Asia

Storms are common in northern India from March to June, before the annual monsoon rains arrive.

Duststorms, heavy rain and lightning have killed at least 96 people in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and damaged homes and other structures, officials said.

According to them, more than 50 people were injured in these weather-related incidents across several districts of Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, on Wednesday.

Storms are common in northern India from March to June, before the annual monsoon rains arrive.

Officials said many deaths were caused by falling trees, collapsing structures and lightning. Police and disaster response teams used chainsaws and cranes to clear fallen trees from roads and railway tracks in several districts.

Narendra Srivastava, an administrative official, said emergency teams were deployed across the affected areas and that homes, crops and power infrastructure were widely damaged, particularly in rural parts.

In Prayagraj district, residents were in panic as strong winds tore through neighbourhoods.

“The storm came suddenly, and the sky turned completely dark within minutes,” Ram Kishore said. “Tin roofs were flying, and people ran indoors. We could hear trees falling throughout the evening.”

In neighbouring Bhadohi district, Savitri Devi said her family narrowly escaped after strong winds damaged their mud house. “We rushed outside when the walls started shaking because of the wind,” she said. “Our roof collapsed moments later. We spent the night at a relative’s house.”

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath ordered officials to complete relief operations within 24 hours and for authorities to provide emergency aid and compensation to affected families.

Families of 10 Pakistani crew members taken hostage by Somali pirates have rallied in Karachi to demand their release. The crew of the Honour 25 have been held for more than three weeks. Hijackings off the coast of Somalia are on the rise in the wake of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Protests were held after three church leaders were killed and three others injured in a deadly ambush in India’s Manipur state, the latest incident of ethnic violence that has killed more than 260 people since 2023.

United States President Donald Trump has departed for Beijing ahead of a high-stakes summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, after weeks of unsuccessful US efforts to persuade China to help bring Iran back to negotiations and ease tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

The leaders of the world’s two largest economies are due to meet on Thursday and Friday during Trump’s first visit to China since 2017, with talks expected to focus on trade, Taiwan, artificial intelligence and the war involving Iran.

Here is what we know about the upcoming summit and the key issues expected to dominate the agenda.

Why does the Trump-Xi summit matter?

The Trump-Xi summit is a high-level meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping taking place in Beijing as the world’s two largest economies face growing tensions over trade, technology, Taiwan and the Iran war.

The summit is particularly significant because Trump will be the first US leader to visit China in nearly a decade, while the talks also come at a time of heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Originally expected earlier this year, the meeting was delayed by the war on Iran.

Before departing for Beijing, Trump said he and Xi would have a “long talk” about Iran, although he stressed that trade would remain the central focus of the visit.

“Trade remains politically powerful, especially for Trump, because it gives rivalry a language that voters can easily understand,” said Salvador Santino Regilme, associate professor and programme chair of international relations at Leiden University. “Yet the deeper conflict concerns hierarchy, legitimacy and the future architecture of global order.”

Regilme added that both countries remain locked in a relationship shaped by strategic rivalry and deep economic dependence.

“The United States still relies heavily on China’s manufacturing capacity and low-cost production, while China depends on access to US consumers, technology, capital markets and the wider stability of the dollar-centred global economy.”

“This is the paradox of US-China rivalry: each side wants greater autonomy, yet both remain tied to a structure of mutual dependence that neither can easily dismantle without hurting itself,” Regilme added.

What are the biggest issues at the Trump-Xi summit?

Analysts say the US and China are entering the summit with different priorities.

Trump is expected to focus heavily on trade with the aim of securing what he can present as economic wins ahead of November’s midterm elections. Washington has pushed for China to increase purchases of American goods, including Boeing aircraft, beef and soya beans, while also seeking closer investment and trade cooperation.

Beijing, meanwhile, is expected to press the US to ease restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports and roll back measures limiting China’s access to critical chip-making technology. Taiwan is also likely to remain one of the most sensitive and contested issues in the summit.

Trump has also said he plans to raise the case of Jimmy Lai, the jailed Hong Kong media tycoon and pro-democracy figure sentenced earlier this year under Beijing’s national security law.

Beyond bilateral disputes, the two leaders are also expected to discuss the war on Iran, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the growing risks linked to artificial intelligence.

The biggest flashpoints include:

Tech vs rare earths

Technology and supply chains are expected to be among the key issues at the summit, as Washington and Beijing remain locked in a widening battle over semiconductors and critical minerals.

The US has tightened restrictions on advanced chips and chip-making equipment going to China, saying the measures are needed to slow Beijing’s military and AI development.

China, meanwhile, controls roughly 90 percent of global rare earth refining, materials essential for semiconductors, electric vehicles, military equipment and electronics, and has responded with tighter export controls on several critical minerals.

Beijing is expected to push for fewer US technology restrictions, while Washington wants China to resume shipments of rare earths and critical minerals after export controls disrupted parts of the American automotive and aerospace sectors.

 Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz

The Iran war is expected to be one of the most closely watched issues at the summit.

Analysts expect Washington to press Beijing to use its influence over Tehran, particularly because China remains the largest buyer of Iranian oil — by far — purchasing more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped crude exports. US officials have also urged China to support efforts to reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies.

The conflict has also increased pressure on China’s economy and energy security. About half of China’s crude oil imports come from the Middle East, while disruptions in the Gulf have left commercial shipping vulnerable to attacks and delays.

“I have no doubt that Trump is going to at least try to enlist Xi Jinping to assert some pressure for the Iranians to come back to the table and agree to a settlement,” said Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and director of the National Security Reform programme at the Stimson Center.

Experts say Iran may be one of the few areas where US and Chinese interests overlap, as both countries benefit from stable energy flows through the Gulf.

“Both sides would like to see the strait opened,” said Gregory Poling, director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), but he noted Beijing is unlikely to align itself too closely with Washington’s approach towards Tehran.

While China wants shipping through the Strait of Hormuz restored, Poling argued the diplomatic and strategic pressure created by the disruption is falling far more heavily on Washington.

“It is not China being humiliated in the strait … It’s the US.”

Taiwan: An existential problem

Taiwan is expected to be one of the most sensitive issues, with Beijing repeatedly warning that it remains the biggest source of tension in US-China relations.

China claims the self-ruled island as part of its territory and has increased military pressure on Taiwan in recent years through regular air and naval operations around the island.

Tensions have risen further under Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te, whom Beijing has sharply criticised because his party views Taiwan as already sovereign.

The US officially recognises the communist mainland as China but is legally committed under the Taiwan Relations Act to support Taiwan’s self-defence, a policy that has long angered China. Washington has approved tens of billions of dollars in military sales to Taiwan over the years, including an $11bn package announced last year, and Trump recently said he discussed the issue with Xi ahead of the summit.

Analysts say Taiwan will be paying close attention to what Trump and Xi say publicly after the summit, especially on defence and arms sales.

“What matters is the precise wording,” Regilme said. “Whether Trump reaffirms support for Taiwan’s defence, whether he sounds ambiguous on arms sales, and whether he gives Xi any rhetorical opening to claim that Washington is restraining Taipei.”

Regilme said Beijing is likely to push for limits on US arms sales and stronger political restrictions on Taiwan, while also discouraging any movement towards formal independence. At the same time, Taipei fears it could become part of a broader geopolitical bargain between Washington and Beijing.

“In great-power politics, small words often carry large consequences, especially for those whose survival depends on the credibility of others,” Regilme added.

Tariffs

Trade is also expected to be a sticking point after years of friction between the US and China over tariffs and economic competition.

The latest trade dispute intensified last year when Trump imposed new tariffs on Chinese goods. China responded with its own tariffs.

At the height of the dispute, tariffs on some goods climbed above 100 percent, prompting concerns about the impact on global trade and supply chains.

The two countries later agreed to temporarily lower tensions through a trade truce reached during talks in South Korea. As part of the deal, China agreed to buy more US agricultural products, including soya beans, while Washington rolled back some tariffs.

What would count as a successful outcome for Trump and Xi?

Analysts say a successful outcome for Trump would likely need to be visible and easy to sell politically at home. That could include Chinese purchases of US goods, movement on tariffs, cooperation on Iran, or progress on rare earth exports.

“Trump’s foreign policy style places enormous value on the public performance of dealmaking, so the optics of success may matter almost as much as the substance,” Regilme said.

