Hamas releases ‘farewell picture’ of Israeli captives amid Gaza offensive

**Hamas Releases ‘Farewell Picture’ of Israeli Captives Amid Gaza Offensive**

*By Snehil Singh | Sep 21, 2025, 10:19 AM*

Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, has released a poignant “farewell picture” of 48 Israeli captives on social media. The image includes both living and deceased individuals, all collectively identified as “Ron Arad,” a reference to an Israeli air force officer who disappeared in Lebanon in 1986.

This release comes as Israeli forces intensify their offensive on Gaza City, focusing on underground tunnels and booby-trapped buildings in a bid to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure.

**Hamas Sends Message to Israeli Leadership**

Alongside the image, Hamas issued a direct message to Israeli leaders. The group criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what it called “intransigence,” and Army Chief Eyal Zamir for “submission.” The statement read:
“Because of Netanyahu’s intransigence and Zamir’s submission: A farewell picture at the start of the operation in Gaza City.”

These remarks arrive amid fierce fighting in Gaza City, with recent Israeli strikes reportedly killing at least 60 Palestinians.

**Hostage Situation Remains Dire**

Hamas claims the captives are dispersed across various neighborhoods in Gaza City and are at significant risk due to ongoing Israeli bombings. Previously, Hamas released videos showing the hostages in poor health, including one disturbing clip of a captive apparently digging his own grave.

These videos have drawn condemnation from hostage families and international allies, including the United States, who describe such releases as psychological warfare.

**Public Outcry and Protests in Israel**

The publication of the “farewell” picture has sparked outrage, with mass protests expected to unfold in Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. Demonstrators are demanding that the government take immediate action to secure the release of captives and work toward ending the conflict.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military continues its operation against Gaza City, targeting underground shafts and booby-trapped sites.

**Intensified Demolition Campaign in Gaza**

Israel has also ramped up its demolition campaign against high-rise buildings in Gaza City. Military efforts are concentrated on the Sheikh Radwan and Tel Al-Hawa neighborhoods. Recent estimates suggest that up to 20 tower blocks have been destroyed in the last two weeks.

Israeli media report that more than 500,000 residents have fled Gaza since early September, although Hamas disputes these figures.

*Social media continues to circulate the controversial “farewell picture,” fueling heightened tensions as the conflict escalates.*
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/hamas-shares-farewell-photo-of-48-israeli-captives/story

Will Priyadarshan direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director reveals

**Will Priyadarshan Direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director Reveals Plans**

*By Isha Sharma | Sep 21, 2025, 11:21 AM*

Priyadarshan, the acclaimed director behind the original *Hera Pheri* (2000), has finally addressed the ongoing speculation about his potential return to helm *Hera Pheri 3*. In a recent interview with Pinkvilla, he shared his thoughts on the project and the conditions under which he would consider directing the much-anticipated sequel.

### Priyadarshan’s Take on Directing *Hera Pheri 3*

The director made it clear that he would only commit to *Hera Pheri 3* if the script is strong enough to live up to the legacy of the original film. “I cannot tell if I am doing the third part unless and until I can crack a film which has to do justice to the first installment,” he explained.

### Protecting the Legacy

Priyadarshan emphasized the importance of maintaining the quality and spirit of the first movie. “The first part was born, but the third one shouldn’t let it die. If I am doing the film, I have to make sure that it is tolerable for people who watched the first part,” he said, underlining his commitment to respect the franchise’s fanbase.

### Commitment to Quality

Further expressing his conviction, the director stated, “Unless and until I crack the full film, I will never attempt part three. If a good script doesn’t turn out to my conviction, I will not do the film. I have climbed certain heights in my career from where I don’t want to fall badly.”

### Film Update: Paresh Rawal Confirms Progress

Meanwhile, actor Paresh Rawal, who plays one of the lead roles in the franchise, recently confirmed that *Hera Pheri 3* is in the works. In an interview with News18 Showsha, Rawal revealed that shooting is expected to commence around February-March of next year.

Rawal had briefly stepped away from the project but eventually returned, emphasizing that his professional relationship with Priyadarshan has only grown stronger through the challenges the project has faced.

*Fans of the cult classic can look forward to more updates as the team works towards bringing the next installment to life—provided the script meets the high expectations set by its beloved predecessors.*
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/entertainment/priyadarshan-reveals-if-he-will-direct-hera-pheri-3/story

Democracy at crossroads:From people’s power to monopoly’s plaything

Has democracy exhausted its potential? That uncomfortable question haunts political thinkers across the world today. What was once celebrated as the triumph of people’s power now appears to be little more than a cover for the consolidation of monopoly capitalism.

