Transcription
Hello and welcome to First Post Vantage with me Horoya. Let's get started.
[music] [music]
On the show tonight, an eerie lull in West Asia is over. Maybe we should call it a commercial break. Iranian strikes targeted two US air bases in Jordan. But why now? Did someone decide peace was getting boring? And after months of restraint, Saudi Arabia has joined US strikes on Iran's proxies. Because nothing says deescalation quite like more countries joining the fight.
Also on the show, the western media can always find its voice when it's time to lecture India. The long moral sermons, but when people in Pakistan occupied Kashmir take to the streets, suddenly the world's loudest newsrooms develop a serious case of selective mute.
Also on the show, the American dream is losing customers. The people who once dreamed of America are now dreaming of the exit. The land of opportunity comes with a very expensive terms and conditions page. We will tell you about it. And across the border, Canada is closing the door. It spent years inviting people to walk through. Fewer permanent residencies, tougher rules for international students, and the biggest hit, Indians. Stay tuned.
Also, banks say they are here to be good custodians of your money. Unless, of course, you don't have enough. In that case, you get charged a minimum balance fee. Can you imagine a tax of being broke?
And finally, Brazil is asking a very 2026 question. If a politician is barred from campaigning, can their AI version do the job instead? Who knew even political comebacks could now be computer-generated? All this and more lined up. But first, the headlines.
Tech stocks plunged further with South Korea's index suffering one of its steepest falls. It divided more than 6% it dived more than 6% pardon me. Chip giants SKH Highix and Samsung once again took a hammering but London's benchmark foot sets a record high amid surging oil [music] prices.
Israel accuses Hezbollah violating the truce in Lebanon. Claims the Iran-backed group fired a drone targeting its troops under an agreement signed last month. Lebanon's army is to disarm Hezbollah following which the Israeli military will withdraw from the pilot zones.
Russia seeks the arrest of Telegram chief Pavel Durov. Moscow claims he let his platform be used for recruitment by Ukraine security services. Russian Bond Durov has lived outside of the country for years. He has frequently clashed with the Russian authorities as Moscow has [music] tightened its grip on the internet.
Japan's population falls below 120 million. This is for the first time in 42 years. The country's local population has been declining for 17 consecutive years. >> [music] >> This comes even as the number of foreign residents living in Japan has reached its highest [music] level and FIFA faces fury over its plans to sell a stake in the World Cup and its other competitions. [music] FIFA's 211 member nations will vote on this proposal and if successful, [music] the investor group is likely to be led by Joshua Kushner. He's the brother of Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. [music]
Heat. [music] [music] Heat. [music]
War, ceasefire, and somewhere in between. That's the state of the conflict between the United States and Iran right now. Trapped in a geopolitical version of musical chairs. Now, for the past few days, there was a strange lull in West Asia. The United States and Iran stopped pulling the trigger. There were no reports of attacks from either side until today when the United States military said that it had intercepted ballistic missiles fired by Iran across West Asia. The US Central Command, which enables and directs military action, said Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or the IRGC, launched the missiles in an attempted surprise attack. The intent strikes on US forces based in the Gulf. The US military added that all missiles were intercepted. Five missiles were intercepted in Jordan alone. Later on, the IRGC claimed responsibility for the strikes. It said its air force targeted a US air base and central command center in Jordan. The primary target included Muafak Salty Air Base, a key facility used by the United States. A CENTCOM related facility in Jordan also came under attack.
But here's the bigger question. Why launch these attacks now, especially after several relatively quiet days? Why disrupt the peace, if you can even call it that at this point? The answer may lie not just on the battlefield. The attacks came just as Donald Trump met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday at the White House. Netanyahu has been pushing America to continue the conflict with Iran. Analysts say that with these recent strikes, Iran was trying to send a message because Iran cannot afford to look like it blinked. For Iran, this is about deterrence. You want a better deal, you need leverage. And Iran appears to be saying, "We still have some." And there's a domestic audience, too. Iran's leadership has to show its own hardliners that it is not simply absorbing American and Israeli attacks and then asking nicely for negotiations. So the missiles serve two audiences. Washington gets the warning, Tehran gets the spectacle, while the Gulf gets another headache.
Trump had already threatened fresh strikes on Tehran if negotiations stagnate. He has vowed to hit Iran hard with this latest skirmish. Whether he goes ahead with that or not remains to be seen. Now, it's no secret that Mr. President changes his mind on a dime. So, nothing is ever certain when it comes to Trump. You might see a sudden reversal disguised as a midnight Truth Social post. But one thing is certain, his administration, unlike at the start of the war, is no more setting timelines measured in weeks. And that is, of course, for the war to be over.
