Blog

India remained in a spot of bother against England on Day 5 of the 1st Test against England, with the hosts navigating through to 181/0 before rain stopped play in the post-Lunch session. Soon, England scored the remaining 190 runs to win the match and take a 1-0 lead in the series. Despite the Indian bowling failing to make the breakthrough, captain Shubman Gill was doing his best to rally his bowlers. During Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley‘s record-breaking partnership, Gill’s hilarious remark from the slip cordon quickly went viral on social media.

Ek taraf mohammed hai. Ek taraf Krishna. dono tabhahi machayega (There is Mohammed on one side. Krishan on other side. both will wreak havoc),” Gill’s remark was caught on the stump mic.Duckett made the most of a lifeline, scoring 149, after Yashasvi Jaiswal dropped the England opener on 98, failing to keep hold of the ball while diving in front of him with the batter mishitting a short ball off Mohammed Siraj.

Earlier in the first session, Crawley got a lifeline when Jasprit Bumrah failed to take a tough return catch on his follow-through.

Duckett has so far cracked 13 fours while Crawley has been comparatively subdued, reaching 57 with from 119 balls with six fours.

Former India batter Sanjay Manjrekar reflected on the first session of Day 5 and India’s chances heading into the final two sessions.

 “Are England suddenly favourites? Before the session, I had it at 70-30 in India’s favour. After this, I’d call it 50-50. Not dramatically down to 30-70, because we still have the Jasprit Bumrah factor and England’s unpredictable weather. The pitch had gone to sleep-it had nothing to do with how India bowled. Even Bumrah got nothing out of it. Maybe it was the heavy roller effect. Hopefully, after lunch, the surface livens up and India can pick up a couple of wickets. But England’s real threat is their temperament in a fourth-innings chase,” Manjrekar said on JioHotstar.

Shabana Azmi had a food-filled family time with husband Javed Akhtar, his first wife Honey Irani, Farhan Akhtar and Shibani Dandekar. The wholesome picture will surely drive away your mid-week blues. 

What’s Happening 

• On Instagram, Shabana Azmi shared a picture that screamed family bonding.
• She captioned the picture, “The family at a loved restaurant!”
• The picture garnered the Internet’s love.

Shabana Azmi On Her Equation With Honey Irani

• During a recent conversation with Filmfare, Shabana Azmi shed light on the key to her healthy relationship with Honey Irani.
• “That was possible because no mud was flung there. The credit for that goes to Honey, me, and Javed. You’re in a big hurry to explain ki ye jo aap galti samajh rahi hai iss ke basis dekhiye (what was assumed as a mistake must have a basis as well). But all three of us refrained from that and it was very wise,” Shabana Azmi said.
• In the docu-series Angry Young Men [Amazon Prime 2024], Shabana Azmi also shared how Honey Irani played a significant role in teaching Farhan and Zoya not to view her as an “evil stepmother.” She said, “And I give huge credit to Honey because she could have easily filled the children with tales against me. She just didn’t do that. She gave them the security that you do not have to consider her an evil stepmother. She and I have a very warm and really nice relationship.”

Javed Akhtar and actress Honey Irani got married in 1972. They parted ways in 1985. His wedding with actress Shabana Azmi took place in 1984.

In A Nutshell

Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, Honey Irani, Farhan and Shibani Akhtar bonded over food at their “loved” restaurant recently. 

This was not a verbal slip there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He walked off, clearly angry.

Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just walked off, clearly angry.

This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on speaking softly and carrying a big stick. He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

Fast V Slow Thinking

The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule riding atop a Falcon 9 rocket will dock “autonomously” to the space-facing port of the ISS’s Harmony module at approximately 4:30 pm on Thursday, according to SpaceX.