For Xi, success would mean preserving stability without appearing to bow to Washington, while securing greater economic predictability and recognition of China as a global power.

“A comprehensive trade deal seems unlikely because the structural sources of rivalry remain unresolved,” Regilme added.

Instead, he said a limited agreement is more likely, potentially involving tariff pauses, purchase commitments, rare earth arrangements or a framework for future negotiations.

“Such an agreement would manage the rivalry temporarily, while leaving untouched the deeper problem: the two economies remain mutually dependent, but their governments increasingly treat that dependency as a strategic danger.”

US president lauds Islamabad, but his Republican ally says he does not trust Pakistan to facilitate Iran diplomacy.

Donald Trump has reasserted his support for Pakistan to serve as a mediator between Iran and the United States after Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the US president, disparaged Islamabad’s diplomacy.

In remarks on Tuesday, the US president lauded Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and its army chief Asim Munir, who helped negotiate a fragile ceasefire in Iran that came into effect last month.

Trump added he is not reconsidering Pakistan as a mediator.

“They’re great. I think the Pakistanis have been great. The field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been absolutely great,” Trump told reporters.

Hours earlier, Graham had pressed Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth and top US general Dan Caine about a CBS News report claiming that Pakistan is allowing Iran to park military assets on its airfields, in order to shield them from potential US and Israeli attacks.

Both officials declined to comment on the veracity of the report, citing the sensitive nature of the talks between the US and Iran.

Asked by Graham whether it would be “consistent” for Pakistan to act as a fair mediator if the CBS report is confirmed, Hegseth said, “I wouldn’t want to get into the middle of these negotiations.”

The Republican senator quickly interrupted the defence secretary.

“I do. I want to get in the middle of those negotiations,” Graham said.

“I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me maybe we should be looking for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere.”

The senator — an outspoken foreign policy hawk who has been calling for regime change in Iran — is seen as one of the most influential figures in Trump’s circle.

Graham has also been one of the most vocal supporters of the war with Iran, repeatedly cautioning Trump against agreeing to a deal that would include concessions to Tehran.

Weeks before the war broke out on February 28, Graham met the US president in Florida, where he handed Trump a hat that says, “Make Iran Great Again.”

Pakistan has been pushing to revive the stalled diplomacy between Iran and the US, following the April 8 ceasefire agreement.

On Sunday, Trump said Tehran’s latest proposal to end the war was “unacceptable”.

In late April, the US president announced he was sending his envoys to Pakistan to meet Iranian officials, but he called off the trip after Iran pushed the US to lift the naval blockade against its ports as a condition for resuming the talks.

At least nine people were killed and some 30 injured in a blast at a market in the Pakistani town of Sarai Naurang.

The explosion was caused by a bomb-laden rickshaw. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.

Al Jazeera’s Rosalind Jordan and Almigdad Alruhaid report on the latest developments after US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to the US peace proposal, as negotiations increasingly focus on sanctions, ceasefire guarantees, and control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Bomber and several fighters detonate explosives-laden vehicle near security post in Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, near Afghanistan.

A car bombing at ⁠a police post followed by an intense firefight has killed at least three officers ⁠in northwestern Pakistan, according to police and security sources.

The attack took place in Bannu, a district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan, late on Saturday.

Police official Zahid Khan told The Associated Press that a suicide bomber and several fighters detonated an explosives-laden vehicle near a security post. Shortly after, multiple explosions were heard and the security post collapsed from the impact of the blast, he said.

Pakistan’s Dawn reported that nearby civilian areas also suffered severe damage due to the blasts, and two civilians were injured.

The Reuters news agency, citing security officials, reported that after the bombing, there was an ambush on police personnel rushing ⁠to the scene to provide backup.

Police official Sajjad Khan told Reuters that more casualties were feared. He added that fighting was ongoing and the extent of the damage would only be known once ‌the operation was over.

Police sources told Reuters ⁠the aggressors also used drones in the attack.

Ambulances from ⁠rescue agencies and civil hospitals were dispatched to the scene, with officials saying a state of emergency has been declared in government hospitals in Bannu.

No group immediately claimed responsibility. However, such attacks have the potential to reignite fighting along Pakistan’s border ⁠with Afghanistan.

The worst fighting in years erupted ⁠between the allies-turned-foes in February, with Pakistani air strikes inside Afghanistan that Islamabad said targeted fighters’ strongholds.

Fighting has since eased, with occasional skirmishes breaking out along the border, but no official ceasefire ‌has been brokered.

Islamabad blames Kabul for harbouring armed groups who use Afghan soil to plot attacks in Pakistan. The Taliban has denied the allegations and ‌said ‌militancy in Pakistan is an internal problem.

The Pakistan Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and allied fighter groups have carried out similar attacks in the past. The Pakistan Taliban is a separate group but is often aligned with the Afghan Taliban, who seized power in Afghanistan in 2021.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Tuesday that Operation Epic Fury – the US-Israeli strikes on Iran which commenced on February 28 and prompted a regional conflict – had concluded as its objectives had been achieved. Washington now prefers “the path of peace”, Rubio said.

On the same day, US President Donald Trump announced that the US military operation to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz – “Project Freedom”, which was launched the day before – had been paused.

So, does this mean the US-Israel war on Iran is over?

What did Rubio say about Operation Epic Fury?

In a media briefing at the White House on Tuesday, Rubio told reporters that Operation Epic Fury was over.

“The Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation,” Rubio said.

“We’re not cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer the path of peace. What the president would prefer is a deal,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s efforts to arrange direct talks between Iran and the US.

The first round of these, in Islamabad last month, ended without a resolution. Both sides have submitted new proposals since then.

“The on-again, off-again talks with Iran, alongside Trump’s abrupt about turn on ‘Operation Freedom’ to guide vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz has created unwelcome frenzy in the Gulf,” Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security at UK-based think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Al Jazeera.

“It also reflects the highly fraught and almost frantic diplomatic backchannelling aimed to extract deep concessions from Tehran on the nuclear issue that will lock in commitments that exceed previous conditions, and which will convince the US to lift the blockade on Iranian ports and unlock sanctions relief – thereby effectively ending the war.”

Ozcelik explained that Iran, on the other hand, wants guarantees that this will be the end of the war, rather than just a pause.

What did Trump say about Project Freedom?

The same day, Trump told reporters that Project Freedom had been paused “based on the request” of Pakistan and other countries, and the “fact that Great Progress has been made towards a Complete and Final Agreement” with representatives of Iran.

Project Freedom was the US forces’ operation to escort stranded ships through the Strait of Hormuz that Trump announced the day before. It had appeared to signal a direct challenge to Iran’s closure of the strategic waterway, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped in peacetime. Iran’s threats to attack ships in the strait have blockaded it since the US-Israel attacks on Iran began. Then, the US announcement of a naval blockade on Iranian ports added to the standoff around the strait.

After Trump announced Project Freedom, Iran said ships trying to use the strait without permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be fired on, igniting fears of a return to war. His announcement triggered a war of words between the US and Iran, with claims and counterclaims about strikes continuing throughout the day.

First, Iran’s Fars agency claimed it had hit a US warship with drones after it ignored orders to turn back from the Strait of Hormuz. US Central Command (CENTCOM) denied a US ship had been struck, however, and instead claimed to have sunk at least six IRGC vessels. Iran denied that. Tehran then published a new map extending its claimed area of control over the strait into UAE waters, raising fears of a new regional confrontation.

The UAE accused Iran of launching strikes on its Fujairah port, the site of an important oil pipeline, which sparked a fire in an oil refinery.

On Tuesday, the US operation had been stopped, according to Trump.

“We have mutually agreed that, while the [US] Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Iran has not immediately responded to this.

Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Australia’s Deakin University, told Al Jazeera that while it is difficult to determine exactly why Trump has paused Project Freedom, the pause comes against the backdrop of growing antiwar public opinion in the US.

“At the same time, Trump may be losing patience with the war; he says he has time to drag this out,” Akbarzadeh said.

“But in reality, Trump has a short attention span and needs to secure a win – soon. Pausing Project Freedom allows diplomacy to pick up pace, bringing US and Iran closer to a deal that Trump would label as a win.”

Is this the end of the war on Iran?

Not exactly. Akbarzadeh said pausing Project Freedom could serve as “the beginning of the end for the war”.

