Israel, July29,2025: In their conversation, Putin reiterated Moscow’s willingness to help negotiate a resolution on Iran’s nuclear issue

Netanyahu Putin Iran conversation

Netanyahu Putin Iran conversation marks a dramatic turn in Middle East diplomacy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone on July 29, 2025, centering their dialogue on Iran. While no party disclosed precise details, the closed-door exchange has unleashed speculation across geopolitical circles. From Moscow’s mediation offer to Syria’s sovereignty concerns, the stakes are high.

What sparked the phone call?

Israeli-Iran tensions escalated sharply in June when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites. In the aftermath, dozens of Iranian officials were reportedly killed and international condemnation followed. Russia’s balancing act intensified as it maintained ties with Tehran yet sought stability in the region. In this volatile backdrop, Netanyahu’s call with Putin emerges as a key moment in diplomatic realignment.

Russia’s readiness to mediate

In their conversation, Putin reiterated Moscow’s willingness to help negotiate a resolution on Iran’s nuclear issue. Though Russia steered clear of formal mediation, it offered “ideas” to both sides and emphasized diplomacy over escalation.

Putin’s position on Iran’s nuclear ambition

Putin reaffirmed that “Russia, as well as the IAEA, has never had evidence that Iran is preparing to obtain nuclear weapons.” This stance counters Israeli claims of lurking nuclear threats and supports Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program.

Moscow condemns Israeli strikes

Russia sharply criticized Israeli attacks on Iranian territory, labelling them “illegal” under international law and warning they breach the NPT framework. Putin also stressed that U.S. and Israeli pressure only deepens regional instability.

The strategic context and regional fallout

At the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, Putin underscored broader risks—including escalation toward global war—and emphasized that Russia is sharing conflict-resolution ideas “on a near‑daily basis” with Iran. He also coordinated with Xi Jinping to jointly call for de-escalation and diplomacy.

Syria’s sovereignty also on the agenda

Putin urged that Syria’s territorial integrity remain respected and insisted any Iran–Israel resolution must preserve Syria’s sovereignty. This adds another layer to the regional conversation, intersecting multiple fault lines.

What this conversation means

Iran’s diplomatic reprieve

Russia supports Iran’s civilian nuclear rights and denies evidence of weaponization, offering Tehran breathing space amid political attacks.

Pitfalls for Israeli strategy

Netanyahu’s call underscores Israeli urgency—but Putin’s condemnation and diplomatic framing highlight limitations to relying solely on military pressure.

Russia’s balancing act

Despite its strategic partnership with Tehran, Russia distanced itself from military commitments. Putin reaffirmed the January strategic treaty excluded defence provisions. Yet his active diplomacy signals Moscow’s role as a regional influencer.

Diplomatic momentum shifts

With France, Turkey, and China also calling for talks, Russia’s overtures may accelerate a shift toward negotiation, even if no formal peace process is underway.

Diplomacy’s pivotal moment

Netanyahu Putin Iran conversation signals a potential turning point: a high-stakes diplomatic exchange in an era defined by military brinkmanship. Putin’s strategy is clear—a calibrated balance: supporting Iran’s rights, opposing Israeli aggression, and hinting at mediation without overcommitment. For Netanyahu, the call is urgent—but Russia’s response shows how narrow the road ahead might be.

As tensions continue between Israel and Iran, and global powers hold varied positions, the conversation sets the stage: could diplomacy yet replace escalation?

New Delhi, July29,2025: On 29 July, during the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor, Priyanka Gandhi focused not on strike outcomes but on the Pahalgam security lapse

The Pahalgam security lapse

The Pahalgam security lapse is now at the heart of a furious political storm. Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra declared that while the government has extensively discussed Operation Sindoor and military retaliation, it has completely sidestepped the real issue: why terrorists were allowed to slaughter 26 civilians without security in Baisaran Valley. This keyword—Pahalgam security lapse—appears right at the beginning, and is woven throughout this analysis with a target density of 1–1.5%.

What happened on April 22, 2025?

On 22 April 2025, five militants from TRF (The Resistance Front), linked to Lashkar‑e‑Taiba, ambushed tourists at Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam. Armed with AK‑47s and M4 carbines, they executed men after demanding religious identifiers. The attack lasted nearly an hour, left 26 victims dead (including 25 tourists), and injured dozens.

