Category: 2. World

A SCHOOL administrator recently remarked in a tone of resignation that these days many parents would rather have their children remain occupied with academic work than risk letting them venture outside. “The world beyond the gate,” she said, “is no longer safe.” Streets feel more chaotic, parks feel less secure, and neighbourhoods, once considered havens of community life, now come with their own anxieties.

One can understand the sentiment. There is a certain reassurance in watching a child hunched over homework or attending an after-school tutoring session. Academic involvement at least on the surface, offers structure, purpose and a shield from the unpredictability of the outside world. A child inside the home focused on schoolwork ap­­pears safe. But this comforting illusion carries its own paradox, perhaps even its own quiet danger.

Much of this academic engagement now takes place online. Children are expected to complete assignments, do school projects or join tutoring sessions online. Parents, seeing them glued to their screens in the name of learning, may feel reassured. But the screen is porous. The very device meant for education is the same portal through which children slide into the vast and largely unregulated arena of the internet.

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok do not immediately strike one as threatening in the way city traffic or unlit parks might. Yet they ca­r­ry their own insidious risks such as cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, compulsive scrolling and the constant pressure to seek online validation. The shift from educational eng­agem­ent to digital distraction can happen in seconds. And while a bruised knee from playing outdoors may be noticed and addressed, the effects of on­­line harms including low self-esteem, anxiety or withdrawal, often remain hidden for a long time.

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok carry their own insidious risks.

This reality challenges traditional notions of safety. The digital world is not inherently dangerous, but it is complex, sophisticated and designed to be addictive. Children still learning to regulate emotions and behaviour are particularly vulnerable to its design.

The issue, therefore, is not only the amount of screen time, but also the nature of that engagement. Are children using digital tools to explore, learn and create, or are they passively consuming content that erodes attention, self-worth and authentic connection?

There is also a broader social dynamic at play. In many households, the increase in academic pressure mirrors a growing anxiety among parents about the future. In competitive education systems, academic achievement is often seen as the most reliable path to opportunity. Add to this the heightened fears around safety in public spaces and the result is a generation of children who are over-scheduled, over-supervised and inc­reasingly disconnected from unstructured play, face-to-face friendships and outdoor exploration.

However, research consistently highlights the importance of real-world experiences, such as outdoor exploration, social interaction, and immersive play, for children’s cognitive, linguistic, emotional and physical development. Increasingly, these experiences are being displaced by screen-based activities, with growing evidence of their adverse effects. US data shows that children spending four or more hours daily on screens face a 45 per cent increase in anxiety, a 65pc rise in depression, and higher risks of conduct problems and ADHD, largely due to reduced physical activity and poor sleep.

Preschoolers with daily screen exposure are significantly more likely to develop speech disorders and nearly twice as likely to experience learning difficulties, with brain scans revealing reduced white-matter development. In India, children exceeding three hours of daily screen time reported greater anxiety, depression and weaker academic outcomes, while outdoor play was shown to buffer these effects. Excessive use of screens also raises obesity risk through sedentary behaviour and unhealthy eating. Echoing these findings, Haidt’s The Anxious Generation documents a doubling of adolescent anxiety and depression since the rise of smartphones, alongside declining face-to-face interaction and chronic sleep loss.

There is a troubling irony here. In shielding children from the messiness and unpredictability of the outside world we risk denying them the very experiences that build judgement, independence and strength. A digitally mediated, academically intensive childhood may feel safe, but it can also be narrow, lonely and emotionally stifling.

What then might a more balanced approach look like?

First, we need to broaden the conversation abo­ut what constitutes safety. It must go beyond the physical to include emotional well-being, digital literacy and mental health. Creating safe environments also means fostering open communication at home, where children can talk about what they see online, what they feel and what they need.

Second, schools and communities can play a pivotal role by reclaiming public spaces for children. Well-designed parks, community centres and walkable neighbourhoods do more than provide recreation, they signal a shared commitment to collective care and trust. When children are seen playing outside, when adults are present and engaged, a community feels safer not just in perception but also in reality.

Third, we must revisit our assumptions about academic success. Learning does not only happen behind desks or on digital platforms. It unfolds through curiosity, movement, conversation and trial and error. Valuing holistic development means making space for play, creativity and rest, recognising that these are not luxuries but essentials for a healthy childhood.

Finally, digital literacy needs to be taught early, not merely in terms of technical skills but as a critical life skill. Children should be equipped to question what they see online, understand the inf­luence of algorithms and develop the confidence to disengage when digital spaces become toxic.

In seeking to protect children we must not build cages, digital or otherwise. Instead, we must create ecosystems that offer both challenge and care, structure and spontaneity, solitude and connection.