“We know that the Iranians are desperate for an end, so there is little chance of them resuming attacks on US Navy if Trump sends explicit signals that diplomacy has a green light,” he said.

However, he added, “The problem is that we have been here before. Earlier opportunities were squandered because Israel insisted that the US could get a better deal or because Trump misread the situation and expected the military option to grant him more concessions.”

What happens next?

It is difficult to predict this, but neither side appears to want a return to full-scale war, so both are likely to prioritise a diplomatic way out, Akbarzadeh said.

Still, “neither can afford to be seen as the loser,” he added. “They feel their public image needs to be preserved for their own respective domestic audience. This complicates negotiations and reaching a deal.”

Ozcelik said what happens next “will be determined by what the fractured leadership in Tehran commits to on the nuclear file.

“While it has rejected that talks involve curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, this type of posturing has aimed to assuage domestic, hard-line and Iranian nationalists who are rattled by the US-Israel strikes and see nuclear issues from a nationalist, sovereign rights perspective.”

She predicted that the United Nations may soon issue a formal condemnation of Iran for unilaterally blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

“But the real pressure, mounting by the day, is the economic one – that shutting the strait is imposing punishing costs on Iran’s economic recovery prospects,” she said.

“Despite rhetoric on resilience and survival, the remaining Iranian leadership is undeniably concerned about the costs of the war. The possibility of renewed military strikes against Iranian critical infrastructure and the destabilising impacts these would inevitably have might be finally forcing Tehran’s hand,” Ozcelik concluded.

West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has firmly rejected stepping down after her party’s defeat in assembly elections. PM Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party swept West Bengal in elections Banerjee claims were directly interfered with.

The United States has transferred 22 crew members from the Iranian container ship, the Touska, to Pakistan, in what Islamabad describes as a “confidence-building measure” during tension in the Strait of Hormuz.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman, Captain Tim Hawkins, said the crew had been handed over for repatriation. Pakistan’s foreign ministry confirmed the transfer, saying the sailors would be returned to Iranian authorities.

The Touska was seized by US forces in the Gulf of Oman in the early hours of April 20, in what Tehran described as an act of “piracy”, after the US declared a naval blockade of Iranian ports. Iran had effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz following the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

On Monday, tensions continued to escalate in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

First, US President Donald Trump announced that US naval ships would help guide stranded vessels through the strait in an operation he dubbed “Project Freedom”.

Iran issued a new map of the strait with new boundaries further to the east, and warned shipping not to attempt to pass without coordinating with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Then, state media reported that two Iranian missiles struck a US naval vessel near Jask Island in the strait after ignoring warnings from the IRGC to turn back. Washington denied any attack.

Amid continued interceptions and seizures of vessels by both sides, questions remain over whether the two countries can de-escalate and reach a broader peace agreement. Pakistan has been central to these efforts, seeking to keep diplomatic channels open, but talks hosted in Islamabad last month ended without a breakthrough.

Iran’s foreign ministry says it is reviewing Washington’s response to its 14-point proposal aimed at ending the conflict sent via Pakistan on Friday. As Pakistan continues to mediate, Trump previously described Tehran’s offer as “unacceptable”.

What happened to the Touska?

The Iran-flagged Touska was seized by US forces in the Gulf of Oman, close to the Strait of Hormuz, on April 20 after Washington accused the crew of failing to comply with the US naval blockade on Iranian ports. Shortly after midnight local time in Iran, CENTCOM said the USS Spruance fired its 5-inch (127mm) deck gun at the vessel’s engine room, disabling it.

According to the US military, the ship was attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz en route to Iran’s main commercial port, Bandar Abbas.

The Touska, a small container ship operated by the sanctioned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), was boarded near Iran’s Chabahar port. US Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit captured the vessel after what CENTCOM said were repeated warnings over six hours.

Video released by the US military showed Marines descending from helicopters launched from the USS Tripoli and securing the Tusk.

Iran condemned the capture as a violation of international law and an act of “piracy“, before demanding the immediate release of the vessel and its crew.

What does the release of the Touska’s crew mean, diplomatically?

Pakistan has positioned itself as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, and is now framing the transfer of the Touska crew as a step towards de-escalation of tensions. In a statement, the Pakistani foreign ministry said the move reflected a “confidence-building measure” and reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating dialogue.

US and Iranian delegations met in Islamabad last month for their first talks since 1979. Although negotiations ended without a deal, they marked a rare moment of direct engagement.

Pakistan has since coordinated with regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Qatar and Egypt, while maintaining close communications with China, in an effort to build broader support for de-escalation.

In a call with Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, on Monday, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister, Ishaq Dar, reiterated that diplomacy remains the only viable path to stability. Tehran, in turn, acknowledged Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

Will this de-escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz?

There are not many signs that it will.

Indeed, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have continued to increase despite the release of the crew members.

Most notably, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard published a new map on Monday outlining what it claims is an expanded zone of control in the waterway, stretching from Iranian and Omani territory to include the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates as well.

Analysts say this new claim exceeds internationally recognised boundaries. The UAE has accused Iran of launching drones at an oil tanker linked to Abu Dhabi’s national energy company, while Washington has dismissed Iranian reports of an attack on a US warship as false.

Military analyst Alexandru Hudisteanu, a maritime security expert who served 13 years in the Romanian navy, told Al Jazeera on Monday that the conflicting claims reflect a broader test of resolve. “Any attempt to open the strait will likely be met with resistance from Iran,” he said, adding that Tehran views control of Hormuz as its primary leverage in negotiations.

Hudisteanu warned that the situation carries a high risk of miscalculation, with both sides continuing to operate in close proximity. For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is the “only leverage” it has for peace negotiations, Hudisteanu said.

Iranian analyst Foad Izadi argued that the ceasefire effectively collapsed when the US imposed its blockade, which he described as “an act of war”. He added that the targeting and seizure of ships along the Strait of Hormuz further undermined any notion of a truce.

“Attacking an Iranian ship’s engine is an act of war as well,” he added, despite the release of the Touska’s crew signalling some short-term goodwill between the US and Iran.

New Delhi, India – Seema Das, a househelp in New Delhi, took on a two-day journey to reach her village in India’s West Bengal state, changing trains to make sure she got home in time to vote in provincial elections.

Das had previously always voted for the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) party under Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, a centrist political force that has been in power in the eastern Indian state since 2011. But this time, she said, her mother-in-law had convinced her that “Didi” – a nickname for Banerjee, which translates to elder sister in Bangla  – “favours Muslims”.

Das, a Hindu, added: “Didi has lost the track and only appeases Muslims to stay in power.”

That’s an accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party has long levelled against the TMC, which emphasises religious pluralism and the protection of minority rights. But for 15 years, Banerjee and her party have ruled the state of more than 90 million people, even as the BJP gained ground in a state where it had traditionally been a marginal player.

On Monday, that changed. Modi’s party won West Bengal. Early results from elections to the state’s legislature – which were held in April, but votes were counted on May 4 – show that Modi’s well-oiled election machinery is poised to deliver a thumping majority for the BJP in a state that its ideological founder was from, but that it has never won before. By 4:30pm India time, the BJP had won or was leading in 200 out of the state’s 294 seats, where its previous best performance was 77 seats in 2021. Banerjee’s TMC, meanwhile, was leading or had won just 87 seats.

The West Bengal elections were among five whose results were declared on Monday. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, actor C Joseph Vijay threw up a surprise, defeating dominant parties to win with his upstart TVK party; in its neighbouring state of Kerala, the Congress party – the largest national opposition party – beat a coalition of left parties. A BJP-led alliance won the self-administered territory of Puducherry, once a French colony. And in the northeastern state of Assam, Modi’s party returned to power with a sweeping majority.

Yet it is the outcome in West Bengal that analysts say is by far the most consequential of the results that were declared on Monday, with the BJP walking the trails of religious polarisation and leveraging underlying anti-incumbency to win, experts told Al Jazeera.

Inside Banerjee’s bastion in East

Banerjee founded the TMC in 1998, breaking with the Congress party, disillusioned with its refusal to frontally take on a coalition of communist parties that had ruled West Bengal since 1977.