The result is stark: resources and power are being hoarded by a few, while the vast majority is left with little more than an illusion of choice. Lenin’s century-old warning—that democracy under capitalism would serve as a mask for the interests of the powerful—has never felt more prescient.

On paper, democracy still thrives. One can see citizens vote, parties campaign, parliaments debate. Yet beneath these rituals, democracy has been hollowed out. As political theorist Sheldon Wolin observed, we are drifting toward inverted totalitarianism, where corporations and governments merge into a seamless machine that neutralizes dissent while pretending to uphold democratic ideals. The facade remains; the substance has vanished. It is merely an instrument to legitimize capitalist greed of very few avaricious souls.

Take the United States, where the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders—arguably the only mainstream candidate in decades who openly challenged corporate power—were effectively neutralized by his own party establishment. The message was clear: challenges to entrenched wealth and monopoly are not permissible within the bounds of acceptable democracy.

Or look to India, where the rise of corporate titans like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani has been accompanied by political consolidation. The lines between business and governance blur to the point where policies are tailored not for citizens but for conglomerates.

The largest democracy and the oldest democracy stand as case studies in how wealth increasingly dictates political destiny. It is telling that names like Elon Musk or Ambani are spoken of with the kind of reverence once reserved for heads of state. They command not only industries but also governments, with their decisions rippling across borders.

Economist Thomas Piketty has shown that wealth concentration today rivals that of the 19th-Century Gilded Age. Yet the power of today’s billionaires is far more entrenched. Unlike the tycoons of a century ago, today’s moguls do not merely purchase influence; they write the rules, set global norms, and, in some cases, substitute themselves for public institutions.

When governments race to accommodate the interests of billionaires in fields like space exploration, artificial intelligence, and digital communications, it is hard to argue that sovereignty resides with the people. Accumulation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands is no longer an exception—it is the defining political reality of our time.

The contradictions of democracy are even sharper when viewed internationally. Prominent democracies—especially the US—have often been quick to side with dictatorships in the developing world whenever it suited their strategic or economic interests. This double standard exposes democracy as more of a geopolitical tool than a universal value.

Pakistan is perhaps the clearest example. Military rulers—from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf—found their regimes legitimized and supported not by the will of the people but by Western powers that claimed to champion democracy. The Cold War, the War on Terror, and regional rivalries all provided convenient justifications for democratic states to back authoritarian regimes abroad.

Thus, people’s will and its expression through democratic systems is a farce.

Nor do the double standards stop there. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, widely seen as one of the most ruthless leaders in modern politics, is—so to say—democratically elected. He continues to enjoy the overt backing of major democracies despite presiding over catastrophic assaults on Gaza and the daily suffering of Palestinians.

Israeli forces strike where they choose, jeopardizing international peace, while much of the democratic world offers cover rather than accountability. The irony is glaring: a state acting with impunity abroad, while being shielded under the language of democracy.

This is not the first time the contradiction has played out. For decades, Western democracies lent tacit and material support to apartheid South Africa, justifying ties with a brutally exclusionary regime in the name of strategic interests. Governments were reluctant to act, but global grassroots solidarity—the boycotts, divestment campaigns, cultural sanctions, and the moral pressure exerted by millions of ordinary citizens worldwide—eventually forced a shift in policy.

The lesson is unmistakable: when democratic governments fail to uphold their professed values, it is often people’s movements that bend the arc of history toward justice.

Today, as Gaza burns under bombardment and Palestinians endure dispossession, the question is whether the world will again allow geopolitical expediency to eclipse moral clarity—or whether civil societies across the globe will summon the determination that helped end apartheid.

The malaise is global.

In Sri Lanka, citizens poured into the streets in 2022 against leaders perceived to have mismanaged the economy while shielding elites from accountability. Bangladesh has seen multiple cycles of elections overshadowed by accusations of authoritarianism and corruption. Nepal’s fragile democratic experiment is marred by instability and elite capture. Indonesia, often hailed as a democratic success story in Southeast Asia, faces deepening concerns about oligarchic politics.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the crisis wears a different mask. Populist leaders in Europe and the United States channel public frustration not against monopoly power, but against immigrants and minorities. Fear replaces solidarity; scapegoating substitutes for justice.