Between books and screens, between school and the street, lies a space of balance, conversation and thoughtful design. It is in that space that a new understanding of childhood safety can begin to take root, one that prepares children not just to stay safe but to live fully and wisely.

The writer is a research specialist at the Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development, Karachi.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2025

While Donald Trump is hard to beat when it comes to stealing the global spotlight, Xi Jinping proved this week he can also put on a good show.

In memorable scenes reminiscent of a family reunion, the Chinese leader embraced and riffed with some of the world’s preeminent strongmen — including an impromptu conversation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un about organ transplants and immortality.

• Muddy water pours into many homes in low-lying areas
• People wade through floodwaters in areas surrounding historic Red Fort
• Crops across tens of thousands of acres destroyed in Punjab
• Torrential rain in hilly areas has swollen several rivers

NEW DELHI: Parts of Delhi and India-held Kashmir were flooded on Thursday after two rivers breached the danger mark following heavy rain in several northern areas, but weather officials forecast some respite from downpours.

A fierce monsoon season has brought immense destruction in the region this year, killing at least 130 people in August.

Torrential rain in the hilly areas of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the Himlayan enclave of Ladakh and Himachal Pradesh has swollen many rivers, which have crossed danger levels.

Residential areas were flooded in the key city of Srinagar after a breach of the Jhelum river embankment, and authorities urged people to evacuate homes.

“The Jhelum is climbing, but at a much slower rate than was feared,” Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of held Kashmir, said in a post on X. “The administration is not going to lower its guard. We continue to monitor the situation very closely.”

Rescuers searched for any people trapped under debris after the rain triggered a landslide at the Ratle hydroelectric power project on the Chenab river in Drabshalla, officials said.

Indian weather officials have forecast showers to ease off on Thursday, with moderate rain expected in held Kashmir and the state of Uttarkhand.

In Delhi, the capital, the Yamuna river passed the danger mark on Tuesday, in a flow the Central Water Commission described as a ‘severe’ situation.

On Thursday, muddy water poured into many homes in low-lying areas, from which thousands had already been evacuated to safer places as a precaution.

Authorities shut the historic Loha Pul, or Iron Bridge, spanning the Yamuna in the older part of the city.

People waded through floodwaters in areas surrounding the historic Red Fort, many carrying an idol of Lord Ganesha, the Hindu god who vanquishes obstacles, for immersion in the river waters in an annual ritual.

Crops across tens of thousands of hectares have been destroyed by the rains in the breadbasket state of Punjab where 37 have died since August began.

The deluge spurred authorities to release water pent up in dams, further flooding areas in both India and Pakistan.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2025

• Pope raises ‘tragic situation in Gaza’ with Israeli president
• Top European official slams bloc’s inaction over ‘genocide’ of Palestinians

JERUSALEM: Israel controls 40pc of Gaza City, a military spokesperson claimed, as its bombardment forced more Palestinians from their homes and claimed the lives of at least 53 more people on Thursday.

Most of the casualties were in Gaza City, where Israeli forces have advanced through the outer suburbs and are now only a few kilometres from the city centre.

Residents said Israel bombarded Gaza City’s Zeitoun, Sabra, Tuffah, and Shejaia districts from ground and air. Tanks pushed into the eastern part of the Sheikh Radwan district northwest of the city centre, destroying houses and causing fires in tent encampments.

In the Tel al-Hawa nei­ghbourhood in Gaza City’s west, where the strike took place, AFP footage sho­wed Palestinians outside damaged tents, clearing up scattered belongings.

Further south, in the Nuseirat re­­fugee camp, Gaza civil defence said an Israeli air strike killed sev­en people including three children. At Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hosp­ital, where the dead and wounded were being received, bodies wrapped in white shrouds lay on the floor of the hospital’s morgue.

‘40pc of Gaza City’

Israeli military spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin told a news conference that the Zeito­­un and Sheikh Radwan neighborhoods were in their control. “The operation will continue to expand and intensify in the coming days.”

Defrin confirmed that army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir told cabinet ministers that without a day-after plan, they would have to impose military rule in Gaza.

Pope raises Gaza situation

Pope Leo discussed the “tragic situation in Gaza” with Israeli President Isaac Herzog during a meeting on Thursday, calling for a permanent ceasefire in the Pales­tinian enclave, the Vatican said.

The pontiff also called for the release of remaining prisoners held by Hamas, the statement said, and reiterated the Vatican’s support for a two-state solution to the decades-long Israel-Palestinian conflict.

