts note Trump’s tariffs risk violating WTO rules, sparking global trade disputes.
• U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has defended the move, calling Ireland’s policies a “scandal.”

Global reactions remain divided—some view this as protectionist overreach, while others see it as a wake-up call for diversifying supply chains.

Future of India–US Pharma Trade Relations

For India, the challenge is twofold.

1. Safeguard generics – India must push through trade negotiations to keep generics exempt from tariff hikes.
2. Diversify exports – Indian firms may need to explore markets in Europe, Africa, and Latin America to reduce dependency on the U.S.

Experts suggest that without a bilateral trade deal, Indian companies could lose competitiveness in the world’s largest pharma market.

A Global Ripple Effect

The Trump 100% Tariff on Branded Drugs is more than a trade policy—it’s a geopolitical signal. While it may protect U.S. truck and cabinet makers, the real storm is in pharmaceuticals.

For India, the short-term impact may be limited to branded drugs, but the long-term fear is clear: if generics are targeted, America’s healthcare system could face unprecedented costs and shortages.

Indonesia,Sep.25,2025:The news of Indonesia free lunch food poisoning has shocked parents, schools, and health experts alike. More than 1,000 children fell ill after consuming government-distributed meals under President Prabowo Subianto’s multi-billion-dollar nutrition program–

This is not the first such incident. Over the past few months, several similar cases have been reported, raising doubts about the program’s safety and implementation.

According to BBC Indonesia, between Monday and Wednesday alone, around 1,171 children reported severe illness after eating meals provided under the scheme.

Background of the Free Lunch Program

Launched as part of Prabowo Subianto’s ambitious election promise, the free lunch program was meant to fight malnutrition in schools.

• The program aims to provide nutritious meals to millions of students daily.
• Foods include rice, chicken, tofu, vegetables, and fruits.
• The initiative is seen as a cornerstone of Prabowo’s social welfare agenda.

However, repeated outbreaks of foodborne illness have now cast a dark shadow over this otherwise noble mission.

Timeline of the Recent Outbreak

The latest Indonesia free lunch food poisoning incident unfolded as follows:

• Monday to Wednesday (Sept 2025): 1,171 children fell sick across multiple schools.
• Symptoms began within hours of lunch.
• Last week: 800 children in West Java and Central Sulawesi were also reported ill.
• Earlier cases: Previous complaints involved expired sauces used in food preparation.

This rapid sequence of events has raised urgent questions about food safety controls.

Symptoms Reported by Affected Children

The sick children experienced serious health complications, though doctors say some symptoms differed from typical food poisoning.

Reported symptoms included:

• Severe stomach pain
• Dizziness and nausea
• Vomiting
• Breathing difficulties

These unusual symptoms suggest that the problem may not be standard bacterial poisoning, but perhaps chemical contamination or mishandling of ingredients.

Previous Incidents of Food Poisoning in Indonesia

Unfortunately, the Indonesia free lunch food poisoning scandal is not an isolated case.

• In earlier months, hundreds of students had fallen ill due to expired soy sauce and unhygienic cooking conditions.
• Local reports show that inspection systems remain weak, and supply chains lack proper monitoring.
• Critics argue that haste in launching the program led to insufficient food safety checks.

Government’s Response to the Crisis

Officials have acknowledged the outbreak but insist that the program will continue.

The Ministry of Education and Health confirmed investigations are underway, but no immediate suspension of the scheme is planned.

Government spokespersons maintain that the benefits outweigh the risks, citing the millions of children who receive meals safely each day.

Why Authorities Refuse to Suspend the Program

Despite repeated cases of Indonesia free lunch food poisoning, officials argue that:

• The program is vital to fighting child malnutrition.
• Temporary halts could harm poor families who depend on the meals.
• They believe stricter safety protocols can solve the problem without stopping distribution.

This stance, however, has sparked anger among parents and opposition parties.

Parents and Teachers React to the Outbreak

The crisis has shaken public trust.

• Parents are demanding immediate suspension of the program until safety can be guaranteed.
• Teachers report widespread fear in schools, with many children refusing to eat free lunches.
• Opposition leaders accuse the government of negligence and playing politics with children’s health.

For many, the phrase “Indonesia free lunch food poisoning” has now become synonymous with government failure.

What Went Wrong

Health experts suggest several possible reasons.

• Poor storage: Meals may not be refrigerated properly in tropical heat.
• Expired ingredients: Past cases linked to outdated sauces.
• Overburdened supply chains: Distributing millions of meals daily creates huge logistical risks.
• Lack of trained staff: Many food handlers are not adequately trained in hygiene.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), food borne diseases affect 600 million people globally each year. Indonesia’s case highlights systemic weaknesses in food safety management.

Public Health Risks and Long-Term Concerns

The Indonesia free lunch food poisoning crisis poses broader risks:

• Possible long-term health damage among affected children.
• Strain on hospitals and healthcare resources.
• Decline in public trust toward government welfare programs.

If not addressed urgently, it could damage Indonesia’s reputation in handling public health crises.

School Meal Programs Worldwide

Indonesia is not alone. Many countries run free lunch programs, but food safety remains a challenge.

• India: The Mid-Day Meal scheme faced similar poisoning incidents, including a 2013 case where 23 children died.
• United States: School lunch quality has often been criticized, though strict safety regulations help prevent mass poisonings.
• Brazil: Known for one of the most successful school meal programs, prioritizing local sourcing and strict hygiene standards.

Indonesia can learn from these global examples to rebuild trust and safety.

What Needs to Change in Indonesia’s Free Lunch Program

To prevent further cases of Indonesia free lunch food poisoning, experts recommend:

• Mandatory daily inspections of food suppliers.
• Refrigeration and storage facilities in every school.
• Hiring and training professional food handlers.
• Transparent reporting of all safety violations.
• Involving parents and communities in monitoring food quality.

Only by implementing these reforms can Indonesia restore faith in the initiative.

Lessons from the Indonesia Free Lunch Food Poisoning Case

The outbreak of Indonesia free lunch food poisoning affecting over 1,000 children is a wake-up call. While the program’s goals are noble, execution flaws threaten the very children it aims to protect.

Unless swift reforms are made, the initiative risks becoming a political liability rather than a symbol of progress.

For now, parents, teachers, and experts demand action over promises, as Indonesia struggles to balance nutrition with safety.