Axiom Mission 4 (Ax-4), carrying India’s Shubhanshu Shukla along with three other private astronauts from Poland, the United States and Hungary, is set to dock at the International Space Station (ISS) at 4.30 pm on Thursday. Houston-based Axiom Space successfully launched its fourth crewed mission to the ISS from NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre in Cape Canaveral, Florida, at 12.01 pm on Wednesday, after nearly a month of delays and postponements.

Along with Shukla, aboard the spacecraft are mission specialists Slawosz Uznanski-Wisniewski of Poland and Tibor Kapu of Hungary; and commander Peggy Whitson of the United States, a former NASA astronaut who now works for the company Axiom Space. 

After over 24 hours of orbital chase, the crew aboard the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, riding atop a Falcon 9 rocket, is scheduled to dock with the space station on Thursday. 

Axiom-4 Docking

SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule riding atop a Falcon 9 rocket will dock “autonomously” to the space-facing port of the ISS’s Harmony module at approximately 4:30 pm on Thursday, according to SpaceX.

Docking is a procedure by which a spacecraft connects with the space station. The process begins with a carefully orchestrated approach by spacecraft–known as a rendezvous. During this process, the spaceship, with the help of radar-based systems and rendezvous antennas, manoeuvres towards the ISS.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has announced an increase in its defence spending target, with member countries now expected to allocate 5 per cent of their GDP to defence by 2035.

The agreement, reached at a summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, is nearly double the alliance’s long-standing 2 per cent benchmark and comes amid renewed pressure from US President Donald Trump for allies to boost their military contributions, The Washington Post reported.

NATO is a military alliance of 32 member countries across North America and Europe. They include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and most European Union nations.

How Much Do NATO Countries Currently Spend On Defence?

As of 2024, NATO countries spent an average of 2.61 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence. But this average masks wide disparities in individual national contributions.

According to NATO’s estimates:

• Poland spent the highest proportion of its GDP on defence, over 4 per cent, making it the only country to exceed that threshold.
• Estonia and Latvia each spent about 3.4 per cent.
• The US, with the largest GDP among NATO members, spent approximately 3.2 per cent.
• Spain spent 1.2 per cent of its GDP on defence, the smallest share in the alliance.
• Canada, Portugal, and Italy each spent around 1.5 per cent.
• Slovenia, Belgium, and Luxembourg fell slightly below those levels.

Who Met The 2% Target?

At least 22 of NATO’s 32 members met or exceeded the original 2 per cent spending target set in 2014. The remaining nine countries did not. Iceland is excluded from these estimates, as it does not maintain a standing military.

This target, while influential, has never been legally binding. Even so, average defence spending among NATO members has risen significantly, from 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2014 to over 2 per cent in 2024.

A New 5% Benchmark

While the new 5 per cent goal is intended to signal stronger collective defence, its implementation is far from guaranteed.

At the summit, Donald Trump singled out Spain, accusing it of “wanting a free ride” and threatening to penalise the country in future trade negotiations if it did not increase its defence budget. In response, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said Spain had no plans to meet the 5 per cent goal. He called the previous 2 per cent target “sufficient” and “realistic” for Spain’s economy.

Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, said that the wording of the agreement may offer flexibility. “The language of the 5 per cent agreement may leave just enough wiggle room for some allies, such as Spain, to opt-out,” she said as per CBS News.

What Counts As NATO’s Defence Spending?

NATO calculates defence spending to include weapons and equipment, personnel costs, operational readiness, infrastructure, and other military capabilities.

Ms Lundberg was a single mom of two. At the time, she was living with a man named Norm Bishop and working as a flight attendant for Frontier Airlines.Former US President John F Kennedy once got a flight attendant pregnant, and then paid for her abortion, just months after his wife, Jackie, gave birth to their daughter, Caroline, a new book has claimed. According to People, the claims were made in a bombshell new biography, titled ‘JFK: Public, Private, Secret’, by J. Randy  Taraborrelli. Excerpts from the book reveal that Mr Kennedy had an affair with a young flight attendant named Joan Lundberg, whom he met in 1956 when he was a senator from Massachusetts. 