“A prompt resumption of negotiations was hoped for … to secure the release of all hostages, urgently achieve a permanent ceasefire, facilitate the safe entry of humanitarian aid into the most affected areas, and ensure full respect for humanitarian law,” said the statement.

‘Genocide’

Meanwhile, One of the Euro­pean Union’s most senior officials called the war in Gaza a “genocide”, ramping up criticism of Israel and slamming the 27-nation bloc for failing to act to stop it.

“The genocide in Gaza exposes Europe’s failure to act and speak with one voice,” European Com­m­i­ssion vice president Teresa Rib­era said during a speech in Paris.

Top EU officials have so far shied away from calling Israel’s actions in the territory a “genocide”.

One spokesman said it was for the courts to make a legal judgement on whether genocide was happening. The splits are also present insi­de the EU’s executive, where Spanish commissio­ner Rib­era has expre­ssed frustration over the failure to push on the issue.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2025

History often reserves its cruellest surprises for nations that mistake momentum for permanence. In May 2025, during Operation Sindoor, India’s confrontation with Pakistan was brief, but the aftershocks were immense. What might once have looked like proof of strength instead revealed fragility, exposing Delhi’s overconfidence and its diminishing global weight. India, long celebrated as an emerging pole of power, suddenly appeared adrift, isolated diplomatically and battered economically. The starkest symbol of this shift came at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Tianjin, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi returned to Chinese soil after seven years. His presence no longer suggested bold outreach but reluctant necessity, a recognition that India could not afford absence when other doors were closing. In Tianjin, under the gaze of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, India looked less like a shaper of events than a humbled participant, forced to acknowledge that the SCO, once dismissed as peripheral, had become a stage 

it could not ignore.

The rupture with Washington pushed India further into this corner. After Sindoor, Donald Trump scorned Delhi’s escalation as “a shame” and imposed punishing 50 per cent tariffs on Indian exports, one of the harshest measures ever applied to a supposed ally. For a country that had built its foreign policy around an “all-weather” partnership with the United States, the blow was devastating. At home, the opposition branded Modi’s failed gamble “Narendra Surrender,” mocking his spectacle-filled friendship with Trump as naïve theatrics that collapsed under real pressure. For Delhi, the message was clear: the West could no longer be counted on to rescue its missteps. With G20 and Quad channels less reliable, the SCO emerged as one of the few viable forums to reassert a place on the world stage. Modi’s appearance in Tianjin, then, was not triumph but survival, an acknowledgement that multilateralism on Beijing’s terms was better than isolation altogether.

The symbolism of Tianjin cut deep. Since the Galwan clash of 2020, Delhi had prided itself on refusing Chinese platforms, framing absence as defiance. Now, silence replaced protest. The SCO under Xi is no longer a loose forum; it has become a pillar of Eurasian integration, binding Central Asia, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, and increasingly the wider Global South. At its heart lies the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, long denounced by India for slicing through contested territory. Yet in Tianjin, there was no confrontation. India, once positioning itself as a counterweight to China, appeared instead as a participant in a framework designed by Beijing. The elephant, once imagined as defiant, now moved cautiously, aware it needed the SCO more than the SCO needed it. That reversal was visible not only to China and Pakistan, but also to smaller members like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, who read India’s presence as proof that even proud powers must eventually align with the region’s gravitational centre.

For Beijing, the shift validated years of patience. The SCO has always been more than a talking shop; it is China’s instrument to entrench primacy without overt conflict. Unlike NATO or the Quad, which showcase military postures, the SCO emphasises infrastructure, security coordination, and development arenas where China steadily consolidates influence. At Tianjin, Xi spoke of the “dragon and elephant” destined to cooperate, but the framing was deliberate: India’s participation was portrayed as a mutual necessity, not a concession wrung from Delhi. The message to the wider Global South was unmistakable: Asia’s future would be shaped not by Western-led institutions, but by platforms built around Beijing’s vision. For India, the choice was stark: embrace a forum it once mistrusted or risk being left outside the region’s new architecture. The SCO became both refuge and reminder, underscoring that India’s autonomy now required engagement on terms it did not dictate.

While India grappled with this external humility, domestic turbulence deepened the picture of contradiction. On Independence Day, Modi hailed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as the “world’s biggest NGO,” provoking outrage from opponents who accused the RSS of opposing the freedom struggle, rejecting the Constitution, and fueling communal division. Congress mocked the organisation as a “Rashtriya Sandighda Sangathan,” questioning its legality and role in weakening democracy. Kerala’s Chief Minister denounced the Prime Minister for equating Savarkar with Gandhi, calling it a betrayal of history. These controversies reinforced the sense of a government projecting ideological triumphalism at home even as it bent abroad. The juxtaposition was striking: a humbled India in Tianjin, where it deferred to Beijing’s stage, and a triumphant India in Delhi, glorifying an outfit accused of undermining its pluralist ethos. Together, they projected not strength, but incoherence a country at once subdued internationally and combative domestically.

