US President Donald Trump believes that China's "aggressive stance" against India and other countries in the region confirms the "true nature" of the ruling Communist Party of China, according to his spokesperson.
The armies of India and China have been locked in a bitter standoff at multiple locations in eastern Ladakh for the last seven weeks, and the tension escalated after 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a violent clash in Galwan Valley on June 15.
Amid the ongoing standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the US was "closely monitoring" the current situation and supports a peaceful resolution to the border crisis.
"With regard to India and China, we are closely monitoring the situation. He (the president) is as well. And he said that China's aggressive stance along the India China border fits with the larger pattern of Chinese aggression and other parts of the world and these actions only confirmed the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party,” she told reporters during her news conference on Wednesday.
Both India and China have expressed a desire to de-escalate and the United States supports a peaceful resolution of the current situation, McEnany said.
Earlier, during a Congressional hearing, US lawmakers expressed concern over the aggressive Chinese actions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
"This past month, China engaged in deadly clashes along the Line of Actual Control, resulting in the tragic deaths of a dozen Indian soldiers and an unknown Chinese death toll as well," said Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, during a hearing on coronavirus and US-China relations.
Senior fellow at Brookings Institute Tanvi Madan told members of the House Select Intelligence Committee that since early May there have been attempts by the People's Liberation Army of China to "unilaterally change the status quo" along the LAC, the de facto boundary between the two countries.
This, along with the coronavirus pandemic, has had and will continue to have an impact on Indian views and approaches towards China, the United States, and the international order, she said.
Madan said that when Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian
Prime minister Narendra Modi met in October 2019, they sought to stress on Sino-Indian cooperation.
However, the pandemic and the boundary crises have demonstrated that despite Delhi and Beijing's efforts over the last few decades to engage, India-China ties remain a fundamental and increasingly competitive relationship that can even spill over into conflict, she said.
Observing that the boundary crisis and the pandemic have reinforced and accelerated concerns in India about China's lack of transparency, Madan said it sends uncertain commitment to the rules-based order.
The Indian government has signalled that the boundary crisis will have a serious impact on the broader relationship, particularly if the status quo ante is not restored speedily, she noted.
Informing the lawmakers that public perception about China has "deteriorated considerably", the Brookings Institute senior fellow said during the pandemic and the boundary crisis, Delhi has already imposed restrictions or additional scrutiny on Chinese economic and technology interests within the broader strategic community.
"In India, there is a near consensus that ties with Beijing need to be reassessed and reset, " she said.
The boundary crisis and the pandemic have led to calls for India to maintain and even deepen its partnership with the US and for Washington to play a more sustained and robust role in ensuring that a rules-based order prevails in the region and globally, she said.
Madan told the lawmakers that the boundary crisis remained serious and requires careful watching.
"Washington will be considering different scenarios. It should also assess what New Delhi might ask of it in each case, whether or not the US is willing to be responsive, and if it is, prepare for those contingencies," she said.
"If the US wants to be responsive or to show support to India, it should convey this willingness while taking care not to escalate the situation. Such support will facilitate a closer Indian alignment with the US in the future," she said.
However, Washington should not try to push India into decisions or choices or let Delhi think it is taking advantage of the boundary crisis. That would be unhelpful if not counterproductive, Madan cautioned.
"How India deals with these health and national security crises as well as the choices and tradeoffs it makes will affect the US. It will offer opportunities, but potentially also challenges," she said.
The willingness of partners like India to cooperate with the US in the region and globally will depend not just on Chinese missteps but on Washington's' willingness and ability to respond, Madan said.
She said that the ability for the US to be helpful to India has been enhanced by a number of agreements and dialogue mechanisms that have been set up over the last decade.
During the hearing, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi asked that without taking steps that would escalate the crisis, what can the US do to assist India to productively respond to this situation and get China to comply with a rules-based order.
Relatives carry the coffin of a victim, who was killed in the Air India Flight 171 crash, during a funeral ceremony in Ahmedabad on June 15, 2025. (Photo: Getty Images)
TWO weeks after the crash of Air India flight AI-171 in Ahmedabad, families of victims are grappling with grief and trauma. Psychiatrists are now working closely with many who continue to oscillate between denial and despair.
The crash occurred on June 12, when the London-bound flight hit the BJ Medical College complex shortly after takeoff, killing 241 people on board and 29 on the ground. Only one passenger survived.
The emotional impact of the incident continues to affect survivors and relatives of those who died.
Counselling support on the ground
In the immediate aftermath, the Department of Psychiatry at B J Medical College deployed a team of psychiatrists—five senior residents and five consultants—across locations including Kasauti Bhavan, the postmortem building, and the civil superintendent's office to support families.
"The accident was unimaginable. Even bystanders were disturbed. Then what must be the condition of someone who lost their loved one?" said Dr Minakshi Parikh, Dean and Head of Psychiatry at BJMC.
"If the people who heard the news were so disturbed, then it is not even within our scope to imagine the state of mind of the family members of people who lost their lives," she told PTI.