If you zoom out a little, the picture does become clearer. The risk of a wider regional war. Because even though the world wants this war to end, it is becoming increasingly evident that the people sitting right at the top, they don't want to give up just yet. For ordinary people, the war is a catastrophe. For those at the top, it's a game of leverage, influence, and survival. Even Saudi Arabia has joined hands with Trump officially. Riyadh and Washington carried out strikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq. This as the Iran-backed Houthi group opened a new front in the war. They have announced a maritime blockade against Riyadh closed the Bab al-Mandeb, which is the gateway to the Red Sea to Saudi flagships. But more on this story in our next report. A report by the Wall Street Journal suggests that Bahrain and Kuwait have also now joined this war. They reportedly secretly sent jets to attack sites inside Iran. According to the report, the targets were drones and missile storage depots and other military sites. And guess who provided that intelligence? The United Arab Emirates. Big Arab cooperation indeed. Something that should worry.
But Iran has got its own strategy. It has regional proxies. For years, Iran built a web of influence stretching across the region. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthi movement in Yemen to armed militias in Iraq. It's a simple strategy if you think about it. Fight with the United States, Israel, and Gulf states at arm's length rather than head-on. For years, the Gulf lived with a dangerous reality caught between a powerful ally and an unpredictable neighbor. They've learned to survive in that gray zone. It was not the type of ideal peace anyone wants, but it gave the region space to grow its economies. That old balance is now under pressure. We have a phrase for great power stumbling into disastrous confrontations. The Thucydides trap. The fear of losing power creates pressure to demonstrate strength. Strength invites retaliation. Retaliation demands another response and suddenly nobody is fighting for victory anymore. They are fighting to avoid looking weak. There's an old Roman saying, "He who seeks revenge digs two graves." That's exactly where this war is heading. Iran retaliates against America. Washington attacks Tehran. Proxies strike the Gulf. The Gulf enters the war and the world pays the price. As every response creates the excuse for the next one.
Saudi Arabia has officially entered the Iran-US war. For the first time in this war, Saudi warplanes have joined US forces in strikes against Iran-backed militias inside Iraq. And just hours later, the Houthi struck one of Saudi Arabia's biggest refineries, forcing Aramco to shut down its massive Jazan facility. As a result, two of the world's most critical energy choke points, that's the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb, are now under threat.
Now, let's start with what happened in Iraq. Fighter jets from the United States and Saudi Arabia conducted joint military strikes targeting Iranian proxy forces in Iraq. Fox News also reported US President Donald Trump saying that joint bombing was coordinated with the authorities in Baghdad. US Central Command said that the joint operations saw forces hit what they called terrorist logistics and weapons sites across eastern Iraq. They said that this was in response to more than 30 drone attacks directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or the IRGC in recent days. Hello. Now, Iraqi militants say five Iranians were among those killed in the US-Saudi strikes. The joint strikes targeted bases belonging to Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces or the PMF. The alliance says at least 20 of its members were killed and 32 others were injured. The strikes hit PMF positions across seven Iraqi provinces, including Baghdad, Nineveh, and Basra. The PMF has called the attacks a dangerous escalation and a strike against an official security institution. The United States and Saudi Arabia say the operation was a response to a wave of drone attacks targeting American troops and Saudi oil infrastructure.
Now, the Popular Mobilization Forces were created in 2014 to fight ISIS. Today, they are formally part of Iraq's armed forces. But the alliance also includes several powerful Iran-backed factions which have repeatedly been accused of attacking US forces and operating beyond the control of the Iraqi government. And that is what makes these strikes so significant. Washington and Riyadh have not just targeted an Iran-backed militia. They've struck a force that is officially part of Iraq's state security apparatus, raising the risk of an even wider regional escalation. These developments threaten to shatter the brief lull in hostilities that President Trump has been trying to preserve as he pushes to revive stalled peace talks. They also signal a potential expansion of a war that has now dragged on for 5 months. Most significantly, Saudi Arabia has now joined America's military campaign against Iran-backed groups, which means that a major regional ally has now entered the fight.
So now you must be wondering, why now? Why has Saudi entered the war now? And to understand that, one just has to look at the war Saudi has been fighting without even officially being part of it. America's Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia have borne the brunt of the war between the United States and Iran since the war began. Saudi Arabia has come under repeated Iranian drone and missile attacks targeting its oil facilities, energy infrastructure, and commercial shipping. The attacks have been carried out by Iran-backed groups operating from Iraq and Yemen. Military analysts say Riyadh has simply lost its patience. And after months of absorbing attacks, the kingdom has decided to go on the offensive. So, does Saudi Arabia's decision to join US strikes inside Iraq also signal that it could open its military bases for future US operations against Iran? If so, that would mark a major escalation in this war.