According to the book, at the time, the former president was 39 years old, while Ms Lundberg was 23. In 1958, shortly after the birth of the Kennedys’ daughter Caroline, Ms Lundberg reportedly called JFK to share her own pregnancy news. 

Joan would recall that her news about the baby was ‘like a knife to Jack’s heart,” reads the excerpt, per the People.

“Jack couldn’t help but wonder if Joan had purposely planned the pregnancy, given that she’d seen his devotion to Jackie after Caroline’s birth. He also wondered if he was really the father, and Joan assured him he was,” the author wrote. 

Further, the book claims that after their phone call revelation, Mr Kennedy told the 23-year-old that he would mail her $400 to get an abortion. “‘Being a politician is who I am,’ he told her. ‘Politics is all I know. If you take that away . . .’ His voice trailed off. Before she could respond, he disconnected the line,” the excerpt states.

Also Read | “Money Can’t Buy Class”: Jeff Bezos’ Wedding Invite Roasted Online

According to the biography, when the money failed to reach Ms Lundberg, JFK became “unhinged”. Eventually, he wired more money, following which the flight attendant “took care of things”. 

“Jack was very clear; he didn’t want Joan to have the baby… She was angry and disappointed, but also realistic,” Mr Taraborrelli writes.

According to People, Ms Lundberg was a single mom of two. At the time, she was living with a man named Norm Bishop and working as a flight attendant for Frontier Airlines. 

JFK, on the other hand, was married to Jacqueline Kennedy at the time. He never publicly acknowledged the affair.

‘JFK: Public, Private, Secret’, by J. Randy Taraborrelli, is due to be published on July 17. 

Mumbai witnessed a starry night as Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan stole the limelight at the screening of Aamir Khan’s Sitaare Zameen Par last night in Mumbai. Apart from the Khans, film veteran Rekha and singing legend Asha Bhosle as well as actors Vicky Kaushal and Tamannaah showed up for the screening. Directors Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Rajkumar Hirani, who have worked with Aamir earlier, also attended the special showcase. 

Juhi Chawla, Tiger Shroff, Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi were also spotted at the event.

What’s Happening 

• Aamir Khan’s Sitaare Zameen Par screening was a starry affair.
• Aamir and Salman posed for the cameras.
• Shah Rukh, who had earlier visited the film set, was spotted interacting with the 10 debutant actors who are part of the film on the red carpet.
• Tamannaah looked gorgeous as always in a grey ensemble. 
• Rekha posed for the shutterbugs in all her quintessential silk glory.
• Juhi Chawla, who was a frequent collaborator of Aamir’s in the ’90s, also showed up in a white salwar suit. 
• Aamir’s family members like daughter Ira, son-in-law Nupur Shikhare, sons Junaid and Azad were also a part of the screening. 
• Aamir arrived on the red carpet with partner Gauri Spratt and son Azad, whom he shares with former wife and filmmaker Kiran Rao. 
• Aamir’s daughter Ira and her husband Nupur Shikhare also posed on the red carpet. Ira is Aamir and his first wife, producer Reena Dutta’s second child. The former couple is parents to actor Junaid Khan, their eldest child.

A new book reveals that the donation, which JP Narayan declined, came at a time when his health had deteriorated and he required a life-saving portable dialysis machine.

In a little-known episode from the Emergency era, former prime minister Indira Gandhi quietly donated a significant sum of Rs 90,000 for treatment of her fiercest critic, Jayaprakash Narayan, the leader of the nationwide anti-Emergency movement.

A new book reveals that the donation, which Mr Narayan declined, came at a time when his health had deteriorated and he required a life-saving portable dialysis machine.

Arrested on June 26, 1975, just hours after the Emergency was declared, Mr Narayan spent five months in custody in Chandigarh before being released on a 30-day parole in November that year.

According to “The Conscience Network: A Chronicle of Resistance to a Dictatorship” by Sugata Srinivasaraju, JP was diagnosed with kidney failure during his custody and required lifelong dialysis to survive.