On September 13, Tommy Robinson, a known right-wing activist, gathered more than 100,000 people in London to protest against immigrants and called for them to be sent back to the countries of their origin. That has become a new normal in the developed world.

Hannah Arendt’s warning in *The Origins of Totalitarianism* echoes loud: when democratic institutions fail to deliver dignity and equality, resentment becomes fertile ground for exclusion and authoritarian tendencies.

This is a moment of reckoning.

If democracy is no more than a platform for monopolies to perform their power, then it has already failed. But history offers another path. Democracy has survived crises before—from the robber barons of the Gilded Age to the authoritarian temptations of the 20th Century. It was rescued every time by popular mobilization: labour unions, civil rights movements, anti-colonial struggles.

As political theorist Chantal Mouffe has argued, democracy can be reinvented—reborn as a politics of the people, not corporations. That requires moving beyond the myth that elections alone equal democracy.

Democracy must be participatory, not performative; redistributive, not extractive. It must empower citizens to shape decisions, hold elites accountable, and resist the monopolization of resources and institutions.

The challenge is formidable, but the alternatives are grimmer still. If citizens resign themselves to democracy’s decline, monopoly power will harden into a new aristocracy.

To resist this, three steps are vital:

First, grassroots organizing: social movements, unions, community groups, and citizen coalitions must rebuild the culture of democratic participation from below. Change has rarely come from elites; it is won by ordinary people demanding dignity.

Second, global regulation of monopolies: unchecked wealth accumulation is not just a national issue. In a world of borderless finance and technology, international cooperation is essential to tax the ultra-rich, regulate corporations, and prevent the capture of public goods by private hands.

Third, strengthening democratic institutions: parliaments, courts, and media must be shielded from corporate capture and political manipulation. Independent oversight and citizen-led accountability mechanisms can help restore credibility to institutions that have lost public trust.

The choice is clear. Either democracy remains a hollow ritual serving monopoly interests, or it is reclaimed as the true expression of people’s will.

The hour is late, but not beyond redemption. As the struggle against apartheid once proved, when people organize across borders and demand accountability, even the most entrenched systems of injustice can be forced to change.

Democracy will either be reclaimed by the people—or it will cease to be democracy.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1345117-democracy-at-crossroadsfrom-peoples-power-to-monopolys-plaything

Hamas releases ‘farewell picture’ of Israeli captives amid Gaza offensive

**Hamas Releases ‘Farewell Picture’ of Israeli Captives Amid Gaza Offensive**

*By Snehil Singh | September 21, 2025, 10:19 AM*

Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, has released a “farewell picture” showing 48 Israeli captives on social media. The photo includes both living and deceased individuals, all identified under the name “Ron Arad”—a reference to an Israeli air force officer who disappeared in Lebanon in 1986.

### Context of the Release

The image comes as Israeli forces intensify their offensive in Gaza City, targeting underground tunnels and booby-trapped buildings. The military campaign aims to dismantle Hamas’s operational capabilities amid escalating conflict.

### Message to Israeli Leadership

Alongside the image, Hamas issued a pointed message directed at Israeli authorities. The group accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “intransigence” and Army Chief Eyal Zamir of “submission,” stating:

*”Because of Netanyahu’s intransigence and Zamir’s submission: A farewell picture at the start of the operation in Gaza City.”*

This statement underscores Hamas’s criticism of Israel’s handling of the ongoing conflict.

### Hostage Situation and Concerns

Hamas claims the Israeli captives are dispersed across neighborhoods in Gaza City and are at risk due to ongoing Israeli airstrikes. In earlier communications, Hamas released videos showing hostages in poor health conditions, including one disturbing clip of a captive digging what appeared to be his own grave.

These videos have been widely condemned by hostage families and the international community—including the United States—who regard them as attempts at psychological warfare.

### Public Reaction in Israel

The release of the “farewell picture” has further fueled tensions within Israel, with mass protests expected in Tel Aviv and other cities. Demonstrators are calling on the government to secure a deal for the safe release of captives and to end the ongoing violence.

Meanwhile, Israel’s military continues its extensive offensive in Gaza City, focusing particularly on underground shafts and booby-trapped locations.

### Intensified Demolition Campaign in Gaza

Israel’s demolition campaign targeting high-rise buildings in Gaza City has escalated this week. The military is concentrating efforts on the Sheikh Radwan and Tel Al-Hawa neighborhoods as part of its broader assault strategy.

According to military estimates, up to 20 tower blocks have been destroyed in the past two weeks. Israeli media also report that over 500,000 residents have fled the area since early September—a figure disputed by Hamas.