Processing grief in stages
As visuals of the crash began to circulate, families arrived in large numbers—many still hoping their relatives had survived. The existence of a lone survivor gave rise to hopes that it might be their loved one.
"There was an uncertainty whether one would be able to identify the loved ones they have lost and wait for matching of the DNA samples for three days. In some cases, samples of another relative of the kin had to be taken. The shock would have logically led to acute stress reactions and post-traumatic stress disorder," said Dr Parikh.
Dr Urvika Parekh, assistant professor and a member of the crisis response team, said denial was the immediate response among many families.
Facing denial and despair
"They kept asking for updates, insisting their family member had survived. Breaking the news gently, while having no confirmation ourselves, was incredibly difficult. We had to provide psychological first aid before anything else," she said.
Parekh said the hope placed on the lone survivor became a coping mechanism. "We had to deal with the denial and explain that nobody could have survived the horrific crash (except one who was not their relative)," she added.
Families were initially reluctant to accept counselling. "It was also difficult to accept the truth without seeing the bodies of their loved ones. Counselling aided them at this critical juncture," Parekh said.
She shared the case of a man who remained silent after losing his wife in the crash. "There was immense guilt—survivor guilt (that he is alive and his wife died). We gave him anti-anxiety medication to help ease the immediate stress. Eventually, he began to speak. He talked about their plans, their memories. It was catharsis. We didn't interrupt—we just let him speak and communicated through silence and empathy,” she said.
Parekh said that listening empathetically was a major part of the process. "We were managing their anger, outburst, and their questions like 'why us' (why did it have to happen to us)," she said.
The wait for DNA results was another major source of distress. With confirmation taking up to 72 hours or more, some families insisted they could identify their loved ones without DNA.
"There was one father who kept saying he didn't need DNA tests—he could identify his son by his eyes," said Parekh. "We had to gently discourage that. Seeing their loved ones in such a state could trigger PTSD and depression. We told them: it's better to remember them with a smile than with charred remains.”
Dr Parikh said the five commonly known stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—were not experienced in a fixed sequence.
Lingering grief and support
"People cycle through these stages. Someone might accept the loss in the morning and fall back into denial by evening,” said Parekh. "So we mourned with them. That was part of the therapy".
Parekh stays in one of the residential buildings near the crash site. Her building was not damaged.
Some families found the waiting unbearable. One Air India crew member’s family had to wait seven days for DNA confirmation. “The exhaustion, the helplessness—it broke her mentally,” a relative said. “But the counselling helped. Those sessions were our only anchor."
"A calm voice, the right amount of information, and simply being there—these saved a lot of families from spiralling into chaos,” said Dr Parikh.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Prime minister Keir Starmer delivers a speech at The British Chambers of Commerce Global Annual Conference in London on June 26, 2025. (Photo by EDDIE MULHOLLAND/AFP via Getty Images)
PRIME MINISTER Sir Keir Starmer has admitted he was wrong to warn that Britain could become an "island of strangers" due to high immigration, saying he "deeply" regrets the controversial phrase.
Speaking to The Observer, Sir Keir said he would not have used those words if he had known they would be seen as echoing the language of Enoch Powell's notorious 1968 "rivers of blood" speech.
"I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as, an echo of Powell. I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either," he explained. "But that particular phrase – no, it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth – I deeply regret using it."
Starmer made the remarks last month while announcing new immigration controls. He had said that without proper rules, "we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together."
The comments sparked fury from Labour MPs and other critics who accused him of copying the language of Powell, the former Tory minister whose inflammatory speech warned that native Britons had "found themselves made strangers in their own country" because of immigration.
Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell said Sir Keir was "reflecting the language of Enoch Powell," while suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana branded the speech "sickening."
Diane Abbott, Britain's first black female MP, called the phrase "fundamentally racist."
Sir Keir accepted full responsibility for the mistake, saying he should have "read through the speech properly" and "held it up to the light a bit more." He also acknowledged there were "problems with the language" in a policy document where he claimed recent immigration had caused "incalculable" damage to Britain.
The climbdown marks another reversal for the Labour leader, who has faced criticism for changing course on several policies including winter fuel payments and welfare reforms. Just this week he watered down controversial benefit changes to avoid a rebellion from his own MPs.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage seized on the apology as proof that Sir Keir "has no beliefs, no principles and just reads from a script."
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said it showed the prime minister "doesn't believe in borders or the nation state."
Despite the backlash when the speech was first delivered, Downing Street had initially defended the comments.
The prime minister's spokesman said they "completely rejected" comparisons to Powell and confirmed Sir Keir stood by his words.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper had also backed the prime minister, arguing his remarks were "completely different" to Powell's and highlighting how he had praised Britain's diversity "in almost the same breath."
London mayor Sadiq Khan and Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan had both distanced themselves from the language at the time, with Khan saying they "aren't words that I would use."
Keep ReadingShow less
Sir Sajid Javid (Photo by Tom Nicholson-WPA Pool/Getty Images)
A cross-party group has been formed to tackle the deep divisions that sparked last summer's riots across England. The new commission will be led by former Tory minister Sir Sajid Javid and ex-Labour MP Jon Cruddas.