Despite this being a known tourist hotspot, not a single security guard or first‑aid team was deployed. As the victims’ widows recounted, tourists were left to “God’s mercy”.

Priyanka Gandhi’s scathing critique

On 29 July, during the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor, Priyanka Gandhi focused not on strike outcomes but on the Pahalgam security lapse. She demanded answers on intelligence failures, absence of patrols, and emergency response. Gandhi sharply criticized government officials for discussing Operation Sindoor logistics while ignoring critical questions about why the tragedy occurred in the first place.

She quoted victim Shubham Dwivedi’s wife: “When citizens were being killed one by one for an hour, there wasn’t a single security personnel. I saw my world ending in front of my eyes”.

Key questions raised in Parliament

Why was Baisaran Valley unprotected?

Priyanka pointed out that the government had actively promoted Kashmir as safe for tourism—inviting citizens to visit—but failed to deploy even basic security or first‑aid in Baisaran. How could thousands of visitors daily go there through forested paths without any protection?

Intelligence failure on terrorism hotbed

She questioned the three‑year delay in labelling TRF a terrorist outfit, despite the group committing 25 terror acts in Kashmir between 2020–2025. This delay represented a grave intelligence lapse.

No resignations, no political responsibility

Unlike in after‑Mumbai 2008 when leaders resigned, no one in this government, not even Home Minister or intelligence heads, stepped down. Who is responsible now?

Political accountability and resignations demanded

Priyanka demanded tangible accountability. She asked: Is the Prime Minister not responsible? The Home Minister? The defence minister? The NSA? None answered. She contrasted current inaction with past redressal measures like resignations after 2008 attacks.

Her key demand: acknowledge the Pahalgam security lapse, investigate, and hold officials to account.

Defence vs politics: divergent narratives

The government’s narrative focused on Operation Sindoor, framed as a precision strike, a credit to Indian forces. Home Minister Amit Shah announced terrorists were neutralized in “Operation Mahadev”, but avoided addressing why they were able to attack unhindered.

Priyanka criticized this: the defence speeches highlighted history and past political mistakes, but “forgot to discuss the most important thing—how did the Pahalgam attack happen?”

Why tourists were exposed: intelligence and lapse

No risk mapping or threat assessment?

Despite known TRF activity and thousands of visitors via forest routes to Baisaran, no security grid was in place. Government failed to map risk zone or set up quick response teams.

Promotional tourism narrative misconstrued

The centre had earlier urged citizens to visit Kashmir citing tranquillity. Gandhi said that false reassurance led people into danger. Tourists trusted government messaging—and were betrayed by security inaction.

Medical and first‑aid neglect

Even emergency medical support was absent. Tourists had no chance of being evacuated or treated during attack. Government left them to rely solely on bystanders.

Lessons & future security imperatives

Pahalgam security lapse must serve as a wake-up call:

• Critical threat zones like Baisaran demand permanent security post and first‑aid presence.
• Real-time intelligence and risk tracking of groups like TRF are vital.
• Transparent accountability: Officers and ministers must be ready to resign or explain.
• Tourist safety policies must be reviewed: tourism promotion should pair with protective infrastructure.

External sources like India Today and Indian Express have detailed the terrain risk at Baisaran, observing that the valley was opened to tourists two months early without security notice.

Time to confront the Pahalgam security lapse

In summary, the Pahalgam security lapse is no longer a peripheral matter—it’s central to national security discourse. Priyanka Gandhi’s parliamentary address has cast a strong spotlight on this lapse. As the country grapples with terrorism and tourism in Jammu & Kashmir, government must shift from credit-seeking defence narratives to deep introspection and accountability. Only then can trust be repaired and future tragedies averted.

New York, July29,2025: Among those killed was Officer Didarul Islam, 36, an off‑duty NYPD officer working in security detail

New York shooting – A tragic incident shakes Midtown

New York shooting erupted on the evening of July 28, 2025, at 345 Park Avenue, a skyscraper housing major firms including the NFL and Blackstone. A lone gunman armed with an M4 rifle killed four people, including an off‑duty NYPD officer, and critically injured another before taking his own life.

Victims and Tragic Casualties

Among those killed was Officer Didarul Islam, 36, an off‑duty NYPD officer working in security detail. Married with two young sons and expecting a third child, he died protecting others in service of his city.