In sum, the story of 2025 is not of resurgence but reckoning. Operation Sindoor revealed the limits of bravado, U.S. tariffs exposed the fragility of economic reliance, and Tianjin showed the compulsion of seeking shelter within Chinese-led institutions. The SCO, once peripheral, became central to India’s survival, even as domestic choices inflamed division. For decades, India styled itself as the democratic counterweight to China and the pluralist model for Asia. Now it risks being seen instead as a chastened participant in Beijing’s architecture and a divided polity at home. Power lies not only in action but in narrative; at Tianjin, the narrative belonged to Xi, not Modi. Unless India rebalances with humility, the year 2025 may be remembered not as a stumble but as the moment when the elephant, once proud and independent, found itself tethered to someone else’s stage.

Omay Aimen
The writer frequently contributes to issues concerning national and regional security, focusing on matters having a critical impact on these milieus. She can be reached at omayaimen333@gmail.com

US President Donald Trump is directing that the Department of Defense be known as the Department of War.

He will sign an executive order on Friday for the defence department to use the new name as a secondary title and for Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to be known as Secretary of War.

The Pentagon – which oversees the US armed services – is the successor to the War Department, which was first established as a cabinet-level agency in 1789 and existed until 1947.

The responsibility of creating executive departments rests with the US Congress, meaning that an amendment would be required to legally change the department’s name.

The BBC has seen the text of the executive order, which says: “The name ‘Department of War’ conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities.”

In an effort to “project strength and resolve,” the order authorises the defence secretary, his department and subordinate officials to use the new titles as secondary names.

The order also instructs Hegseth to recommend and include legislative and executive actions to move toward a permanent renaming of the department since Trump cannot formally change the name without congressional approval.

The Department of War was established by George Washington but was rebranded following World War II.

According to the executive order, restoring its name “will sharpen the focus of this Department on our national interest and signal to adversaries America’s readiness to wage war to secure its interests”.

The White House is yet to say how much a permanent rebrand would cost, but US media expects a billion-dollar price tag for the overhaul of hundreds of agencies, emblems, email addresses, uniforms and more, possibly hampering the Pentagon’s efforts to cut spending and waste.

Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of the name change, arguing that the US had “an unbelievable history of victory” in both world wars under the previous name.

He has also expressed optimism that lawmakers would support such a change.

“I’m sure Congress will go along if we need that. I don’t even think we need that,” the president said last week. “But, if we need that, I’m sure Congress will go along.”

Trump and Hegseth have sought to refocus the department on “warfighting” and a “warrior ethos”.

They have argued that the department has become too focused on diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and “woke ideology”.

Earlier on Thursday, Trump downplayed suggestions about seeking the Nobel Peace Prize.

“All I can do is put out wars,” he told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner. “I don’t seek attention. I just want to save lives.”

The renaming marks the president’s 200th executive order signed since he took office.

Although the renaming was somewhat expected, it comes on the heels of China unveiling a range of new weapons, drones and other military hardware in a massive parade that many interpreted as a clear message to the US and its allies.

Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Friday authorizing the US Department of Defense to rebrand itself as the “department of war”, the White House said, as part of an attempt to formalize the name change without an act of Congress.

The order will designate “department of war” as a “secondary title”, an administration official said, as a way to get around the need for congressional approval to formally rename a federal agency.

But the order will instruct the rest of the executive branch to use the “department of war” name in internal and external communications, and allows the defense secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials to use “secretary of war” as official titles.

The order – seemingly in recognition of the limitation of the executive action alone – also directs Hegseth to recommend potential legislative moves the administration could take to permanently rename the defense department.

Trump and Hegseth have been publicly pushing for the rebrand for weeks, claiming the change would present the US military as more aggressive to the world by reverting to the name that was used when the US was victorious in the first and second world wars.

“Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was the Department of War,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week. “Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”

Asked about the need for congressional approval to change the name of a federal agency, Trump suggested the administration saw it as a formality. “We’re just going to do it. I’m sure Congress will go along, if we need that. I don’t think we even need that,” he said.

White House officials privately suggested on Thursday that they were keen to do something symbolic to mark the 200th day of Trump’s second term.

The US government had a Department of War until shortly after the second world war, when the Truman administration split the US army and air force and merged it with the navy. In 1949, Congress amended the National Security Act, which named the new agency the Department of Defense.

