Vikash Yadav

The spike in fertiliser costs is not a food security problem in many nations (and particularly, in developing Asian countries). Instead, it's a fiscal shock problem for the governments subsidizing their consumption.

Today, India takes a defining step in its civil nuclear journey, advancing the second stage of its nuclear programme. The indigenously designed and built Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam has attained criticality. This advanced reactor, capable of producing more fuel than it consumes, reflects the depth of our scientific capability and the strength of our engineering enterprise. It is a decisive step towards harnessing our vast thorium reserves in the third stage of the programme. A proud moment for India. Congratulations to our scientists and engineers.

BREAKING: US Vice President JD Vance says the 'Iranians thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon and it just didn't. We never made that promise.'

Under the two-week ceasefire plan agreed to tonight by both Iran and the United States, both Iran and Oman are permitted to charge fees on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, according to the Associated Press, with officials stating that the money received by Iran will be used to rebuild the country following the recent strike campaign by Israel and the United States.

Many countries can pull off this kind of rescue operation in the movies, but only one country can pull it off in real life.

The world is being reordered by those who act and those who define. If India wishes to be counted among the latter, it must ensure that its silence does not speak louder than its convictions. We are living through a moment when the rules of the international system are being rewritten in real time. Assassinations of leaders, the killing of civilians, open assertions of force—these are no longer aberrations but instruments. In such a world, silence is not neutrality. It is read, interpreted, and often misread as consent. India has long claimed a distinctive space in global affairs—not as an appendage to power, but as a voice shaped by its own civilisational experience and its history of speaking for sovereignty, restraint, and balance. That voice mattered because it was consistent, even when inconvenient. Strategic autonomy cannot mean adjusting our language to the hierarchy of power. Restraint has its place. Calibration is necessary. But when fundamental questions arise—about sovereignty, about the limits of force, about the protection of civilians—India cannot afford to be silent. A moral compass is not an ornament of foreign policy. It is its direction. Without it, realism drifts into accommodation, and autonomy into ambiguity. This war has damaged India’s interests in almost every practical sense. It has raised costs, narrowed diplomatic room, stressed shipping, complicated Chabahar, and injected fresh instability into a region vital to India’s economy and external strategy. Even if New Delhi can cushion the blow, it cannot plausibly claim that the blow itself serves India. The deeper question is whether India is willing to say so with sufficient clarity.