The Independent Commission on Community and Cohesion has backing from both prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. It brings together 19 experts from different political parties and walks of life.
It was set up following the violent unrest that broke out in 27 towns and cities after three young girls were killed in Southport last July. False claims about the attacker's identity spread rapidly on social media, helping to fuel the disorder.
Sir Sajid warned that Britain has become a "tinderbox of division" due to years of neglect. He said governments have only acted when tensions boil over, rather than dealing with the root problems. "We are more disconnected as a country than at any point in our modern history," he told reporters. "There is a pandemic of loneliness that has spread across the country."
According to Javid, who served as communities secretary, home secretary and chancellor in the cabinets of David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, social cohesion had been treated as a “second tier” issue by successive governments.
“Communal life in Britain is under threat like never before and intervention is urgently needed," he told the Telegraph. "There have been long-term, chronic issues undermining connections within our communities for several decades now, such as the degradation of local infrastructure from the local pub to churches, the weakening of family units, growing inequality, declining trust in institutions and persistent neglect from policy-makers."
He pointed to several factors making the situation worse, including high levels of immigration that haven't been properly managed, rising cost of living pressures, social media spreading extremist views, declining trust in public institutions, and the breakdown of local community spaces like pubs and churches.
Cruddas, who represented Dagenham for over 20 years, said the commission would listen directly to people across Britain rather than impose solutions from Westminster.
Over the next 12 months, the panel will examine what's driving people apart and develop practical recommendations for government. The group includes former West Midlands mayor Sir Andy Street, ex-Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, and counter-extremism expert Dame Sara Khan.
The commission is being supported by the Together Coalition, which was founded by Brendan Cox after his wife, MP Jo Cox, was murdered by a far-right extremist in 2016.
Sir Sajid remains optimistic about Britain's future, saying the country has "phenomenal attributes" to overcome its challenges. The commission aims to create "a vision for communities that all British citizens can buy into."
Keep ReadingShow less
Masum was seen on CCTV trying to steer the pram away and, when she refused to go with him, stabbed her multiple times before walking away and boarding a bus. (Photo: West Yorkshire Police)
A MAN who stabbed his estranged wife to death in Bradford in front of their baby has been convicted of murder.
Habibur Masum, 26, attacked 27-year-old Kulsuma Akter in broad daylight on April 6, 2024, stabbing her more than 25 times while she pushed their seven-month-old son in a pram. The baby was not harmed.
Bradford Crown Court heard that Akter had been living in a refuge since January after Masum threatened her with a knife at their home in Oldham. Masum tracked her using her phone location and confronted her after she left the refuge to meet a friend, believing he was in Spain.
Masum was seen on CCTV trying to steer the pram away and, when she refused to go with him, stabbed her multiple times before walking away and boarding a bus. He was arrested three days later in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
Kulsuma Aktergetty images
Masum, of Leamington Avenue, Burnley, had admitted manslaughter and possession of a knife but denied murder. He was found guilty of murder, stalking, making threats to kill, and assault by beating.
The Crown Prosecution Service said the attack was “planned and premeditated”. West Yorkshire Police described it as a “brutal” daylight attack. Det Ch Insp Stacey Atkinson said Ms Akter “should have been safe”.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct found no breach of standards by officers involved prior to her death. Masum is due to be sentenced on 22 July.
Keep ReadingShow less
Air India's Boeing 787-8 aircraft, operating flight AI-171 to London Gatwick, crashed into a medical hostel complex shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad on June 12.
INDIA has declined a request from the United Nations aviation agency to allow one of its investigators to observe the probe into the Air India crash that killed 260 people in Ahmedabad on June 12, Reuters reported, citing two senior sources familiar with the matter.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had offered to provide assistance by sending one of its investigators, following the crash of the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner earlier this month. It was an unusual move, as ICAO typically deploys investigators only upon request from the country leading the investigation.
In this case, ICAO had asked Indian authorities to allow the investigator already present in India to join the probe as an observer, the sources told Reuters. However, Indian officials refused the offer. Times Now was the first to report this development on Thursday.
The civil aviation ministry said on Thursday that the flight recorder data was downloaded around two weeks after the crash.
Some safety experts had earlier raised concerns over the delay in the analysis of the black box data and a lack of information on the progress of the probe. The first combined black box unit was recovered on June 13, and a second set was found on June 16.
It is still unclear whether the black boxes are being read in India or the US. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is also participating in the investigation. The Indian government has held only one press conference so far, where no questions were taken.
According to global aviation norms under "Annex 13", a decision on where to read the flight recorders should be made immediately if the information obtained could help prevent similar accidents in the future.
An unnamed aviation ministry official said earlier this week that the ministry is "following all the ICAO protocols." The official also said that media representatives have been sharing updates on major developments.
Most air accidents result from a combination of factors. A preliminary report is expected within about 30 days of the crash.