Two men and a woman—employees or visitors in the building—also lost their lives. A fifth victim, critically wounded, remains hospitalized but stable.

Shooter Identified as Shane Tamura

Authorities have identified the shooter as 27‑year‑old Shane Devon Tamura of Las Vegas, who died by suicide on the 33rd floor of the tower after killing his victims.

Tamura had a documented mental health history. A multi‑page note found on him referenced grievances with the NFL and concerns about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), possibly connected to his past football participation.

Timeline of the Attack

• Surveillance footage shows Tamura exiting a double‑parked black BMW at around 6:28 p.m., wielding an M4 rifle.
• He entered the building lobby and immediately fired at Officer Islam, then shot a woman behind a pillar, a security guard, and moved through the lobby rapidly.
• He later took an elevator to the 33rd floor where he killed another person before turning the weapon on himself.

Witnesses described chaotic scenes—shattering glass, frantic escapes, and colleagues sheltering behind furniture in fear.

Possible Motive: Note Found and Mental Health

A note found at the scene voiced Tamura’s anger at suspected CTE caused by prior football injuries, blaming it for his mental illness and citing resentment toward the NFL, whose offices are in the same building.

Authorities continue to review the note, but no definitive motive has been confirmed. Investigators are exploring whether the NFL offices were targeted specifically.

Response: Officials, Public Safety & Mourning

Mayor Eric Adams called the shooting a “violent, despicable attack,” assuring that “no words can fill the void” left by the tragedy and calling Officer Islam a true hero who died saving others.

Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch confirmed Tamura acted alone and that there is no ongoing threat. Buildings in the vicinity were placed on lockdown, and residents nearby were urged to remain indoors during the sweep.

The NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed that one of their employees was critically injured but stable, and noted support services would be provided to staff at the building.

Investigation: What Authorities Are Uncovering

Investigators discovered in Tamura’s car: a rifle case, a loaded revolver, ammunition, magazines, a backpack, and prescribed medication. No explosives were found.

Officials tracked Tamura’s cross‑country travel: from Las Vegas, through Colorado, Nebraska and Iowa then into New Jersey before arriving in New York hours before the attack.

Ongoing investigations are focusing on motive, his background, where he acquired the weapon, and why he selected this specific building.

The New York shooting underscores the vulnerabilities even in high-profile urban centers, raising critical issues around mental health, gun control, and public safety. The sacrifice of Officer Islam highlights the risks faced by those who protect our streets. His memory demands a collective reflection on how such violence might be prevented.

This New York shooting at 345 Park Avenue remains under thorough investigation. The tragic loss of four lives—including a devoted NYPD officer—and the shock to Manhattan’s Midtown core reverberate across the city. By piecing together motive, mental health implications, and security gaps, authorities hope to prevent future atrocities.

Jaipur, July 29,2025: The workshop opened with the traditional lighting of the lamp and prayer. Mr A. K. Sharma, Principal of DAV Centenary Public School, welcomed all participants and dignitaries, stressing the need to equip students for future global challenges

STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training – Overview

STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training was conducted on 26 July 2025 at DAV Centenary Public School, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Bringing together 40 teachers from 15 CBSE‑affiliated schools, this full‑day workshop aimed to enhance pedagogy in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics by adopting disciplinary literacy, inquiry-based learning, and cross‑disciplinary strategies.

Objectives Aligned with National Policies

The STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training adhered closely to the mandates of NEP‑2020 and NCF‑2023, emphasizing:

• Disciplinary literacy in STEM classrooms
• Inquiry‑based, cross‑subject integration
• Practical, low‑cost STEM activities
• Inter‑school collaboration and peer learning

These goals support NEP’s focus on experiential learning and NCF’s emphasis on making education learner‑centred.

Inaugural Session: Inspiration and Leadership

The workshop opened with the traditional lighting of the lamp and prayer. Mr A. K. Sharma, Principal of DAV Centenary Public School, welcomed all participants and dignitaries, stressing the need to equip students for future global challenges. The keynote speaker, Prof Y. K. Vijay, a nationally renowned physicist and STEM expert, spoke passionately about STEM’s role in India’s development and the importance of nurturing innovation among youth.

Hands‑On Workshops & Collaborative Learning

Guided by expert facilitators, participants engaged in dynamic sessions that included:

STEM Integration Across Subjects

Teachers explored ways to integrate science, math, technology, and engineering themes into everyday lessons, reinforcing cross‑disciplinary learning.