The war is no longer threatening just the Strait of Hormuz. It is now spreading to the Red Sea. Just a day before the joint strikes on Iraq, Saudi Aramco, which is a state-owned petroleum and natural gas company, reportedly shut down its Jizan oil refinery following a Houthi attack on the facility. The refinery was reportedly taken offline on the 27th of July after the attack and the facility pumps out about 400,000 barrels of oil daily. That wasn't all. The Houthis also claimed to have targeted the Red Sea export terminal at Yanbu. That's a critical link in Saudi Arabia's plan to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. As tensions rose in the Gulf, Riyadh had increasingly relied on its East-West pipeline to move crude across the kingdom and ship it from the Red Sea. Now that backup route is also under attack. Remember, Iran-backed Houthi rebels have declared a blockade on Saudi oil shipments and have stepped up attacks on the kingdom's energy infrastructure. Iran's proxy network is squeezing Saudi Arabia from both sides, the Gulf and the Red Sea. So what does this mean for the rest of the world? It means that the longer the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted and the Bab al-Mandeb also becomes too dangerous for shipping, the world could face a double chokepoint crisis. Energy supplies, trade, shipping costs, and oil prices all come under pressure. And that is why Saudi Arabia's entry into this war is not just another development. It could mean the beginning of a new and far more dangerous phase of the war.
Now, China spent months telling one thing about this war: stop the fighting and resort to diplomacy. Now that sounds very sensible. And now comes the reality. China is sending anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Not a few dozen but 400 of them. A Reuters report says the missiles will be delivered to Tehran in weeks. So China is no longer just commenting on this war. It is also reshaping the outcomes because if the fighting continues, Iran could use the Chinese missiles against American aircraft. But why would Beijing risk angering Washington? And what does China get in return? Our next report tells you more.
>> United States may soon have 400 new reasons to think twice before carrying out air raid missions in Iran. And the threat doesn't come from a fighter jet or an Iranian drone, but from something much smaller, something a soldier carries on their shoulder. A Reuters report says China is sending anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. The deliveries are expected in the next few weeks. These are man-portable air defense systems, also known as MANPADS, and will defend the skies over Iranian cities. So, what is China selling, and what's it getting in return? Firstly, what is a MANPAD? It's basically an anti-aircraft missile that can be fired from the shoulder. It doesn't need a giant radar or an elaborate launch system. This missile is meant for shooting down low-flying aircraft, including drones, helicopters, and fighter jets. Worldwide, MANPADS rely on infrared guidance. These heat-seeking missiles lock onto the radiation emitted by aircraft, and Iran is about to get 400 of such missiles from China. A deal reportedly worth more than $60 million. The QIANJI 12 or QW12 is an infrared-guided shoulder-fired missile. It has an operational range of up to 6 km. The missile can reach an altitude of up to 4 km. It has advanced anti-jamming features. It's resistant to flares and electronic decoys. And the QW12 allows the operator to shoot and immediately relocate to a new location. The second MANPAD that Iran is getting is called the FYU 16 or the FN16. Now, this missile has an operational range up to 6 km. It can reach an altitude up to 4 km. It has an infrared tracking seeker, but the missile also has a laser proximity fuse. There's a laser in front of the missile that tracks how far away the target is. Once the missile is within a few meters of the target, it automatically detonates. This gives it a higher chance of bringing down the aircraft. But the FN16 is more than just a shoulder-fired missile because it can be mounted on trucks, patrol boats, and buildings. Clearly, China is sending some smart and lethal missiles to Iran. Well, apart from millions of dollars, China has several reasons for equipping Iran with its missiles. Chinese weapons get a chance to prove themselves in battle without Chinese soldiers having to risk their lives. And Beijing is learning how these weapons are performing. As per reports, Iran has already used Chinese shoulder-fired missiles. That was back in April when a US Air Force fighter jet was shot down over southwestern Iran. If China can keep arming Iran, the war will continue, taking a toll on US military power, and China wants its weapons to play a role in that. And that brings us to reason number two. China buys almost 90% of Iranian oil. The two countries have a long-term strategic partnership. Iran is a participant in the Belt and Road Initiative, that Beijing has invested billions of dollars in. So, China wants to ensure that Iran survives this war and emerges stronger. But this is a delicate situation. China also has enormous interest in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. It buys energy from the Gulf and sells its goods there. If Beijing looks like Iran's patron, that could seriously upset the Gulf kingdoms who are constantly braving Iranian attacks. Overall then, 400 MANPADS will definitely not defeat the US on their own, but a few dozen successful hits could drastically reshape the war.