Rising from a humble background, the lawyer-turned-student-activist-turned-politician finally defeated the communists to win the state in 2011. Since Modi became prime minister of India in 2014, she emerged as a key challenger to the BJP – framing her politics, especially her defence of Bengal’s Muslims, as an act of opposition to Hindu majoritarianism.

She also launched a series of women-centric welfare schemes and pushed back against controversial land acquisition projects sought by big industry.

“There is visible support for Mamta and she remains popular, but there is anti-incumbency against the TMC machinery, and people were not happy with their interference in everyday life,” said Rahul Verma, an election observer who teaches politics at the Shiv Nadar University in Chennai.

He added that the BJP also ran a better-managed campaign this time, noting that he is not “shocked” by the results. “It was a difficult election for the BJP, but not impossible.”

To Verma, “there was a corridor available to them [in West Bengal], and one can now say everything aligned in a way to produce this outcome for them.”

Verma emphasised that “without serious anti-incumbency, West Bengal would not have gotten this kind of result.”

Nearly 68.2 million people voted in the election, or about 92.93 percent, a record high for the state.

Banerjee’s party failed to “offer anything new to the voters and to beat strong anti-incumbency sentiments against it”, said Praveen Rai, a political analyst at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, in New Delhi.

“The party system had turned hostile towards the people who did not subscribe to their ideology,” he argued, adding that “the TMC failed to read the growing resentment against economic deprivation and aspirational needs of the common people.”

Rai added that the loss in West Bengal also weakens Banerjee’s hopes of emerging as a national challenger for Modi’s job.

But the implications of the result extend beyond Banerjee, he said. The BJP’s win, and the TMC’s dramatic defeat, would “decrease the political capital of [all] the parties opposed to [Modi]”.

That’s a major shift from two years ago. In the 2024 national elections, Modi’s party had fallen short of a majority, leaving it reliant on allies’ support for survival. The election wins on Monday “offset the electoral setback” suffered in the national vote, Rai said.

“It substantially increases the national standing of Modi’s leadership and extends the hegemonic power of the party [BJP] to govern India,” Rai told Al Jazeera.

‘BJP ran on Hindu-Muslim polarisation’

Neelanjan Sircar, a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, who travelled across West Bengal before the polls, told Al Jazeera that his team identified “a big urban-rural gap among voters’ preferences”.

“We found urban men are very polarised,” he added. “In Bengal, the Muslim population is disproportionately rural, and given the levels of polarisation, the result ended up in a big difference for the BJP.”

Historically, election analysts have argued that due to the BJP’s Hindu majoritarian politics, the party did not stand a chance of winning West Bengal. More than a quarter of the state’s population is Muslim. “That has, of course, not turned out to be true, something we did pick during our research,” Sircar said.

The BJP has not shied from projecting itself as the party of Hindu voters.

Suvendu Adhikari, leader of the BJP in the state and potential chief minister candidate, said, “There has been a Hindu consolidation [of votes].”

He claimed, however, that many Muslims also did not vote for Banerjee’s TMC like earlier, and got swayed towards the BJP. It is impossible to verify the claim until the Election Commission of India (ECI) has released details of the vote count, expected in the next few days.

“I want to thank every Hindu Sanatani who cast their votes in favour of the BJP,” Adhikari said, referring to Banerjee’s TMC as a “pro-Muslim party”. Sanatan Dharma is an endonym for Hinduism.

For the BJP, the win in West Bengal is also deeply symbolic: Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh – the forerunner of the BJP – in 1951, was from the state.

Al Jazeera reached out to TMC spokespersons but has not received any response.

Pre-poll voter revision in spotlight

Before the polling in West Bengal, the ECI carried out a so-called revision of its electoral rolls through a Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which authorities have conducted in more than a dozen states so far.

The exercise in West Bengal controversially removed more than nine million people – nearly 12 percent of the state’s 76 million voters – from the voting list, snatching their right to cast a ballot in the elections.

Nearly six million of them were declared absentee or deceased, while the remaining three million were unable to vote because no special tribunals could hear their cases in the short timeframe available before the elections.

Banerjee’s TMC and other opposition parties in several states have called out the discrepancies in the revision of the voter list, accusing the ECI of siding with Modi’s BJP. Right activists and observers believe that the exercise disproportionately disenfranchised Muslims before the election.

Banerjee also appeared before India’s Supreme Court, challenging the “opaque, hasty, and unconstitutional” revision process. The top court did not restore the voting rights of millions affected but directed the ECI to publish a list of affected voters.

“Once the question of whether ‘I should be on the voter list’ became the dominant question for vulnerable populations, it’s not politics as usual,” said Sircar. “The level of polarisation that the voter revision caused is something that people outside the state do not really grasp.”

The Modi government also deployed 2,400 companies of paramilitary troops to West Bengal for the elections – a record for such provincial votes. The federal government claimed this was to assist election officials in carrying out the exercise without fear of political violence.

But the TMC and other opposition parties argued that the forces served to intimidate – or influence – voters.

“The heavy presence of security forces could have also created a favourable situation for the BJP,” argued Verma, of Shiv Nadar University. “Those who might be fence sitters and might have been afraid of TMC’s machinery on the ground were moved by this.

“There is no doubt that the trust level between opposition parties in India and the Election Commission of India is very low,” added Verma.

However, the analysts who spoke with Al Jazeera, including Sircar and Verma, agreed that the voter revision exercise alone could not have delivered such a decisive victory for the BJP – and that it reflects several other factors, including anti-incumbency and religious polarisation.

Still, analysts said, Banerjee will likely not go out without a fight.

In her first reaction to the vote counting, Banerjee addressed her party workers in a video statement, calling all workers and leaders not to leave vote-counting booths until the last ballots are counted.

“It’s a total forceful use of central forces to oppress the Trinamool Congress everywhere, breaking offices, and forcibly occupying them,” she said. “We are with you. Don’t be afraid. We will fight like the cubs of a tiger.”

Those aren’t empty warnings, Sircar said. “We are definitely in for drama.”

Aaron Hardie’s brilliant all-round performance ensured Peshawar Zalmi clinched their second Pakistan Super League cricket title with a five-wicket win over newcomers Hyderabad Kingsmen, despite an early wobble in the run chase in the final.

Hardie grabbed 4-27 to bowl out Hyderabad for a below-par 129 all out in 18 overs and then hit a fluent 56 not out off 39 balls to anchor Peshawar to 130-5 in 15.2 overs, in front of a packed crowd at the Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore on Sunday.

It completed a redemption arc for Peshawar’s captain Babar Azam, who finished the franchise-based T20 tournament as its leading run-scorer after finding himself in and out of Pakistan’s T20 squad in recent years.

“It’s a very big achievement for me, for Peshawar Zalmi and all the fans,” Babar said after winning his first PSL title as skipper.

“Throughout the tournament, we’ve performed really well as a team … Every player executed the plans they were given in batting, bowling, and fielding. Our plan was to go match by match.”

The crowd at the Gaddafi Stadium in Babar’s hometown chanted his name and erupted in joy when Hardie scored the winning runs for the team in yellow and pink kits.

Peshawar, who won the toss and chose to chase, had slumped to 40-4 inside the first five overs after losing Babar for a golden duck, while Mohammad Haris, Kusal Mendis, and Michael Bracewell also fell for single-digit scores.

But Hardie, who smashed nine fours, then combined in a match-winning stand of 85 runs with Abdul Samad (48), who missed out on his half-century before holing out in the deep when Peshawar needed only five runs for victory.

“It was just a great game of cricket,” Hardie said. “Kingsmen came out of the blocks really hard. They’ve certainly had a lot of momentum from the last couple of games and they carried that in, but I’m really proud of the way the boys were able to fight back.”

Peshawar were favourites for the title after losing only one game in the tournament, with Babar, who scored two centuries, equalling Fakhar Zaman’s PSL record of 588 runs in one edition of the tournament.

Earlier, Saim Ayub (54) scored a fighting half-century to help Hyderabad post 129.

Hyderabad had a productive power play of 69-2, despite Hardie having captain Marnus Labuschagne (20) caught behind off a rising delivery, and Maaz Sadaqat’s early aggression was cut short to just 11 runs when he half-heartedly pulled pace bowler Mohammad Basit to deep backward square leg in the first over.

However, Hyderabad lost momentum and crashed to 73-6 in the space of nine balls after the power play for just two runs.