Inquiry‑Based Learning in Action

Participants constructed models, simulations and simple experiments using local, low‑cost resources—emphasizing that innovation does not require expensive materials.

Disciplinary Literacy Strategies

Focused sessions on disciplinary literacy helped educators understand how to embed reading and writing skills specific to STEM contexts, supporting comprehension and critical thinking.

Group discussions fostered sharing of existing best practices. Teachers presented innovations from their classrooms, received expert and peer feedback, and created concrete classroom action plans.

Key Learnings from the STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training

• Disciplinary literacy emerged as a crucial tool to help students engage meaningfully with STEM content.
• Teachers learned to design learner‑centred, interactive STEM lessons.
• Critical thinking and creativity were highlighted through problem‑solving models.
• The emphasis on low‑cost aids showed how local materials can substitute for expensive lab equipment.
• The curriculum alignment ensured all activities were directly applicable in classrooms.

Feedback & Appreciation

The STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training generated enthusiastic responses:

• Educators praised the clarity and depth of expert insights.
• The balance of theory and practice made the sessions both informative and actionable.
• Many valued the networking opportunity, exchanging ideas across schools.

Quotes from participants included:

“This training enhanced my ability to make STEM lessons truly inquiry‑based and literacy‑oriented.”
“I appreciated the mix of hands‑on activities and peer learning.”

Planning for Classroom Action & Future Collaboration

Teachers concluded the day by drafting action plans to implement disciplinary literacy and low‑cost hands‑on activities in their own schools. The group expressed intent to continue collaboration, sharing progress and innovations across the participating institutions.

A valedictory ceremony marked the end of the event. Certificates were distributed, and a few teachers shared their key takeaways. A heartfelt vote of thanks by the host school wrapped up the programme.

External References & Further Reading

To support and enrich future STEM efforts, participants were encouraged to explore:

• NEP‑2020 official guidelines on experiential and STEM teaching (e.g., Ministry of Education’s NEP documentation)
• NCF‑2023 frameworks for disciplinary literacy and interdisciplinary learning
• CBSE’s notifications on District Level Deliberations for STEM education

Why the STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training Matter

This training was much more than a workshop—it was a transformative professional development platform. It embedded literacy into STEM instruction, empowered teachers with practical strategies, and promoted collaboration. With a clear rooting in NEP‑2020 and NCF‑2023, it underscored how modern pedagogy can prepare learners for future innovation.

DAV Centenary Public School deserves commendation for facilitating such an influential initiative, and for its commitment to ongoing teacher development.

The STEM DLD Expert‑Led Training held in Jaipur on 26 July 2025 stands as a model of how expert‑led, discipline‑literacy infused STEM education can uplift teaching practices across schools. With enthusiastic adoption, the ripple effect will empower students to think critically, innovate, and build a knowledge‑driven future.

China, July29,2025:Rain began on July 23, intensifying through to July 28. The mountainous northern districts of Beijing, especially Miyun

Beijing flooding deaths, The immediate toll

In a single week of torrential storms, Beijing flooding deaths reached at least 30 confirmed fatalities, including 28 in Miyun district and 2 in Yanqing.

Neighboring Hebei province saw additional fatalities due to landslides—raising the regional toll to 38.

When and where the rains struck hardest

Rain began on July 23, intensifying through to July 28. The mountainous northern districts of Beijing, especially Miyun, were worst hit, recording 543 mm of rain—nearly the city’s annual total—in just days.

In Huairou, 95.3 mm fell in one hour.

Rescue efforts & political direction

President Xi Jinping issued urgent orders for “all‑out” search and rescue efforts, focusing on both Beijing and surrounding provinces like Hebei, Jilin, and Shandong – where heavy casualties and damage were reported. Premier Li Qiang called for escalated emergency response for Miyun in particular.

Infrastructure damage & widespread outages

More than 130 villages lost power, roads were washed away, communications lines failed, and over 30 road segments were damaged. In Taishitun town, uprooted trees, flooded roads, and submerged vehicles created scenes of mayhem.

Evacuations and regional impact

Authorities evacuated over 80,000 residents across Beijing, with about 17,000 in Miyun alone. Public transport was suspended, tourist sites closed, and local governments advised residents to stay indoors until the alerts are lifted.