*Stay updated with the latest developments on the Gaza conflict and international responses.*

[Social media users have widely reshared the “farewell picture” as tensions continue to rise.]
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/hamas-shares-farewell-photo-of-48-israeli-captives/story

Will Priyadarshan direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director reveals

**Will Priyadarshan Direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director Reveals**

*By Isha Sharma | September 21, 2025, 11:21 AM*

Priyadarshan, the acclaimed director of the original *Hera Pheri* (2000), has finally addressed the ongoing speculation about his involvement in directing *Hera Pheri 3*. In a recent interview with Pinkvilla, he clarified that he would only consider directing the third installment if the script lives up to the high standards set by the original film.

“I cannot tell if I am doing the third part unless and until I can crack a film which has to do justice to the first installment,” Priyadarshan stated, emphasizing the importance of a strong script.

### Preserving the Legacy

Priyadarshan expressed his concerns about maintaining the legacy of *Hera Pheri*. He said, “The first part was born, but the third one shouldn’t let it die. If I am doing the film, I have to make sure that it is tolerable for people who watched the first part.”

His conviction is clear: he wants the third film to honor and respect the original, rather than falling short of audience expectations.

### Director’s Commitment

Further underscoring his dedication to quality, Priyadarshan added, “Unless and until I crack the full film, I will never attempt part three. If a good script doesn’t turn out to my conviction, I will not do the film. I have climbed certain heights in my career from where I don’t want to fall badly.”

This statement highlights his cautious approach toward sequels and reflects his desire to protect his creative legacy.

### Film Update: Paresh Rawal Confirms Progress

Meanwhile, actor Paresh Rawal has confirmed that *Hera Pheri 3* is indeed underway. In an interview with News18 Showsha, Rawal revealed that shooting for the film is scheduled to begin in February-March next year.

Although Rawal briefly left the project at one point, he eventually returned and also mentioned that his professional relationship with Priyadarshan has only grown stronger despite the challenges faced.

Fans of the franchise can look forward to updates on *Hera Pheri 3* as the production progresses, with hopes that the new installment will live up to the beloved original’s legacy.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/entertainment/priyadarshan-reveals-if-he-will-direct-hera-pheri-3/story

Democracy at crossroads:From people’s power to monopoly’s plaything

**Has Democracy Exhausted Its Potential?**

That uncomfortable question haunts political thinkers across the world today. What was once celebrated as the triumph of people’s power now appears to be little more than a cover for the consolidation of monopoly capitalism. The result is stark: resources and power are being hoarded by a few, while the vast majority is left with little more than an illusion of choice.

Lenin’s century-old warning that democracy under capitalism would serve as a mask for the interests of the powerful has never felt more prescient.

On paper, democracy still thrives. One can see citizens vote, parties campaign, parliaments debate. Yet beneath these rituals, democracy has been hollowed out. As political theorist Sheldon Wolin observed, we are drifting toward inverted totalitarianism, where corporations and governments merge into a seamless machine that neutralizes dissent while pretending to uphold democratic ideals. The façade remains; the substance has vanished. It is merely an instrument to legitimize capitalist greed of very few avaricious souls.

Take the United States, where the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders—arguably the only mainstream candidate in decades who openly challenged corporate power—were effectively neutralized by his own party establishment. The message was clear: challenges to entrenched wealth and monopoly are not permissible within the bounds of acceptable democracy.

Or look to India, where the rise of corporate titans like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani has been accompanied by political consolidation. The lines between business and governance blur to the point where policies are tailored not for citizens but for conglomerates. The largest democracy and the oldest democracy stand as case studies in how wealth increasingly dictates political destiny.

It is telling that names like Elon Musk or Ambani are spoken of with the kind of reverence once reserved for heads of state. They command not only industries but also governments, with their decisions rippling across borders.

Economist Thomas Piketty has shown that wealth concentration today rivals that of the 19th-century Gilded Age. Yet the power of today’s billionaires is far more entrenched. Unlike the tycoons of a century ago, today’s moguls do not merely purchase influence; they write the rules, set global norms, and, in some cases, substitute themselves for public institutions.

When governments race to accommodate the interests of billionaires in fields like space exploration, artificial intelligence, and digital communications, it is hard to argue that sovereignty resides with the people.

Accumulation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands is no longer an exception—it is the defining political reality of our time.