You may have heard about the two-nation theory, a poisonous agenda pushed by Pakistan's leadership. Pakistan's army feels two different groups cannot live in harmony. That explains their crackdowns in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. But the two-nation theory has been proven wrong again and again. New Delhi rejects the two-nation theory. Multiple ethnic and religious groups live peacefully in India. A truth Pakistan finds hard to swallow and harder to implement. So the two-nation theory is exactly that, a theory, not a fact.
But do you know about the two-media theory? That is when two similar events do not get the same headlines. Now, what do we mean by that? Let's look at the rituals of Western journalism. If a protest breaks out in India, the West is quick to cover it. Cameras, reporters all arrive on time. Op-eds are written at breakneck speed. We saw it unfold last week. Thousands of students protested in New Delhi against paper leaks during examinations. They demanded the resignation of India's Education Minister, but the protest turned into clashes. While no one lost their life, several protesters and some police officers were injured. Eventually, the demand of the protesters was fulfilled. The Education Minister took accountability and resigned. All of this happened in India's capital. But the story, the story traveled across the world. Reuters, BBC, The Guardian covered it extensively. Al Jazeera sent its ground reporters. Articles were written in The New York Times and CNN International. All of them parroting the same tune: India's democracy is in crisis.
Now let's travel a few hundred kilometers northwest of New Delhi to Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. People there are also protesting against the Pakistani army's illegal occupation, against oppression, and against being treated like second-rate individuals. Pakistan's army has already killed several peaceful protesters. At least 40 civilians were gunned down this week. Nearly a hundred are wounded. Some are even battling for their lives still. The internet has been completely cut off. Even water and electricity services have been shut down. We told you about this on our show yesterday. But suddenly, Western media has gone silent. Some might even say they're missing. The international megaphone has gone quiet. Apparently, for the West, human rights come with volume control.
We have been covering the protests in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir for weeks. How a local body called the Joint Awami Action Committee or the JAC is demanding electoral rights, fair employment opportunities, and basic privileges like electricity and water. Their demands have only been met with bullets. Now, to be fair, Western media hasn't entirely ignored violence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian have reported sporadically on the killings of civilians this week, but these protests have been ongoing since 2024. And the articles are only coming in now. Even then, not every Western media outlet is covering the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir protests. So why the hypocrisy? Protests in India get prime time coverage. Protests in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are not even a footnote. And just look at the difference in narrative. The protests in India were called "democratic awakening" or "Gen Z uprising." Some even called it a "political turning point." On the other hand, the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir protests are being called "clashes," "unrest," "election-related violence." So, Western media set out to cover two protests in the same subcontinent. But somehow, just somehow, they left their so-called principled journalism at the border. Let's make it clear for Western capitals. Human rights cannot be treated like an à la carte menu. You cannot order freedom of expression in New Delhi or democracy in Moscow and suddenly say, "We'll skip Islamabad today." The world has changed. Audiences are more aware, and they are watching. And that brings us to the two-media theory. Where facts may be universal, but Western media's outrage has always been selective. And we are no Jane Austen, but high time this truth, or shall we say double standard, be universally acknowledged.
There was a time when the world looked in just one direction for a better life: America. If you wanted a better-paying job, you went to America. If you wanted to build a successful business, you went to America. If you wanted your children to have a better future, you went to America. For generations, the United States was not just a country. It represented an idea. The idea that hard work and talent could take you further than your family name, your social status, or even the place where you were born. And that belief traveled far beyond America's borders. It convinced millions that they could start from nothing and build something. So they crossed oceans, left their homes, and started all over again thousands of miles away. That belief came to be known as the American dream.
But history has a way of turning certainties into questions. What happens when the people living that dream no longer believe in it? That question is now knocking on America's door because something remarkable is happening. The country that spent more than a century attracting the world's brightest minds is now watching many of its own people head for the exit. Not because they were forced to, but because they chose to. Some are Americans who were born there. Others are immigrants who once dreamt of calling America home. Today, they believe their future lies somewhere else. And one of them is Balaji Srinivasan. He is an Indian-American technology entrepreneur who was the chief technology officer of crypto company Coinbase. By every conventional measure, he had succeeded. He had built a career at the heart of America's technology industry. Yet he gave up his American citizenship and became a citizen of Singapore. And why is that? Because he believes America has changed. He argues that the country has become deeply polarized, that racial tensions have intensified, and that the environment for innovation is no longer what it once was. In Singapore, he says he found something different. It's a country that values stability, rewards merit, and offers a predictable environment for building businesses.