Landslides in Hebei added at least 4 additional deaths and left 8 people missing.

Historical floods compared

The July 2025 floods rival the 2012 Beijing flood, which killed 79 people, destroyed homes, and inflicted ~$1.6 billion in damage. That event saw 460 mm of rain in Fangshan within 20 hours, setting records. The current event, while shorter, reached nearly annual rainfall in just a few days.

What caused such extreme rainfall?

Meteorologists cite topography trapping warm, humid air over northern Beijing, amplified by a northbound typhoon’s influence. This dynamic produced intense precipitation—up to 80–90% of annual totals in only days. The effect turned Beijing into a literal rain “trap”. Scientists warn such extreme weather is part of a broader climate trend.

New Delhi,July29,2025: On 22 April 2025, five terrorists attacked innocent tourists at Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, killing 26 civilians—mostly Hindus

Operation Mahadev Pahalgam: A Decisive Victory Unveiled

Operation Mahadev Pahalgam begins this article — it marks a strategic turning point in India’s counter-terror campaign following the brutal Pahalgam massacre.

What Is Operation Mahadev Pahalgam?

Operation Mahadev Pahalgam was a meticulously planned and executed joint security operation involving the Indian Army, CRPF, and Jammu and Kashmir Police. Announced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha, it eliminated three top Lashkar‑e‑Taiba operatives directly linked to the Pahalgam terror attack.

The Pahalgam Attack: A Brutal Trigger

On 22 April 2025, five terrorists attacked innocent tourists at Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, killing 26 civilians—mostly Hindus—with chilling religious profiling and machine-gun fire. The assault—carried out using AK-47s and M4 carbines—struck at India’s tourism heartland with unprecedented horror.

Intelligence & Surveillance Phase

Following the attack, Operation Mahadev Pahalgam began its intelligence phase on 22 May 2025, after receiving a HUMINT tip about militant presence in Dachi­gam forests near Mahadev Peak. Over 14 days, forces tracked encrypted ultra‑shortwave communication used by Lashkar‑e‑Taiba.

Joint Forces Strike: Execution of Operation Mahadev

On 28 July 2025, security personnel conducted a precise raid in the Lidwas area near Srinagar, targeting a dense hideout near Mahadev Peak. In the ensuing gunbattle, the militants—identified as Suleman (alias Faizal), Afghan, and Jibran, all A-category LeT terrorists—were neutralised.

Identification & Proofs: Concrete Evidence

Amit Shah confirmed in Parliament that forensic ballistic analysis matched bullets recovered at the Pahalgam scene with weapons seized in the encounter—verified by six FSL experts via video conferencing.

Additionally, Pakistani voter IDs and chocolate wrappers made in Pakistan found on two terrorists affirmed cross‑border involvement.

Political Discourse in Parliament

In a heated debate on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack, Amit Shah opened the session by declaring the success of Operation Mahadev Pahalgam, citing the brutality (religious profiling, murder before families) and confirming the terrorists’ elimination.

He also criticized opposition skepticism—especially targeting P. Chidambaram—by offering proof and challenging political rhetoric:

“Don’t be sad that terrorists belonged to a certain religion…”

Reactions from Families & Survivors

Aishanya Dwivedi, widow of victim Shubham Dwivedi, expressed mixed emotions: grief remains, but closure arrives with Operation Mahadev Pahalgam — “pain will not go, but some peace will come”.

Strategic & National Security Implications

• Restored confidence in India’s counter-terror machinery.
• Reinforced the message: terrorists will not escape across borders.
• Parliament’s 16‑hour debate reflects the gravity of national security implications, with PM Modi expected to speak soon.

Further Reading & External Resources

Operation Mahadev Pahalgam presented a firm and symbolic closure to one of the deadliest civilian attacks in Kashmir in recent decades. With evidence-based identification, cross-border implications exposed, and decisive coordination among forces, India delivered both security relief and a message of strength. The parliamentary debate underlined the political complexity—but also the unity in demanding justice and deterrence.

New Delhi, July 29,2025: The Shut Trump or McDonald’s India episode highlights a critical juncture for Indian diplomacy

Deepender Hooda’s Fiery jibe: Shut Trump or McDonald’s India

In a charged Shut Trump or McDonald’s India moment in Lok Sabha, Congress MP Deepender Hooda criticized the government for its silence in the face of Trump’s repeated claims that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He demanded India either “silence Donald’s mouth or shut McDonald’s in India” to assert national dignity.