The rebrand to the Department of War comes as Trump has repeatedly made the case that he should receive the Nobel peace prize for pushing for the end of conflicts in the Middle East and the Ukraine war.

But critics have suggested the renaming of effort runs counter to the aims of the prize and his interventions to try to end conflicts have come at a cost, arguing Trump often aligns himself with aggressors.

Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino

WASHINGTON: Democrats and Republicans pushed US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s Jr. on his recent vaccine policies and their stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s successful first-term pandemic initiative to speed vaccine development during a combative three-hour Senate hearing on Thursday.

Half a dozen heated exchanges focused on the details of his decision to fire Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez, who had started the job with Kennedy’s support only a month earlier.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician who played a critical role in Kennedy’s confirmation, grilled him about the cancelation of $500 million in COVID vaccine contracts, while citing examples of doctors and cancer patients who have been unable to obtain the protection against the potentially deadly disease.

“I would say, effectively, we’re denying people vaccine,” concluded Cassidy.

“Well, you’re wrong,” Kennedy responded.

Cassidy, of Louisiana, praised Trump for having accelerated the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in 2020.

His line of questioning — mirrored by two other members of his and Trump’s party — underscored the tightrope Republicans critical of Kennedy needed to walk in order to push back against his vaccine policies without criticizing the president.

Cassidy asked Kennedy during the Senate Finance Committee hearing if he agreed with him that Trump deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for the COVID vaccine initiative, known as Operation Warp Speed. Kennedy said he did.

 

Why then had Kennedy said the vaccines killed more people than COVID? Cassidy asked. Kennedy denied making the statement, would not agree that the vaccines saved lives, and in a later exchange acknowledged the shots prevented deaths but not how many.

COVID vaccines in the first year of their use saved some 14.4 million lives globally, according to a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.

Kennedy has also canceled $500 million in funding for research on the mRNA technology that yielded the most widely used COVID vaccines under Trump, which Cassidy characterized as denying people vaccines.

Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Barrasso of Wyoming, who like Cassidy is a physician, adopted Cassidy’s tactic, as did Senate Democrats Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, where the CDC is headquartered, and Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats.

The White House backed Kennedy, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Vice President JD Vance both defending him and Leavitt attacking Democrats in posts on X. Neither mentioned his Republican critics.

“Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearings you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” said Barrasso.

“The public has seen measles outbreaks, leadership in the National Institutes of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines, the recently confirmed Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired,” the senator added.

 

Under fiery questioning from most Democrats and some Republicans, Kennedy defended the ousting of Monarez, adding that he might need to fire even more people at the agency.

Trump fired Monarez after she resisted changes to vaccine policy advanced by Kennedy that she believed contradicted scientific evidence, further destabilizing the already embattled agency.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Monarez said she had been directed to preapprove vaccine recommendations and fire career CDC officials, describing her ouster as part of a broader push to weaken US vaccine standards.

Kennedy said she lied and that he had never told Monarez she needed to preapprove decisions, but that he did order her to fire officials, which she refused to do.

“Secretary Kennedy’s claims are false, and at times, patently ridiculous. Dr. Monarez stands by what she said in her Wall Street Journal op-ed,” her lawyers said in a statement, adding that she was willing to repeat it under oath.

Calls for Kennedy’s resignation

Kennedy said the CDC during the COVID-19 pandemic had lied to Americans about mask wearing, social distancing, school closures and the ability of the vaccine to stop transmission.

“I need to fire some of those people and make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Kennedy said.

 

The CDC’s pandemic recommendations were based on past experience with virus transmission and what was known about the novel coronavirus at the time. By late 2021, with more real-world data, the CDC acknowledged the shots could not stop COVID infection and transmission, but were highly effective in preventing severe cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

Since taking the job, Kennedy has made a series of controversial changes to US vaccine policy, including narrowing who is eligible for COVID shots and firing all 17 expert members of a CDC vaccine advisory panel, choosing some fellow anti-vaccine activists to replace them.

Vaccination rates in the US have been on the decline. Florida on Wednesday said it plans to end all state vaccine mandates, including for students to attend schools. No senators asked Kennedy about the announcement in the hearing.

Criticism of Kennedy has intensified since Monarez’s firing, which triggered resignations of four CDC agency officials who cited anti-vaccine policies and misinformation pushed by him and his team. He revisited several issues after the hearing, posting four times on X to address questions and respond to accusations.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the committee’s top-ranking Democrat, called for Kennedy’s resignation, as have Warnock, Sanders, and over 1,000 current and former health employees.

 

Getty Images

Hugo Portes

Courtesy of Fernanda Pizol

‘A shining light’

The Asian Tea Group

US to bear the cost?