The slide began when Usman Khan, coming into the final with half-centuries in the last three successive games, was trapped leg before wicket by the tournament’s leading wicket-taker Sufyan Moqim (1-23).

Irfan Khan and Kusal Perera were run out due to some sharp fielding by Bracewell, and between those dismissals, Glenn Maxwell was undone by Nahid Rana’s (2-22) pace and got caught first ball while going for a pull against the Bangladesh fast bowler.

Ayub stretched the total beyond the 100-run mark with a knock of 54 off 50 balls before he fell in Hardie’s last over as he top-edged a pull to mid-on, before the fast bowler wrapped up the innings by having No 11 batter Akif Javed caught behind.

The Australian batter, who was visibly moved to tears after leading Hyderabad into the final in a dramatic last-over win over Islamabad United in the second qualifier on Friday, admitted that his team did not post an imposing target.

“As a batting group, we probably left a few runs out there,” Labuschagne said. “We showed once again that belief in the side and what we can do, putting them four for 40, but just not enough runs on the board tonight.”

Hyderabad had a fairytale run in the tournament when they came back strongly after losing their first four league games, and also knocked out both former champions Multan Sultans and Islamabad United in the playoffs.

“Tonight hurts,” Labuschagne said. “But reflecting on what an amazing tournament we’ve put together, coming from four losses to winning four in a row, getting bowled out for 80 then winning by 100, and then winning two games to get into the final, we’ve made so many great memories and I’m just so proud of the team, it’s been an awesome effort.”

Thousands of protesters gathered in India’s northeastern Manipur state to mark three years since ethnic violence erupted in May 2023 between the majority Meitei and minority Kuki-Zo communities. The conflict, driven by disputes over land and political power has killed nearly 260 people and displaced around 60,000.

Who actually gets to go to the World Cup? With US President Donald Trump’s strict immigration policies, some fans may never make it past the American border. Because while teams qualify on merit, passports don’t. Al Jazeera’s Samantha Johnson explains.

Ministry of Commerce says sanctions against refineries accused of importing Iranian oil violate international law.

China has announced an injunction to block US sanctions placed on five Chinese refiners accused ‌of buying oil from Iran.

The sanctions announced by the United States Department of the Treasury late last month bar the companies from the US financial system and seek to penalise anyone doing business with the firms.

In a statement on Saturday, China’s Ministry of Commerce said the sanctions “improperly” restrict business between Chinese enterprises and third countries “in violation of international law and the basic norms governing international relations”.

The Commerce Ministry said it had issued a “prohibition order” stipulating that the sanctions “shall not be recognized, enforced, or complied with” to “safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests”.

“The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack UN authorisation and basis in international law,” the ministry added.

It said the order blocked US measures against Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery and four other so-called “teapot” refineries: Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group, Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group, Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical and Shandong ⁠Shengxing Chemical.

Announcing the sanctions on April 24, the US Treasury Department called Hengli “one of Tehran’s most valued customers”, saying it had generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Iranian military through crude oil purchases.

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on the other four refineries named by the Chinese ministry, among other facilities, last year.

China gets more than half of its oil from the Middle East, much of it from Iran.

According to commodities data firm Kpler, China bought more than 80 percent of the oil Iran shipped in 2025.

China’s “teapot” refineries operate independently and are generally smaller than the facilities run by state-owned oil giants, such as Sinopec.

The facilities, which have been crucial to China’s efforts to secure its oil supplies, capitalise on heavily discounted crude sold by countries under sanctions, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

Teapots account for a quarter of Chinese ⁠refinery capacity, operate with narrow and sometimes negative margins, and have been squeezed recently by tepid domestic demand.

US sanctions have created additional hurdles for refiners, including difficulties selling refined products under their correct place-of-origin markings.

The Himalayan nation restores centuries-old statue, stolen in the 1980s, to its original temple in capital Kathmandu.

A centuries-old Buddha statue stolen from a Nepali temple has been reinstalled in its original location, one of several artefacts returned from foreign museums and collectors in recent years.

The statue, dating to the 13th century, was carried in a palanquin back to its pagoda-style temple in the capital, Kathmandu, to the sound of traditional music on Friday.

“I feel so happy, we all do. Our god is coming back,” temple-goer Sunkesari Shakya, 67, told the AFP news agency, recalling the day the statue was stolen, wreaking “havoc” in the community.

In a ceremony attended by a visiting United States envoy, the statue, which returned from New York in 2022, was placed back on its original stone plinth. The event coincided with the festival of Buddha Jayanti, marking the birth of the founder of Buddhism.

A replica that locals had been worshipping instead was moved to another area of the temple.

The statue was taken from the temple in the 1980s and later emerged at Tibet House US, a cultural centre in New York, where it was gifted by an unknown monk, according to Nepal’s Department of Archaeology.

Sergio Gor, Washington’s special envoy to South and Central Asia, told AFP, “One of the things we are focusing on is to be able to bring back some of these incredible artefacts that decades past got into the wrong hands.”

“We are trying to right a wrong from the past,” said Gor, who was on a three-day visit to Nepal.

Many in the Himalayan nation of 30 million people are deeply religious, and the country’s Hindu and Buddhist temples, as well as heritage sites, are an integral part of everyday life.

But many sites are bereft of centuries-old sculptures, paintings, ornamental windows and even doors, which were often stolen after the country opened up to the outside world in the 1950s.

Many pieces were taken with the help of corrupt officials to feed art markets in the US, Europe and elsewhere, although their export remains illegal.

About 200 artefacts have been returned to Nepal, according to the Archaeology Department, including wood and stone carvings, paintings, scriptures and idols of gods and goddesses. At least 41 artefacts have been placed back in their original locations.

“This is very important. Our statues are not just objects of art but part of a living heritage,” conservation expert Rabindra Puri told AFP.

Puri said there was growing momentum to return stolen artefacts. More than 400 are officially listed as missing, but experts estimate the actual number to be in the thousands.

Authorities are specifically seeking to return more artefacts from the US, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Seoul – Shekinah Yawra had no other option but to spend the night at a South Korean jjimjilbang, a 24-hour bathhouse, after every hotel near central Seoul sold out in late March.

But sleep was secondary for the 32-year-old Filipino who had made her way to Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Square at 7am to secure a spot in a crowd that city officials estimated would grow to hundreds of thousands.

All this was for a glimpse at the seven-member K-pop supergroup BTS, who returned to the stage on March 21 after almost four years away from the limelight for their staggered, mandatory military service.

Though she failed to secure one of 22,000 free tickets for BTS’s first return concert in the square, Yawra was still ecstatic to stand on the sidelines and watch the concert live on a big screen set up for the occasion.

“We all came just for this,” she told Al Jazeera, recounting how friends had flown in from the Philippines for a single night to catch the concert.

Worldwide, more than 18.4 million viewers tuned in for the Netflix livestream of the concert.

With an estimated 30 million fans worldwide – who refer to themselves as the BTS ARMY – the K-pop group is the most visible symbol of “Hallyu”, or the “Korean Wave”, and the global surge of interest in South Korean popular culture and the financial revenues being generated as a result.

In late March, BTS’s 10th studio album, Arirang, topped the charts in the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom, the world’s three largest music markets. The group’s upcoming world tour is expected to generate more than $1.4bn in revenue across more than 80 shows in 23 countries.

Domestically, inbound tourist numbers for the first 18 days of March rose 32.7 percent from the previous month, according to Ministry of Justice data, as the return concert approached and hotel prices surged across central Seoul amid the demand for rooms.

In the week leading up to the concert, sales of BTS merchandise – from BTS glow sticks to blankets – surged 430 percent at the Shinsegae Duty Free retail outlet in central Seoul, the company said.

Over the concert weekend, revenues also rose 30 percent at the city’s Lotte Department Store and 48 percent at Shinsegae overall, compared with the same March weekend a year earlier, in 2025.

As far back as 2022, the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute (KCTI) – a government-sponsored think tank and research organisation – estimated that a single BTS concert in Seoul could generate up to 1.2 trillion won ($798m) in overall economic impact.

KCTI researcher Yang Ji-hoon told Al Jazeera that a sample study of the crowd at the BTS comeback event at Gwanghwamun Square highlighted the uniqueness of fandom-driven tourism. More than half of those at the concert were foreign visitors and many required long-haul travel to attend.