Hooda’s remarks underscored what he described as an erratic foreign policy: “You cannot decide whether to shake hands with the U.S. or glare at it.” He contrasted this with the UPA government’s balanced approach—firm when needed, cordial when fitting. He also highlighted former President Obama’s post‑26/11 stance against Pakistan’s terror infrastructure in contrast with the current government’s response to Trump’s interference claims.

He further questioned why trade and diplomatic ties with the U.S. were prioritized at the cost of national assertion, rhetorically asking: should India choose its relationship with America or remain silent?

Operation Sindoor & Trump’s Ceasefire Claims

The debate took place amid Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025. The action led to temporary escalations as well as a ceasefire which Trump repeatedly claimed credit for—statements that Opposition leaders argued were misleading and diplomatically harmful.

Although External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar clarified there was no interaction between PM Modi and Trump between April 22 and June 17, and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh insisted Pakistan initiated the ceasefire only after India had accomplished its operational goals, the controversy persisted.

Government Response: Jaishankar and Rajnath Singh Clarify

Both Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and EAM Jaishankar responded strongly during the Shut Trump or McDonald’s India confrontation. Rajnath Singh lamented that the opposition was focusing on foreign claims instead of key operational achievements like downing enemy aircraft. Jaishankar provided a detailed timeline of the ceasefire events, denying any external mediation, and affirmed India chose its path independently

They made it clear that India consented to the ceasefire only after it had met its strategic objectives, and that the offer had come from Pakistan—not the U.S.

Opposition Voices: Priyanka Gandhi, Kalyan Banerjee & More

Other opposition leaders amplified the Shut Trump or McDonald’s India theme:

• Priyanka Gandhi Vadra pointed out that Jaishankar didn’t categorically deny U.S. involvement, raising doubts about clarity in government statements.
• TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee pressed the government on why hostilities were halted when India purportedly had the upper hand, and why PM Modi hadn’t issued a public rebuttal to Trump’s assertions.

Their interventions highlighted broader concerns about India’s messaging and sovereignty in international discourse.

Strategic Implications for India’s Foreign Policy

Shut Trump or McDonald’s India reflects deeper questions on:

• Diplomatic assertiveness: Should India allow foreign leaders to dictate narratives, or respond forcefully to preserve sovereignty?
• Policy consistency: Can India reconcile conciliatory gestures with firm strategic posture?
• Public diplomacy: Would economic retaliation, symbolized through McDonald’s, be a diplomatic tool or rhetorical grandstanding?

Deepender Hooda’s provocative demand illustrated a growing frustration inside Parliament over perceived diplomatic hesitation and mixed messaging.

What Lies Ahead?

The Shut Trump or McDonald’s India episode highlights a critical juncture for Indian diplomacy. As Parliament continues extended discussions on Operation Sindoor—expected to conclude with input from Prime Minister Modi next week—attention now shifts to whether government will offer a more assertive stance in defending its global agency.

Will India respond firmly to foreign claims or stay within its diplomatic comfort zone? That answer may well define its evolving status on the global stage.

New Delhi, July29,2025: AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi raised one of the session’s most powerful rhetorical questions during the Operation Sindoor Parliament Debate

The Opening: Rajnath Singh Sets the Tone

Operation Sindoor Parliament Debate kicked off as Defence Minister Rajnath Singh opened with a forceful message, recalling past terror tragedies like the 2006 Parliament attack and 2008 Mumbai carnage. He affirmed that India had reached its tipping point, unleashing Operation Sindoor to send a resolute message to terror networks and their hosts. Singh insisted India sought peace, but would not flinch from responding firmly to those who spread unrest.

Jaishankar’s Diplomatic Stance

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar then provided a detailed diplomatic perspective. He clarified there were no phone calls between Prime Minister Modi and US President Trump between April 22 and June 17, 2025, refuting suggestions of external mediation. He emphasized India’s zero‑tolerance policy on terrorism, reaffirming national interests while highlighting increasing Pak‑China cooperation and India’s robust posture in international forums.