The contradictions of democracy are even sharper when viewed internationally. Prominent democracies—especially the U.S.—have often been quick to side with dictatorships in the developing world whenever it suited their strategic or economic interests. This double standard exposes democracy as more of a geopolitical tool than a universal value.

Pakistan is perhaps the clearest example. Military rulers—from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf—found their regimes legitimized and supported not by the will of the people but by Western powers that claimed to champion democracy. The Cold War, the War on Terror, and regional rivalries all provided convenient justifications for democratic states to back authoritarian regimes abroad.

Thus, people’s will and its expression through democratic systems is a farce.

Nor do the double standards stop there. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, widely seen as one of the most ruthless leaders in modern politics, is so to say democratically elected. He continues to enjoy the overt backing of major democracies despite presiding over catastrophic assaults on Gaza and the daily suffering of Palestinians.

Israeli forces strike where they choose, jeopardizing international peace, while much of the democratic world offers cover rather than accountability.

The irony is glaring: a state acting with impunity abroad, while being shielded under the language of democracy.

This is not the first time the contradiction has played out. For decades, Western democracies lent tacit and material support to apartheid South Africa, justifying ties with a brutally exclusionary regime in the name of strategic interests. Governments were reluctant to act, but global grassroots solidarity—the boycotts, divestment campaigns, cultural sanctions, and the moral pressure exerted by millions of ordinary citizens worldwide—eventually forced a shift in policy.

The lesson is unmistakable: when democratic governments fail to uphold their professed values, it is often people’s movements that bend the arc of history toward justice.

Today, as Gaza burns under bombardment and Palestinians endure dispossession, the question is whether the world will again allow geopolitical expediency to eclipse moral clarity—or whether civil societies across the globe will summon the determination that helped end apartheid.

The malaise is global.

In Sri Lanka, citizens poured into the streets in 2022 against leaders perceived to have mismanaged the economy while shielding elites from accountability. Bangladesh has seen multiple cycles of elections overshadowed by accusations of authoritarianism and corruption. Nepal’s fragile democratic experiment is marred by instability and elite capture. Indonesia, often hailed as a democratic success story in Southeast Asia, faces deepening concerns about oligarchic politics.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the crisis wears a different mask. Populist leaders in Europe and the United States channel public frustration not against monopoly power, but against immigrants and minorities. Fear replaces solidarity; scapegoating substitutes for justice.

On September 13, Tommy Robinson, a known right-wing activist, gathered more than 100,000 people in London to protest against immigrants and called for them to be sent back to the countries of their origin. That has become a new normal in the developed world.

Hannah Arendt’s warning in *The Origins of Totalitarianism* echoes loud: when democratic institutions fail to deliver dignity and equality, resentment becomes fertile ground for exclusion and authoritarian tendencies.

This is a moment of reckoning.

If democracy is no more than a platform for monopolies to perform their power, then it has already failed. But history offers another path.

Democracy has survived crises before—from the robber barons of the Gilded Age to the authoritarian temptations of the 20th century. It was rescued every time by popular mobilisation: labour unions, civil rights movements, anti-colonial struggles.

As political theorist Chantal Mouffe has argued, democracy can be reinvented—reborn as a politics of the people, not corporations. That requires moving beyond the myth that elections alone equal democracy.

Democracy must be participatory, not performative; redistributive, not extractive. It must empower citizens to shape decisions, hold elites accountable, and resist the monopolisation of resources and institutions.

The challenge is formidable, but the alternatives are grimmer still. If citizens resign themselves to democracy’s decline, monopoly power will harden into a new aristocracy.

To resist this, three steps are vital.

First, grassroots organising: social movements, unions, community groups, and citizen coalitions must rebuild the culture of democratic participation from below. Change has rarely come from elites; it is won by ordinary people demanding dignity.

Second, global regulation of monopolies: unchecked wealth accumulation is not just a national issue. In a world of borderless finance and technology, international cooperation is essential to tax the ultra-rich, regulate corporations, and prevent the capture of public goods by private hands.

Third, strengthening democratic institutions: parliaments, courts, and media must be shielded from corporate capture and political manipulation. Independent oversight and citizen-led accountability mechanisms can help restore credibility to institutions that have lost public trust.

The choice is clear. Either democracy remains a hollow ritual serving monopoly interests, or it is reclaimed as the true expression of people’s will.

The hour is late, but not beyond redemption.

As the struggle against apartheid once proved, when people organise across borders and demand accountability, even the most entrenched systems of injustice can be forced to change.