Now, you may agree with Srinivasan's assessment or you may not. But his decision raises a question. Is this just one man's story or is it a sign of a much bigger shift? The numbers suggest it's the latter. The United States reportedly does not keep a complete record of how many of its citizens leave. So, experts have had to piece the story together using data from more than 50 countries. They looked at residence permits, property purchases, university enrollments, long-term visas, and the picture that emerged is striking. A Wall Street Journal analysis found that at least 180,000 Americans moved abroad last year. The actual number could be significantly higher. At the same time, a US think tank estimates that the US experienced net negative migration of about 150,000 people. In simple terms, more people left the country than moved into it. It was the first time that it happened since the Great Depression of the 1930s. For a nation that has long been the world's biggest magnet for immigration, this is an extraordinary moment.
So what has changed? You see, there are several reasons. The first one is the cost of living. For many people, the American dream has simply become too expensive in reality. Buying a home, for instance, is no longer easy. Rents have surged, childcare costs have risen, and healthcare can still leave families with thousands of dollars in bills. Many people say they are earning more, but they are not getting any further ahead. For them, leaving is no longer about chasing a better life. It is about holding on to the one they already have.
But money is not the only reason. For many, the decision is also political. You see, America has always been politically divided. But many believe that those divisions have deepened in recent years, especially after Donald Trump returned to power last year. For some people, the constant political tension, it's become exhausting. And then there's another change that many people talk about. It's the quality of life. For some, success is no longer just about earning more. It's about living better, too. Spending more time with family, feeling safe from violent crimes, and enjoying a better work-life balance. For a growing number of people, those things now matter as much as a big paycheck.
Which brings us to reason number four, remote work. The COVID-19 pandemic changed where people could live. Millions discovered that they did not have to live in the same city or even the same country as their employer. If your office is now a laptop, the world becomes your neighborhood. For many, that freedom has made leaving America a realistic option. And where are they going? Europe has become one of the most popular destinations. Countries such as Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece are drawing a growing number of Americans with lower living costs, public healthcare, and just generally a more relaxed pace of life. Some may be choosing Japan, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Thailand, Panama, like we mentioned earlier, Singapore. So, different countries, different cultures, but the same goal: to build a better life. You see, for generations, it's been a question about, "How do I get to America?" Today, many are asking a different question: "How do I get out?" Because ladies and gentlemen, the American dream might be dead.
For several years, Canada was the dream for hundreds of thousands of young Indians. It was the land of opportunity. A world-class education, a job, and eventually permanent residency. That dream is changing. Canada is tightening its immigration rules, cutting permanent residency admissions, and warning international students of stricter work rules. And the biggest impact, Indians. So, what changed? And is Canada losing one of its biggest sources of talent? Here's a report.
Canada is tightening its immigration rules and looks like it's risking losing the very talent that helped fuel its economy, Indians. After years of record-high immigration, Ottawa is now slowing things down, especially on >> New data from Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada shows that the country admitted just over 147,000 new permanent residents between January and May this year. That is down more than 12% from the same period last year. According to the data, permanent residency admissions from India fell from more than 49,000 to just under 37,000. That's a drop of nearly 25%. In fact, of the overall decline of over 21,000 permanent residents, more than 57% came from the drop in Indian admissions alone. So why are Indians seeing the biggest drop? The answer is simple. It's because they were the biggest group to begin with. For years, India has been Canada's largest source of students, skilled workers, and new permanent residents. For many middle-class Indian families, Canada offered a clear path to study, work, and eventually get permanent residency. That is what made it one of the most popular destinations for Indian students. So when Ottawa decided to cut immigration, the largest group absorbed the largest share of the reductions. Canada says the goal is to return immigration to what it calls sustainable levels. Its new strategy is to prioritize people who are already living, working, and contributing inside Canada. But if Ottawa wants to tighten its door, who stands to lose more?
Canada's new immigration policy also affects the thousands of international students who contribute billions of dollars to Canada's economy every year. Many of them come from India. This week, Canada has also sent a strong message to international students. The immigration department issued an advisory warning that working without proper authorization could have serious consequences. Those include removal from Canada, a 5-year ban on returning, and long-term damage to future visa or permanent residency applications. The advisory comes after hundreds of international students, including many Indians, reported problems obtaining post-graduation work permits. Some say they enrolled in courses they believed were eligible, only to later find that they did not qualify. >> The Canadian government is also reminding students that off-campus work is capped at 24 hours a week during classes and exceeding that limit could affect their immigration status.