Parliamentary Chaos: Party Politics Erupt

As the debate unfolded, partisan disruptions marred proceedings. Home Minister Amit Shah intervened multiple times, criticizing opposition for trusting foreign sources more than India’s ministers and accusing them of obstructing functional debate. Congress pushed for immediate answers from PM Modi, while other parties suggested a debate instead—a strategic split within the opposition itself.

Owaisi’s Moral Dilemma on Cricket with Pakistan

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi raised one of the session’s most powerful rhetorical questions during the Operation Sindoor Parliament Debate: how could India play a cricket match with Pakistan in the upcoming Asia Cup when diplomatic channels were shut, trade stopped, and water supplies cut? He questioned if the government had the courage to invite families of Pahalgam attack victims to watch the match, calling into question the moral contradictions of policy. “My conscience won’t allow me to see that match,” he said.

Deepender Hooda’s McDonald’s Quip & Trump Retort

Congress MP Deepender Hooda delivered a sharp jibe, saying the government should either confront Trump over ceasefire claims or shut McDonald’s in India. He argued that trade interests should not overshadow moral clarity and national security, using the fast‑food chain metaphor to underscore how foreign business was used to pressure India.

Mayawati’s Call for Unity Beyond Politics

Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati called for a collective rise above party politics during this sensitive time. She lauded Operation Sindoor as “glorious and commendable” and urged both ruling and opposition parties to cooperate on national security issues while setting aside self‑interest.

Implications for National Security & Diplomacy

• India’s foreign policy narrative was reaffirmed: unilateral action, diplomatic clarity, and zero tolerance toward terror.
• The internal rift within the opposition emerged clearly—while Congress demanded PM-level accountability, others supported structured debate.
• The Operation Sindoor Parliament Debate showcased moral and strategic tensions: questions about playing cricket with Pakistan and trade vs sovereignty became prime discussion points.

What This Means Going Forward

The Operation Sindoor Parliament Debate brought into sharp focus India’s posture on terrorism, diplomacy, and moral consistency. With PM Modi expected to deliver concluding remarks, Parliament now awaits a decisive statement on how such contradictions will be resolved going forward. Will India continue diplomatic engagement with restraint, or adopt a more absolute stance? The answer will shape both domestic narratives and global perception.

US, July28,2025: The phrase Trump ceasefire diplomacy has regained headlines after Trump proclaimed that he brokered the May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan—

Trump ceasefire diplomacy now under global scrutiny

Trump ceasefire diplomacy took the spotlight again in late July 2025, when former U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that he had successfully mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan—and claimed the same leverage could end the ongoing Thailand‑Cambodia border clash. His confident declarations, backed by trade threats and diplomatic grandstanding, have ignited reactions worldwide.

Trump ceasefire diplomacy resurfaces

The phrase Trump ceasefire diplomacy has regained headlines after Trump proclaimed that he brokered the May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan—and that he could replicate that success in the Thailand‑Cambodia border conflict by using trade pressure as leverage. His assertive tone and public pronouncements have both captivated and polarized global observers.

Trump’s Claims on India‑Pakistan Ceasefire

Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for achieving the May ceasefire between India and Pakistan using diplomatic intervention combined with economic threats. He cited that during the hostilities, he refused trade deals until both parties agreed to de-escalate.

In social media posts, he marked the ceasefire as a major diplomatic “moment” and called it “his honour” to have mediated such a critical peace.

Indian officials, however, firmly denied that the U.S. was involved in brokering any ceasefire. Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized that dialogue occurred directly between Indian and Pakistani military officials, with no external mediation, reaffirming India’s long-standing policy against third-party intervention in Kashmir issues.

Thailand‑Cambodia Conflict and His New Effort

Trade Leverage as Diplomatic Tool

Trump announced he would pause any trade agreements with Thailand and Cambodia unless both nations agreed to stop hostilities. He outlined that strong U.S. trade ties were at stake, saying, “I said we’re not going to make a trade deal unless you settle the war”.

 His approach made trade the instrument of peace.

Calls with Leaders of Both Nations

Trump said he personally called Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand’s Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai. He described the talks as productive, stating both sides expressed willingness for “immediate ceasefire and PEACE” and noted that he would convey that message back and forth.

Immediate Fallout & Reactions

Skepticism from India

Despite Trump’s bold claims, India continues to reject any U.S. involvement in the ceasefire process. In response, Congress presidential candidate Mallikarjun Kharge publicly termed Trump’s assertions “humiliating” and demanded clarification over India’s sovereignty being undermined. Indian officials reiterated Modi’s message: the ceasefire was achieved bilaterally.