“In Europe and the United States, travel tends to be concentrated within its own regions,” Yang said.

“So, for people to overcome such travel barriers and come to South Korea, it usually requires more than just ordinary motivation or typical spending – it’s not something that happens easily,” he said.

K-pop’s transition to the global mainstream

The scale of BTS’s return to the entertainment world reflects a broader state-backed strategy.

When music promoter Hybe requested Seoul city support for the Gwanghwamun square comeback concert, authorities approved it on public-interest grounds, treating the event as a showcase of national cultural influence.

Almost befitting an official event, more than 10,000 state personnel were deployed for security, logistics and crowd control.

According to data retrieved by South Korean publication Sisain, through a public information disclosure request to the Seoul government, close to 130 million won ($87,400) of city funds were spent as part of logistics for the comeback concert.

South Korean government support for BTS has a precedent.

As members of the boyband approached South Korea’s mandatory military service age, policymakers debated special exemptions for members of BTS, which was estimated to have generated $4.65bn annually to the country’s economy.

After BTS’s forthcoming concerts in Mexico City sold out in just 37 minutes, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum urged South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung to “bring the acclaimed K-pop artists more often”, noting nearly one million fans in Mexico had attempted to secure 150,000 tickets.

South Korea’s cultural influence is also extending beyond music.

South Korea’s cosmetics exports surpassed $11bn last year, according to global accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), overtaking France in cosmetics shipments to the US, while South Korean food and agricultural exports reached a record $13.6bn, according to data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

KCTI researcher Yang described the growing interest as a phase of “transition to the global mainstream”, where South Korean products are internationally recognised and content output is measured against worldwide benchmarks such as the Billboard charts and the Academy Awards.

He also warned that structural reform is now essential to keep pace with the wave of interest in South Korea.

“As the industries expand in scale, they must also evolve in its underlying systems, infrastructure, and workforce,” he said.

“Rather than focusing solely on direct financial support, future governmental policies should move toward strengthening foundational conditions – such as improving labour environments, addressing unfair practices, building relevant infrastructure, and establishing more robust statistical and data systems,” he said.

Politicians appear to be paying attention.

During his election campaign last year, President Lee framed the next phase of cultural expansion as “Hallyu (Korean Wave) 4.0”, with promises to grow the sector into a 300 trillion won ($203bn) industry with 50 trillion won ($34bn) in exports.

In line with this vision, the government set the budget to bolster “K-content”, support the “pure” arts sector and strengthen the overall culture-related fields at a record 9.6 trillion won ($6.5bn) — reflecting the president’s view of the cultural sector as a strategic national industry rather than merely a consumer market.

South Korea’s strategy appears to be paying off.

South Korea now ranks 11th globally in “soft power”, according to Brand Finance’s Global Soft Power Index, placing the country as both “influential in arts and entertainment” and “products and brands the world loves”, just behind the US, France, the United Kingdom and Japan.

The darker side of K-pop: Pressure to become a perfect idol

Amid its global success, the darker side of the K-culture industry has received more scrutiny.

Mega-promoter Hybe has been embroiled in a prolonged dispute with K-pop’s New Jeans, a band considered to be a potential heir to BTS and their all-female colleagues Blackpink. The highly public legal dispute that started in 2024 highlights industry tensions over creative control and artist autonomy.

Since the early 2000s, K-pop has also grappled with the legacy of “slave contracts”, or highly restrictive agreements limiting artists’ freedom. Although reforms by the Fair Trade Commission have improved protections for performers, contractual obligations in the K-pop industry are exacting on new performers and their strict work routines have long been documented.

From their trainee years, aspiring idols endure gruelling schedules that involve long workdays and little sleep.

Many top stars often face contractual restrictions on socialising, using their phones or dating. They are also typically limited in what they can say publicly, relying on agency-managed messaging to communicate with fans and the media.

While the rise of social media and other online platforms has opened new avenues for more direct expression and interaction in recent years, concerns over burnout and depression have continued to shadow the industry, with several high-profile stars taking their own lives.

Beauty standards associated with the K-culture genre have also become another flashpoint for controversy.

A 2024 report by South Korean economy news site Uppity found 98 percent of 1,283 respondents born between 1980 and 2000 viewed physical appearance as among the most desirable “social capital” an individual can possess.

Nearly 40 percent of respondents in the survey had undergone cosmetic procedures, while more than 90 percent held neutral or positive attitudes regarding undergoing medical procedures to enhance beauty.

According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, South Korea has the world’s highest rate of procedures, with 8.9 per 1,000 people compared with 5.91 per 1,000 people in the US and just 2.13 per 1,000 in neighbouring Japan.

Yoo Seung-chul, a professor of media studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, said that K-culture has reinforced the normalising of beauty as a significant metric of personal and social value.

“K-culture has reinforced systems and structures around self-expression,” Yoo told Al Jazeera.

“With the rise of webtoons that incorporate themes like plastic surgery, there has been a noticeable reduction in the stigma towards going under the knife among younger audiences in their teens and early twenties,” Yoo said, explaining that popular plastic surgery platforms such as Unni have further normalised the trend by connecting people to clinics and reviews of these clinics and their surgeons.

At the same time, globalisation has reshaped the K-culture industry itself. Many new K-pop acts now include international members to broaden appeal.

Hybe has expanded this strategy through its US subsidiary, Hybe America, producing globally oriented groups like Katseye, which only has one South Korean member in its six-member girl group.

The shift has prompted debate.

Even BTS’s latest album Arirang – a nod to South Korea’s most iconic folk song – has divided fans over its use of English lyrics and foreign producers.

“K-content is being designed with global audiences in mind from the outset. In film, there has been a noticeable rise in genres like horror and science fiction, which are easier to export internationally,” Yoo said.

“This global orientation is also reflected in K-pop agencies recruiting foreign members for idol groups,” he said.

But international audiences do not always prefer highly globalised versions of Korean content, Yoo said, adding, in fact, that many are drawn to K-pop’s “sense of locality”.

As audiences increasingly seek authenticity, Yoo argues the industry faces a defining challenge.

“Industries and companies need to figure out how to preserve a sense of local identity while effectively marketing to global audiences,” Yoo added.

“Striking that balance will be crucial in shaping the next phase of Korea’s cultural exports.”

On March 11, the Thai cargo ship Mayuree Naree was struck by two projectiles while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important waterways located between Iran and Oman. A fire broke out in the engine room, and while 20 sailors were rescued, three remained trapped inside the stricken vessel. Their remains were found weeks later when a specialised rescue team boarded the vessel, which had run aground on the shores of Iran’s Qeshm island.

At about the same time, a “shadow fleet” of tankers continued to navigate the very same waters safely. Operating with fake flags, disabled signals and unspecified destinations, this covert armada survived because it operates outside the traditional rules of maritime trade.

Iran threatened to block “enemy” ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz – a crucial chokepoint for a fifth of the world’s oil – in the wake of the United States-Israeli war launched on February 28. Soon, navigation through the strait was disrupted amid fears of attacks.

Following a temporary ceasefire on April 8, the United States imposed a full naval blockade on Iranian ports on April 13. Theoretically, traffic through the strait should have come to a complete halt.

However, tracking data reveals a remarkably different reality.

An exclusive Al Jazeera open-source investigation tracked 202 voyages made by 185 vessels through the strait between March 1 and April 15, navigating both under fire and across blockade lines.

The numbers behind the shadows

To understand how the strait operated under extreme pressure, Al Jazeera’s Digital Investigative Unit monitored the waterway daily, cross-referencing vessel International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers with international sanction lists from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United Nations. An IMO number is a unique seven-digit figure assigned to commercial ships.

Of the tracked voyages, 77 (38.5 percent) were directly or indirectly linked to Iran. Notably, 61 of the ships transiting the strait were explicitly listed on international sanctions lists.

The investigation divided the conflict into three distinct phases to map the fleet’s behaviour:

• Phase 1: Open War (March 1 – April 6): 126 ships crossed the strait, peaking at 30 vessels on March 1. Among these, 46 were linked to Iran.
• Phase 2: The Truce (April 7 – 13): 49 ships crossed during this fragile pause. More than 40 percent of these vessels were tied to Iran, including the US-sanctioned, Iranian-flagged Roshak, which successfully exited the Gulf.
• Phase 3: The US Blockade (April 13 – 15): Despite the explicit naval blockade, 25 ships crossed the strait.