But the bigger story here is Canada's immigration reset. For decades, Canada has used immigration as a way to fill labor shortages and fuel its economic growth. Now, rising housing costs and growing political backlash seem to have changed Canada's policy. For India, the diplomatic row after the 2023 killing of the Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar not only strained bilateral relations, it also contributed to visa disruptions and greater scrutiny. >> And as scrutiny of applicants, colleges, and study programs increased, Canada became less accessible and less predictable for many aspiring Indian students. Despite all of this, Canada's High Commissioner to India, Chris Cooter, sought to allay fears, saying that Canada has 400,000 Indian students. >> When we come to the question of visas, uh, people, you know, tell us all about that. Both the business people and the students tell us about the problems they have with getting a visa. It seems inconsistent or it takes too long. And I can tell you that as a result of the Prime Minister's visit here only two and a half months ago, we're actively at work on fixing those problems, making the experience much better. >> But study permits for them have also fallen sharply in recent years as Ottawa capped international student intake, raised the proof of funds requirement, and ended the Student Direct Stream and tightened scrutiny of applications, colleges, and documents. So does this mean the era of easy immigration to Canada is over? Perhaps not. But Canada is clearly choosing a more selective path. That means for Indian students, professionals, and families, the door to Canada is no longer as wide open. The real question is, is this the beginning of Canada's talent drain? That one is for Ottawa to answer.
Your bank account can punish you for being short of money. Sounds absurd, right? You put your money in a bank. The bank uses that money to make money, and then if your balance is too low, the bank can charge you for it. Welcome to the curious economics of banking. Let's start with a few numbers though. Over the last four financial years, banks in India collected more than 26,170 crore rupees from customers. Customers who fail to maintain the minimum average balance. In dollar terms, that's around $3 billion. In the financial year 2026 alone, private banks collected nearly 4,949 crore. That's around $569 million. Public sector banks collected around 2,138 crore rupees or around $246 million. That's a lot of numbers, we know, but humor us because here's how the system works. The minimum average balance rule states that a customer needs to maintain a certain average amount of money in their savings account during a month. The bank checks your balance every day and it calculates the average then. So suppose your bank's requirement is 10,000 rupees. You don't have to keep that particular amount in your bank account every single day. You just have to make sure that your average bank balance at the end of the month comes to 10,000 rupees or more. The requirement for minimum average balance in most private sector banks ranges between 5,000 rupees and 25,000 rupees. In some premium accounts, it can even be 1 lakh. So any number below that and you have to pay a fine, which is around 600 to 800 rupees depending on the bank, of course. In India, this hidden cost is mainly seen in private banks. Out of 12 public sector banks, 10 have discontinued penal charges for not maintaining minimum balance in savings accounts. The remaining two have rationalized their charges, which demands a question: When does a banking rule become a revenue model?
For someone financially comfortable, maintaining 5,000 or maybe 10,000 rupees in their account, it may not be that difficult. That money can simply sit there. Now imagine someone earning an irregular income. One month there's a medical bill, the next month there's rent, school fees, groceries. The customer withdraws money because, well, that is what money is for. The balance falls. The bank imposes a penalty, and now the customer's balance is even lower. It creates a rather uncomfortable loop. The irony here is almost poetic. The people with enough money can easily avoid the charge. The people living closer to the edge may encounter it more often. And that is where a seemingly neutral banking rule can become a regressive one.
Now, of course, banks have a defense. They have costs. Branches cost money. ATMs cost money. Technology costs money. Customer service costs money, and the banks need non-interest income too. So that argument is perfectly reasonable. The problem begins when the easiest revenue comes from customers making small mistakes because 500 rupees may not sound like much, but multiply a few hundred rupees by millions of customers, and suddenly that small charge, it's a very large business. Minimum balance penalties are only one piece of this puzzle. Consider the ATM charges. You deposit your money in the bank, then you want to withdraw your money. And if you cross the permitted number of free transactions, you may have to pay for accessing your own cash. It's one of capitalism's more elegant jokes. Your money, your withdrawal, your fee. For someone who rarely uses cash, this may not matter. But for people who depend on cash transactions, particularly those with limited access to digital payments, these charges can add up, and they do. And then comes another trap, the credit card minimum payment. Your credit card bill arrives. Say you owe 50,000 rupees. The bank gives you two options: pay the full amount or pay the minimum amount due. So the second option, of course, looks more friendly, but debt has a memory. The remaining amount does not disappear. It is carried forward, and credit card interest can be extremely expensive. So the customer who keeps paying only the minimum can find themselves trapped in a cycle where the debt survives month after month.