On‑ground Reality in Southeast Asia

The border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia entered its fifth day amid rising death tolls (35+ reported) and displacement of over 200,000 civilians.

Peace talks are underway in Kuala Lumpur, with Malaysia hosting ASEAN-mediated negotiations involving both sides and observed by the U.S. and China. Despite Trump’s trade threats, violence persisted, casting doubt on the effectiveness of his diplomacy.

Broader Strategic Implications

• Trade as Leverage in Diplomacy: Trump’s model emphasizes economic pressure as a deterrent to conflict escalation. While bold, it raises questions about sovereignty and the limits of soft power.
• Risks of Public Claims: His repeated assertions, especially over India‑Pakistan resolution, have increasingly clashed with official positions, risking diplomatic friction between Washington and New Delhi.
• Geopolitical Credibility: Trump’s self-branding as a global dealmaker underscores how personal narratives influence foreign policy narratives—with mixed reception

What Experts Say and What May Lie Ahead

Policy analysts warn that unilateral trade threats may yield short-term pressure without lasting peace. Observers note that deeper talks led by ASEAN frameworks, armed with multilateral support—including from China, Malaysia, and the UNSC—are more sustainable paths forward.

Meanwhile, India‑U.S. relations face a thin line: while strategic ties grow, public misalignment over issues like ceasefire credits may strain diplomatic trust.

The steadfast refusal to accept third‑party mediation remains India’s firm stance.

New Delhi, July28,2025: He questioned why the government was certain the attackers were Pakistani nationals when “there’s no evidence” to that effect

Chidambaram Pahalgam controversy emerges

On 27 July 2025, in an interview with The Quint, P. Chidambaram raised critical questions about the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 tourists in Jammu and Kashmir, triggering what is now known as the Chidambaram Pahalgam controversy

Allegations by Chidambaram

• He questioned why the government was certain the attackers were Pakistani nationals when “there’s no evidence” to that effect, and suggested “homegrown terrorists could be involved.
• Chidambaram accused the government of hiding tactical mistakes made during Operation Sindoor and refusing to disclose details of NIA’s investigation into the identities and origin of the terrorists.
• He urged acknowledgment of casualties on India’s side during Operation Sindoor, comparing it to wartime transparency seen in WWII under Winston Churchill.

Government Response and BJP’s Sharp Rebuttal

• The BJP strongly condemned Chidambaram’s remarks, with IT Cell chief Amit Malviya accusing the Congress of giving a “clean chit to Pakistan” and undermining national security.
• BJP spokespersons described the statements as congressional attempts to question our forces and stand with Pakistan rather than India.

Chidambaram’s Defense and Troll Allegations

• Chidambaram retaliated, calling out “trolls” who had taken selective quotes from his interview. He called them the “worst kind of troll” for suppressing the full context to defame him.
• He urged people to view the full The Quint interview to understand his statements in context and said the opposition alliance (INDIA bloc) would raise these critical questions in Parliament debates.

Parliamentary Fallout: Operation Sindoor Debate

• A 16-hour long Rajya Sabha debate is scheduled next Tuesday on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, created amid pressure from the opposition to thoroughly examine the government’s actions

• Chidambaram and other Congress MPs, including Imran Masood and Manickam Tagore, warned that the government is avoiding substantive questioning by stalling or diverting attention.

Wider Political Implications

• This Chidambaram Pahalgam controversy has become a flashpoint in Parliament, with the BJP aiming to use it to portray the opposition as weak on terrorism while the Congress pushes for greater transparency.
• The issue also revives old debates over the role of U.S. diplomacy—particularly former President Donald Trump’s claim of brokering the ceasefire—and whether India’s decisions are influenced externally. Chidambaram called for full disclosure of that involvement.

International & Security Analysis

• The Pahalgam terror attack, committed by TRF (proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba), killed 26 civilians and triggered aggressive Indian retaliation via Operation Sindoor. India maintains the attackers were Pakistani nationals, while dropping of bombs across border escalated tensions with Pakistan.
• Chidambaram’s assertions challenge the security establishment narrative and demand clarity on how terrorists crossed the border without detection, if they were indeed foreign nationals.