Breaking the blockade

When the US blockade took effect, the shadow fleet adapted immediately.

The Iranian cargo ship “13448” successfully broke the blockade. Because it is a smaller vessel operating in coastal waters, it lacks an official IMO number, allowing it to evade traditional sanction-monitoring tools. The vessel departed Iran’s Al Hamriya port and reached Karachi, Pakistan.

Similarly, the Panama-flagged Manali broke the blockade, crossing on April 14 and penetrating the cordon again on April 17 en route to Mumbai, India.

The investigation uncovered widespread manipulation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) trackers. Vessels such as the US-sanctioned Flora, Genoa and Skywave deliberately disabled or jammed their signals to hide their identities and destinations.

Fake flags and shell companies

To obscure ultimate ownership, the shadow fleet heavily relies on a complex web of “false flags” and shell companies. The investigation identified 16 ships operating under fake flags, including registries from landlocked nations like Botswana and San Marino, as well as others from Madagascar, Guinea, Haiti and Comoros.

The operational network managing these ships spans the globe. Operating firms were primarily based in Iran (15.7 percent), China (13 percent), Greece (more than 11 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (9.7 percent). Notably, the operators of nearly 19 percent of the observed vessels remain unknown.

The toll of a parallel system

Despite the intense military pressure, energy carriers dominated the traffic, with 68 ships (36.2 percent) transporting crude oil, petroleum products and gas. Ten of these tankers were directly linked to Iran. Non-oil trade also persisted, with 57 bulk and general cargo ships crossing during the open war phase, 41 of which were tied to Tehran.

Before the war, at least 100 ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz daily. Today, a staggering 20,000 sailors are trapped on 2,000 ships across the Gulf – a crisis the International Maritime Organization described as unprecedented since World War II.

A shadow Iranian fleet, meanwhile, has been navigating seamlessly as part of a parallel maritime system born from 47 years of US sanctions on Tehran. Washington slapped sanctions on Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Washington ruler Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The two countries have had no diplomatic ties since 1980.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has opened six overland transit routes for goods destined for Iran, formalising a road corridor through its territory as thousands of containers remain stranded at Karachi port because of the United States blockade of Iranian ports and ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Ministry of Commerce issued the Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026 on April 25, bringing it into immediate effect. The order allows goods originating from third countries to be transported through Pakistan and delivered to Iran by road.

The announcement coincided with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Islamabad for talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Asim Munir, the latest in a series of diplomatic engagements as Pakistan seeks to mediate an end to the two-month war between Washington and Tehran.

Federal Minister for Commerce Jam Kamal Khan described the initiative as “a significant step toward promoting regional trade and enhancing Pakistan’s role as a key trade corridor”.

Iran has not publicly commented on the move, and Al Jazeera’s query to the Iranian embassy in Islamabad went unanswered.

The notification does not extend to Indian-origin goods. A separate Commerce Ministry order issued in May 2025, following the India-Pakistan aerial war that month, bans the transit of goods from India through Pakistan by any mode and remains in force.

Routes and regulations

The six designated routes link Pakistan’s main ports, Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar, with two Iranian border crossings, Gabd and Taftan, passing through Balochistan via Turbat, Panjgur, Khuzdar, Quetta and Dalbandin.

The shortest route, the Gwadar-Gabd corridor, reduces travel time to the Iranian border to between two and three hours, compared with the 16 to 18 hours it takes from Karachi – Pakistan’s biggest port – to the Iranian border. The Gwadar-Gabd route could cut transport costs by 45 to 55 percent compared with costs from Karachi port, according to officials.

But for Iran, firms sending their goods to the country, and transporters, all routes into Iranian territory today are viable options, with the principal maritime passage they have traditionally used – the Strait of Hormuz – blockaded by the US Navy.

Corridor shaped by conflict

The current US-Iran war began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched attacks on Iran.

In the weeks that followed, Iran restricted commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime, disrupting one of the most critical arteries of global trade.

Pakistan brokered a ceasefire on April 8 and hosted the first round of direct US-Iran talks on April 11, in Islamabad. The negotiations lasted nearly a day but ended without a deal. Two days later, Washington imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, throttling Tehran’s maritime access.

A second round of talks has since stalled. US President Donald Trump cancelled a planned visit to Islamabad by special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner last weekend.

Iran has ruled out direct negotiations with Washington while the blockade remains in place, though Araghchi told Pakistani officials that Tehran would continue engaging with Islamabad’s mediation efforts “until a result is achieved”.

The transit order appears to be a direct economic response to that impasse.

More than 3,000 containers destined for Iran have been stuck at Karachi port for several days, with vessels unable to collect the cargo. War-risk insurance premiums have surged from about 0.12 percent of a vessel’s value before the conflict to roughly 5 percent, making shipping to the region too expensive for many operators.

Shifting regional dynamics

The corridor also signals a shift away from Afghanistan, whose relations with Pakistan have deteriorated sharply.

The two sides engaged in clashes in October 2025 and again in February and March this year, with skirmishes continuing along the northwestern and southwestern borders.

The Torkham and Chaman crossings have ceased to function as reliable commercial routes since tensions escalated, limiting Pakistan’s overland access to Central Asian markets.

“This is a paradigmatic shift. Pakistan’s relations with the Afghan Taliban, the de facto rulers in Kabul, have no reset switch,” Iftikhar Firdous, cofounder of The Khorasan Diary, told Al Jazeera.

“Kabul has been diversifying away from Pakistan towards Iran and Central Asia, but this move flips the equation. Pakistan can now bypass Afghanistan entirely for westbound trade. The impact on Kabul’s transit relevance and revenue is strategic, not immediate – but it is real.”

Firdous said the implications extend beyond bilateral ties.

“This corridor also reduces Pakistan’s reliance on longer maritime routes through the Gulf. Geopolitics, security, and infrastructure will ultimately determine which corridors dominate, but it places Pakistan as the main overland gateway for China-backed trade routes into West Asia and beyond,” he said.

Minhas Majeed Marwat, a Peshawar-based academic and geopolitical analyst, urged caution. “A cornered Afghanistan is a destabilised Afghanistan, and Pakistan knows better than most what that costs,” she wrote on X on April 27.

“The opportunity here is real. So is the risk. Security on the northwestern and southwestern borders remains the variable that could unravel everything. Pakistan is positioned well. It is not yet positioned safely. Those are different things.”

Government says it will run the administrative functions of Sri Lanka Cricket until reforms are implemented.

Sri Lanka’s government has taken control of the country’s cricket board, saying it is a temporary measure designed to pave the way for “structural reforms”.

“All administrative functions of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) will be temporarily brought under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, effective today,” the ministry said on Wednesday.

A committee will be appointed shortly “to address the current issues in cricket and implement structural reforms”, it added.

SLC is the country’s wealthiest sporting body but has been plagued by allegations of corruption and mismanagement.

The world governing body, the International Cricket Council, suspended Sri Lanka for two months in 2023-2024, citing political interference in the running of the national board.

Four-time SLC President Shammi Silva resigned on Tuesday, along with his entire committee, after the government intervened.

Sri Lanka made an early exit from the T20 World Cup, which it cohosted with India in February-March.

Indian-administered Kashmir – Rashid Ahmad Mughal was barely six when armed rebels barged into their home in Chunt Waliwar village, in Ganderbal district of Indian-administered Kashmir, on a freezing January night in 2000.

At about midnight, nearly a dozen armed men broke the window by force and entered the Mughals’ home, where six people were asleep – 23-year-old Ishfaq, his 20-year-old sister Naseema, and younger brothers Ajaz, 8, and Rashid, 6, besides their two cousins.

The rebels had come looking for Ishfaq, who, the family admitted, worked for the Indian army, which controls the region.

“He tried to flee,” Naseema recalls, “but they shot him.”

As the family raised an alarm, the rebels took Ishfaq’s body and fled into the dead of the night.

Since then, the Mughal siblings have been hoping for the return of his remains so that they can perform his last rites in accordance with Islamic traditions.

As the siblings waited for more than 26 years for closure on losing Ishfaq, another tragedy hit them last month.

On March 31, Rashid, now 32, was shot dead by the Indian army for being a suspected rebel.