So this is where the larger question about banking fees emerges. Banks make money in many legitimate ways. They lend, they invest, they provide payment infrastructure, they maintain accounts. All of that costs money. But some charges are triggered by predictable customer behavior. Missing a deadline, crossing an ATM limit, falling below a balance requirement, not understanding the fine print. And this creates an uneasy possibility. What if complexity itself becomes profitable? Because the more conditions customers have to remember, the more opportunities there are to make mistakes. This does not mean banks are villains, nor does it mean every fee is unfair. The issue is proportionality. A financially secure customer can absorb a small charge. A financially vulnerable customer may not. But that is why banking fees are ultimately about more than money. They're about financial inclusion. So the next time your bank tells you to read the terms and conditions, perhaps you should, because somewhere between the asterisk and the fine print, your bank may have a simple message for you: Thank you for banking with us. Now pay up for not banking enough.
Can AI campaign for a politician who can't? Now imagine this. A politician is banned from campaigning. So, he sends himself as an AI avatar. Welcome to Brazil. It seems the next election may not just be fought by humans, but by their digital clones. Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro is under house arrest. He is barred from campaigning after being convicted of that pesky little habit of his, you know, where he tries to plot against democracy. He was convicted of plotting to overturn the 2022 election. Yet over the weekend, he appeared at a campaign rally. The man wasn't there. His AI-generated avatar was. And now Brazil is left asking a question. Democracies around the world may soon have to answer too. If a politician is silenced, can their algorithm still speak?
You see, this surprise appearance came at a launch of Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, his presidential campaign. That's his son, and Flávio Bolsonaro is challenging incumbent President Lula da Silva in October's election. Midway through that event, a digital version of Jair Bolsonaro appeared on screen, and the avatar announced upfront that it had been created using artificial intelligence.
"What you see here is not me. This is a simulation of my image and my voice created using artificial intelligence. As everyone present knows, I am being kept silent because of an unjust and arbitrary decision based on something I never did."
He went on to say, and I'm quoting, "No prison will silence the feeling of hope we have awakened." This message ended by asking supporters to back Flávio. The person Bolsonaro, or should we say his AI avatar, has chosen to succeed him. We know the word "dystopian" doesn't do justice, but stay with us. That is why I ask you to welcome with open arms the person I have chosen to succeed me. Flesh of my flesh, my son Flávio. Come with faith. Brazil has a future, and that future is Flávio Bolsonaro, president.
Lo and behold, this AI intervention immediately landed in court. Now, it's important to understand the debate around AI and elections has mostly focused on deepfakes, fake speeches, fake videos, fake scandals. But Brazil has tumbled into something different. What if AI isn't pretending to be a politician? What if it becomes the politician's legal stand-in? Bolsonaro isn't accused of fooling voters into believing that this avatar was real. Everyone at the rally was told that it was AI. So the question here is not about deception. The question is about substitution. If a court bars a politician from speaking, can they simply outsource the speech to a software? Because if that is legal, one could then argue that campaign bans will begin to look a lot less effective. Brazil's electoral rules prohibit synthetic media that reproduces real people to influence voters. So, left-wing parties argue that's exactly what happened here. Their petition says AI-generated replicas possess enormous persuasive power and could become a backdoor around judicial restrictions. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Flávio Bolsonaro's legal team disagrees. Obviously, see, their argument is there was no deception. The audience was told that it was AI. The video did not mix fake footage with real footage. It wasn't trying to impersonate Bolsonaro. Therefore, they say it wasn't a deepfake.
So Brazil's electoral court now has to decide something no democracy has really answered before. Does transparency make political AI acceptable, or does the digital replica itself cross the line? So what does the court say? Justice Kassio Nunes Marques, who heads Brazil's electoral court and was in fact appointed to the Supreme Court by Bolsonaro, he said that using AI in campaigning is not automatically illegal. What matters is intent. Using AI for campaigning is permissible, he said. What is forbidden is using it to harm someone. Wouldn't you say though that that is a remarkably narrow interpretation that's neither here nor there, because the real issue isn't whether AI attacks opponents. It's whether it can replace a candidate altogether. The court is yet to rule on Bolsonaro's video, and you best believe its decision could become a global precedent.
So what we are looking at is a new election problem. Until now, election regulators, they were worried about fake politicians, fake promises. Now they have to regulate real politicians who become fake. The technology has changed the equation. House arrest? Just create an avatar. Campaign ban? Send your digital version. Convenient, isn't it? But we ask, if AI can perfectly reproduce a leader's face, voice, and political messaging, who is actually campaigning? Is it the candidate or is it the company running that software? And who carries legal responsibility? If that avatar does cross the line, then would it be the politician or the campaign or the algorithm? Artificial intelligence is moving faster than election laws. Most countries wrote their rules. They assumed campaigns require living, speaking candidates, not synthetic ones. Now, how primitive. Let's take Bolsonaro's argument for a second. Today's AI avatar is carefully labeled. Tomorrow it might not be. And eventually, voters may struggle to tell whether they're listening to a politician or merely the world's most convincing simulation of one. Campaign slogans once promised a politician would always be with the people. Artificial intelligence has taken that too seriously. Even if that politician isn't allowed to leave his house or campaign. So, does that mean that in the age of AI, democracy isn't just choosing between candidates anymore? It may also soon.