“Very soon, the cost of his treatment, and the regular dialysis he needed, became a matter of worry. It was decided, in due course, that a portable dialyser machine would work out better than going to a hospital regularly. It was also decided that the government’s help would not be accepted. Therefore, his admirers started raising money for a dialyser,” reads the book.

As news of his condition spread, supporters across India and abroad mobilised resources. The plan, according to the book, was to collect Re 1 per person from the public to fund the expensive dialysis machine. However, the progress was slow.

“At that point, Indira Gandhi, who learnt about the effort, sent a cheque with a handsome amount on it as her contribution,” it added.

However, the Indians For Democracy (IFD) — a Indian community-led organisation formed in the United States just weeks before the Emergency — was dismayed by the news of Indira Gandhi’s donation. The group urged Radhakrishna of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, the organisation collecting the funds, to return the money.

“I made it known that it would greatly disappoint JP’s admirers if the cheque were accepted… We simultaneously requested JP to return Indira Gandhi’s cheque. It was returned purely on our intervention. It was a fact that money was not coming through in India because people were scared of the government,” recalls Anand Kumar, a member of the IFD, adding that his organisation vowed to collect the deficit amount.

In response, the IFD launched a global appeal to raise Rs 5 lakh-about USD 65,000 at the time-for the purchase and maintenance of a portable dialysis machine for Mr Narayan, and successfully collected the amount.

A letter by JP, dated June 11, 1976, was produced in the book quoting “technical points” of his rejecting the donation made by Gandhi — including that only small contributions were acceptable.

“…I had given my consent without knowing that the money would be from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. I took it for granted that it would be from your personal account , though a little thought on my part should have shown that it was not possible for you to contribute personally such a large amount. Be that as it may, the position is that before the contribution from your Fund was received, more than three lakh rupees had already been collected from the public in response to the appeal.

“I do fervently hope that you will not misunderstand me and think me ungrateful and discourteous. There is no discourtesy meant at all and I am grateful for the concern shown by you for my health,” reads the letter.

“The Conscience Network”, to be officially released on Wednesday — marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency — offers an “untold story of the Indian community in the US during this era, spotlighting their burgeoning influence and the personal connections that spurred international efforts to counteract the authoritarian regime”.

Published by Penguin Random House India (PRHI) and priced at Rs 1,299 is available for purchase across online and offline stores.

On June 25, 1975, Indira Gandhi announced the imposition of the Emergency in a broadcast on All India Radio, shortly after the Supreme Court granted a conditional stay to an Allahabad High Court verdict declaring her election to the Lok Sabha null and void. It was lifted on March 21, 1977

Diljit Dosanjh has finally reacted to the Internet’s fury upon seeing Pakistani actress Hania Aamir in his upcoming film Sardaar Ji 3

As Diljit Dosanjh unveiled the trailer of Sardaar Ji 3 on Sunday, the Internet went berserk when they saw Pakistani actress Hania Aamir is part of the Punjabi film. The movie will only have an international release now. Film bodies in India have called for a ban on the film in the country in light of the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025.   

Diljit Dosanjh has now responded to the online criticism he and the makers of Sardaar Ji 3 have been facing since Hania Aamir’s casting was revealed in the trailer of the film. In a conversation with BBC Asian Network, Diljit Dosanjh — who also serves as a producer on the movie — shared his side of the story. 

According to the singer-actor, Sardaar Ji 3 was shot in February when the situation between the two countries was stable. Diljit Dosanjh said it was clear to the makers that the film won’t release in India following the Pahalgam attack.