The army said it launched an operation along with the police in the Arahama area of Ganderbal after receiving “specific intelligence input” on the presence of “terrorists”, as Indian authorities and the media describe the rebels.

The army said Rashid was killed during an exchange of fire with the rebels in a forest. But the residents reject the claim, calling it another instance of a “fake encounter” – staged extrajudicial killing of suspects by the Indian forces.

In a further blow to the Mughal family, Rashid’s body was buried 80km (50 miles) away in a graveyard marked for alleged rebels in the frontier town of Kupwara – a practice followed by the army in recent years to prevent the eruption of street protests.

Only Ajaz was allowed by the authorities to attend the funeral.

The Kashmir conflict

The killing of the two brothers over 26 years – one killed by suspected rebels and the other by the army – in many ways encapsulates the tragedy unfolding in Kashmir for decades.

Kashmir is a disputed Himalayan territory divided between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, but claimed by both in full, with neighbouring China also controlling a sliver of its land. An armed rebellion erupted on the Indian side in the late 1980s. To crush it, New Delhi sent nearly a million soldiers, with the conflict since then killing tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians.

Anti-India sentiments in the Muslim-majority region intensified in 2019 when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s right-wing government revoked Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted partial autonomy to Kashmir, and brought the region under New Delhi’s direct control by dividing it into two federally-administered territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Modi’s government defended the revocation by claiming it would end the armed rebellion and bring lasting peace to the region. However, nearly seven years later, Kashmir continues to remain on the edge, with incidents of suspected rebel attacks, as well as alleged extrajudicial killings, torture and preventive detention of residents continuing to dominate headlines.

The Mughal family belongs to Kashmir’s Gujjar community, a nomadic Muslim tribal group that historically sided with the Indian state. When the armed rebellion broke out in 1989, the forest-dwelling Gujjars were seen as the “eyes and ears” of the Indian forces for sharing intelligence and, at times, assisting troops in operations against the rebels.

Over time, however, this relationship has frayed. Once trusted as a front-line community, the Gujjars and Bakarwals – the two main tribes in the region – now increasingly find themselves under pressure from the very system they once supported.

Since the 2019 abrogation of Kashmir’s special status, at least 11 Gujjars have been killed in suspected extrajudicial encounters, while more than 10 have suffered serious injuries, allegedly due to torture in custody, marking a stark shift in the fortunes of a community once central to India’s security apparatus in the region.

Government policy changes have added to their concerns. Alterations in quotas affected the marginalised community’s access to jobs and education, triggering protests and resentment. They have also faced eviction drives and displacement, with authorities accusing them of illegally occupying forest land and demolishing their seasonal shelters.

‘My brother wasn’t a rebel’

Today, the Gujjars find themselves increasingly vulnerable amid evolving security challenges. Rashid’s killing is seen by the community as part of that pattern.

As soon as the news of the killing spread in Kashmir, hundreds of people hit the streets, rejecting the army’s claims that he was a rebel and demanding an investigation into the March 31 “encounter”.

“I was busy with my work when I received a call from a local police official, saying that my brother had met with an accident and that I should reach the police station immediately,” Rashid’s elder brother, Ajaz Ahmad Mughal, a daily wage worker, told Al Jazeera.

When Ajaz reached the Ganderbal police station, he was taken to another station in Srinagar, some 30km (20 miles) away, where he saw a body lying inside an ambulance.

“The police said your brother was a militant and that he was killed by the army in an encounter,” said Ajaz. “His face was mutilated, apparently to hide his identity. I identified him with his feet.”

Rashid was a commerce graduate – the only one in the impoverished village – and therefore helped the mainly illiterate people in his community in accessing essential government documents.

On the day he was killed, Rashid had left his home with the documents of some people he was helping – like he did every day before returning home by the evening.

“However, this time, he didn’t return and his phone was switched off,” Ajaz recalled.

The next morning, news about the army operation in nearby forests spread in the area. That is when, said Ajaz, people came to know about Rashid’s killing.

“We were absolutely devastated. How did my brother, who was a civilian until the day before, suddenly turn into a militant?” he asked.

Ajaz said the clothes Rashid was found wearing when he saw his body did not belong to his brother, alleging the security forces put the clothes on him after the killing. The family asked why Rashid was never questioned or arrested by the police if he was an armed rebel.

As protests and questions over the killing grew, the New Delhi-appointed governor of the disputed region ordered a magisterial inquiry into the killing. The authorities said a probe will be completed within seven days. It has been nearly a month now, and no inquiry report has yet been published.

Al Jazeera reached out to the army and the regional police for their statements on the family’s allegations, but received no response.

However, a police official, on condition of anonymity since he was not authorised to speak to the media, told Al Jazeera the decision to return Rashid’s body to the family would be taken based on the “nature of the inquiry report” submitted by the magistrate.

The police official also said Rashid had no adverse police records and that he had never been summoned for questioning for any rebellion-related case.

‘Prepared a grave for Rashid’

Even as the government investigates the killing, the Mughal family doubts it will lead anywhere, noting that numerous such probes ordered in Kashmir in the past yielded little or no outcome.

Experts say such probes by magistrates, who are members of the same bureaucracy that governs the region, lead to little or no remedial action.

“The very least that can be done is a time-bound probe by a judicial magistrate answerable to the chief justice of a high court,” Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, told Al Jazeera.

According to data compiled by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), there were at least 108 cases of rights violations by the Indian forces between 2008 and 2018, where probes were ordered, but no one has been prosecuted to date. JKCCS is now a defunct rights organisation after its founder, Khurram Parvez, was arrested under a stringent anti-terror law in 2023.

In 2018, the Indian government informed the parliament that it received 50 requests from the then-regional government for the prosecution of security forces accused of rights violations. It denied sanction in 47 cases, while the matter is still pending in the remaining three.

Since the onset of the armed rebellion in 1989, between 8,000 and 10,000 people have disappeared in Kashmir, according to the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP), which represents the families of the missing.

As of December 2025, government data shows that the region recorded the highest number of arrests under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for five consecutive years. In 2021, the federal government informed the parliament that as many as 33 custodial deaths took place in Kashmir between 2016 and 2021. The next year, an analysis of data provided by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed 38 cases of alleged extrajudicial killings in Kashmir – the highest in India that year.

Human rights experts say the 1990 Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA), a controversial law that provides impunity to the army in Kashmir, acts as a legal shield for the accused members of the security forces.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director for Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera that despite several cases of extrajudicial killings in Kashmir and families clearly identifying the alleged perpetrators, not much action has been taken by the authorities.

“Unfortunately, there is a culture of impunity that has perpetuated such abuses. The Defence Ministry restricts sanction to prosecute soldiers, while the Home Ministry has shielded paramilitary forces,” she said, demanding a repeal of the AFSPA “and all other laws that provide security forces immunity from prosecution”.

“Justice and accountability are key to lasting peace,” she said.

Praveen Donthi, senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, an international think tank, says India’s 2019 move to revoke Article 370 was aimed at “fully integrating Kashmir into the union and end[ing] separatism and militancy”.

“However, seven years down the line, the situation remains precarious. The conflict is far from resolved, and militancy still has the capacity to ramp up at will,” he said.

“The pressure on security forces to maintain peace and stability may be leading to procedural errors and excesses.”

However, retired Indian army commander, DS Hooda, argues that the army “does not tolerate such incidents and has taken action if they found any wrongdoing by their soldiers”.

“It was an army investigation that revealed that one of the officials was involved, and the accused was punished by the army court,” Hooda said, referring to a staged killing of three civilians dubbed as rebels by the army in Kashmir’s Shopian area in 2020.

The army later acknowledged its soldiers exceeded powers under the AFSPA law and sentenced an accused soldier to life imprisonment. He was later suspended by an armed forces tribunal.

“The army carries out its own investigation. There is no impunity and if they find anything wrong, they take action. This is not an organisation thing.”

But the Mughal siblings say they had never thought a tragedy that struck them 26 years ago would return in such a devastating way, reopening old wounds and leaving them once again searching for answers and closure.

They say their suffering has not ended, with the years only deepening their grief as they wait for the return of the remains of their siblings.

“We have prepared a grave for Rashid. We will bury him in our own graveyard,” says his sister Naseema. “It will feel as though he is close to us.”