Now, there's been a lot of space-related activity over the past few days, but maybe not the kind you would expect. It started with some scientists in the UK changing how a radio telescope is used. Instead of using it to detect objects deep in outer space, they used it to track something much closer. The scientists tracked tiny pieces of space junk orbiting the planet. Then China did something unusual. It began deploying a new satellite constellation dedicated to monitoring space debris. That's another nicer name for space junk. But what is this space junk or space debris? Why are countries going out of their way to monitor it? And what happens if we let this problem fester for too long? Our next report has the answers.
>> Take a look at these metal orbs. They fell from the sky and landed in Australia. At least six of them landed down under, and thankfully not on anyone's head. A similar orb had landed in India a few years ago in the village of Chandrapur in the state of Maharashtra. It fell from the sky along with a large metal ring. The orbs in Australia and India are reportedly rocket pressure vessels. >> They're used to store fuel at a certain pressure as a rocket takes off into space. And sometimes when rocket boosters separate, these pressure orbs come crashing down to Earth. >> The orbs aren't the only thing discarded when we send rockets into space. Sometimes you'll see large sheets of metal falling from the sky. This charred piece with fibers on the side was once part of a SpaceX mission. But once their purpose is served, they're just pieces of debris in the sky. Just space junk waiting to burn up on re-entry or, in these cases, crash-land on Earth. Space junk is everywhere. It completely surrounds our planet. Tens of thousands of pieces of space junk are just floating about in space alongside all the satellites and scientific equipment up there. Some of the junk is large enough to track. You have retired satellites still flying about. Sometimes an astronaut loses a hammer while fixing their shuttle. It happens. >> This isn't really a major problem. The issue is when the space junk flying around is too small to track. >> Items like nails, small metal fragments, or even flecks of paint. These are floating around in space, too. And they can be extremely dangerous. There are thousands of tiny, untraceable pieces of space junk. They are orbiting the Earth at speeds of over 27,000 km per hour. This supersonic space junk can shred satellites and sensitive scientific equipment, which is why satellites and even the International Space Station have to be constantly vigilant. >> They have to keep making collision avoidance maneuvers or risk getting punctured and destroyed. >> So, space junk is a menace in orbit, and it can be dangerous if it hits ground, too. That's why countries have begun taking steps to try and counter the problem. Scientists fired radio waves at space junk from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or MIT in the US. Then they used the Lovell Radio Telescope in the UK as a receiver. This allowed them to track space junk in high orbit in real time. It's something that has never been done before. Meanwhile, China launched the first satellite of its 120-satellite Gandai constellation. Beijing is building a satellite constellation to monitor space junk from orbit. China calls it a key step in space traffic management. Though getting 120 satellites into orbit will also result in a surge of space junk and thus increase said space traffic. Countries are waking up to the fact that space is starting to get cluttered. The more satellites are launched into orbit, whether Chinese, Russian, American, or SpaceX, the more choked space becomes with junk. >> And so the more dangerous it becomes for future launches. Without proper efforts to clean up the space junk, outer space is becoming a ticking time bomb. And it's only a matter of time before the junk causes serious damage, either to a satellite or a space station or to someone standing thousands of meters below them.
[music]
After nearly three years of global crisis, endless virtual addresses, and high-stakes geopolitics, Netanyahu and Zelenskyy have finally crossed paths face to face. At the funeral of American Senator Lindsey Graham. Naturally, social media has set the internet on fire. Meme pages are calling it the ultimate unexpected reunion of 2026. It looks like 3 years of geopolitical ghosting was broken by a memorial service.
>> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >>
And now it's time for Vantage Shots. Images that tell a story. In China, a hot pot restaurant inside an old air raid shelter has become the coolest place in town. As summer temperatures soar in Sichuan, locals are heading underground to enjoy their meals in naturally cool surroundings. In California, lifeguards brave powerful waves to save a young boy being pulled out to sea. The child was safely returned to the shore without serious injuries. And in Germany, thousands of Audi workers took to the streets protesting potential job cuts as Germany's auto industry grapples with EV transition costs, Chinese competition, as well, and of course, US tariff pressures. Finally, taking you back in history, on this day in 1958, NASA was born. The US created its civilian space agency, kickstarting the space race and paving the way for decades of space exploration. That's all from us. Thank you so much for watching. See you tomorrow.
[music] Heat up here. [music] Heat. Heat. back. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]