What’s Happening

• Diljit Dosanjh has responded to the severe flak he has been receiving online and elsewhere since the trailer of Sardaar Ji 3 was released on Sunday.
• The Internet has reacted strongly to Diljit Dosanjh’s collaboration with Pakistani star Hania Aamir, especially after the Pahalgam terror attack earlier this year.
• Responding to the criticism, Diljit Dosanjh told BBC Asian Network, “Jab yeh film bani thi tab situation sab theek tha. We shot this in February and then everything was fine. Uske baad, bohut saari, badi cheezein humare haath mein nahin hain. Toh producers ne decide kiya ki film obviously ab India mein toh nahin lagegi, toh overseas release karte hain. Toh producers ka bohut paisa laga hua hai aur jab yeh film bann rahi thi tab aisa kuch tha nahin. (When this film was made, everything was fine. We shot it in February and things were okay back then. After that, a lot of big things happened that were beyond our control. So the producers decided that the film obviously won’t be released in India now, so they’ll release it overseas. The producers have invested a lot of money, and when the film was being made, nothing like this was happening).”
• He added, “They know there will be a loss because you’re removing an entire territory. Even when I signed the film, everything was fine. Now the situation is not in our hands. So if the producers want to release it abroad, I support them.”
• He also spoke about his experience of working with Hania Aamir, “Very good. She’s very professional. I really respect her work and her privacy. I’m also a very private person myself and I give everyone their space, especially women. To the point hi baat hoti hai zyaada kuch nahin (Conversations are to the point, nothing more).”

What We Know So Far

The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) urged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to deny certification to the film as the movie’s cast members also included Pakistani actors Hania Aamir, Nasir Chinyoti, Daniel Khawar and Saleem Albela.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is in China’s Qingdao to attend the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting.

Sending a stern message to India’s neighbours, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has refused to sign a joint statement at a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meet because it did not mention the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 innocent lives and did not reflect India’s strong position on terror. While skipping any mention of Pahalgam, the document mentioned Balochistan, tacitly accusing India of creating unrest there. Pahalgam’s exclusion from the document appears to have been done at Pakistan’s behest as its all-weather ally, China, holds the Chair now. 

India has consistently trashed Pakistan’s allegations about its involvement in Balochistan and said Islamabad must look within and stop backing terror instead of making wild allegations. 

India is not satisfied with the language of the joint document. There was no mention of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, there was mention of the incidents that happened in Pakistan, so India refused to sign the joint declaration, and there is no joint communique either,” a Defence Ministry source said.

Mr Singh is currently in China’s Qingdao to attend the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting. The summit is being attended by member states, including Russia, Pakistan and China, to discuss issues related to regional and international security. Established in 2001, SCO aims to promote regional stability through cooperation. The bloc currently has 10 member states — Belarus, China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Addressing the summit, the Defence Minister called upon SCO members to unite to eliminate terrorism for collective safety and security. He said the biggest challenges faced by the region are related to peace, security and trust deficit, with radicalisation, extremism and terrorism being the root cause of these problems.

“Peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action. It is imperative that those who sponsor, nurture and utilise terrorism for their narrow and selfish ends must bear the consequences. Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations,” Mr Singh, taking in a veiled swipe at Pakistan.

Referring to the Pahalgam terror attack, he said India had exercised its right to defend against terrorism and pre-empt as well as deter further cross-border attacks. “During the Pahalgam terror attack, victims were shot after they were profiled on religious identity. The Resistance Front, a proxy of UN-designated terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) claimed responsibility for the attack. The pattern of Pahalgam attack matches with LeT’s previous terror attacks in India. India’s zero tolerance for terrorism was demonstrated through its actions. It includes our right to defend ourselves against terrorism. We have shown that epicentres of terrorism are no longer safe and we will not hesitate to target them,” he said.

He stressed the need to hold perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of terror and to bring them to justice. He termed any and every act of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable. SCO members, he said, must condemn this evil unequivocally.

The Defence Minister’s refusal to sign the joint statement reflects India’s stern stand against terror now and falls in line with the global messaging in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Eight delegations were sent abroad to articulate New Delhi’s stand on terror and how it plans to tackle it going forward.