Democracy will either be reclaimed by the people—or it will cease to be democracy.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1345117-democracy-at-crossroadsfrom-peoples-power-to-monopolys-plaything

Hamas releases ‘farewell picture’ of Israeli captives amid Gaza offensive

**Hamas Releases ‘Farewell Picture’ of Israeli Captives Amid Gaza Offensive**

*By Snehil Singh | Sep 21, 2025, 10:19 AM*

Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, has released a “farewell picture” of 48 Israeli captives on social media. The image, which includes both living and deceased individuals, identifies all as “Ron Arad,” referring to the Israeli air force officer who disappeared in Lebanon in 1986.

This release coincides with an intensified Israeli military offensive in Gaza City, where forces are targeting underground tunnels and booby-trapped buildings.

**Hamas Sends Message to Israeli Leadership**

Alongside the image, Hamas directed a critical message toward Israeli leaders. The group accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “intransigence” and Army Chief Eyal Zamir of “submission,” stating:
“Because of Netanyahu’s intransigence and Zamir’s submission: A farewell picture at the start of the operation in Gaza City.”

The statement comes amid heavy fighting in Gaza City, where recent strikes have reportedly killed at least 60 Palestinians.

**Concerns Over Hostages’ Safety**

Hamas claims the captives are scattered across various neighborhoods in Gaza City and remain at grave risk due to ongoing Israeli bombardments. The group has previously released videos showing hostages in poor health. One video notably depicts a captive digging what appeared to be his own grave.

These videos have drawn strong condemnation from hostage families as well as international allies, including the United States, which denounces them as acts of psychological warfare.

**Public Outcry and Protests in Israel**

The release of the “farewell” picture is expected to fuel mass protests in Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities. Demonstrators are demanding that the Israeli government secure a deal to release the captives and call for an end to the conflict.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military continues its offensive with a focus on underground shafts and booby-trapped sites in Gaza City.

**Intensified Demolition Campaign in Gaza**

Israel has escalated its demolition campaign against high-rise buildings in Gaza City this week. Troops are concentrating efforts on the Sheikh Radwan and Tel Al-Hawa neighborhoods as part of the broader assault.

Military estimates suggest that up to 20 tower blocks have been destroyed in the last two weeks. Reports from Israeli media indicate that over 500,000 residents have fled Gaza City since early September, though Hamas disputes this figure.

*Stay updated on this developing story and follow reactions on social media as tensions escalate.*
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/world/hamas-shares-farewell-photo-of-48-israeli-captives/story

Will Priyadarshan direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director reveals

**Will Priyadarshan Direct ‘Hera Pheri 3’? Director Reveals**

*By Isha Sharma | September 21, 2025, 11:21 AM*

Priyadarshan, the acclaimed director of the original *Hera Pheri* (2000), has finally addressed the much-speculated question about his involvement in *Hera Pheri 3*. In a recent interview with Pinkvilla, he shared his thoughts on returning to helm the third installment of the popular franchise.

The director stated that he would only consider directing *Hera Pheri 3* if the script lives up to the quality of the original film. “I cannot tell if I am doing the third part unless and until I can crack a film which has to do justice to the first installment,” he explained.

### “Third One Shouldn’t Let the First One Die”

Priyadarshan emphasized the importance of maintaining the legacy of the original movie. “The first part was born, but the third one shouldn’t let it die. If I am doing the film, I have to make sure that it is tolerable for people who watched the first part,” he added. His focus remains on delivering a film that honors the expectations of loyal fans.

### Director’s Conviction: “I Will Never Attempt Part 3 Unless…”

Further highlighting his commitment to quality, Priyadarshan made it clear that he won’t direct the sequel unless he is fully satisfied with the script. “Unless and until I crack the full film, I will never attempt part three. If a good script doesn’t turn out to my conviction, I will not do the film. I have climbed certain heights in my career from where I don’t want to fall badly,” he asserted.

### Film Update: Paresh Rawal Confirms *Hera Pheri 3* is Underway

Meanwhile, actor Paresh Rawal has confirmed that *Hera Pheri 3* is actively in the works. In an interview with News18 Showsha, Rawal revealed that shooting is scheduled to begin between February and March next year.

Rawal, who briefly stepped away from the project, has since rejoined. He also mentioned that his professional relationship with Priyadarshan has grown stronger through the journey, underscoring the team’s commitment to delivering a worthy sequel.

Stay tuned for more updates on *Hera Pheri 3* as the project progresses.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/entertainment/priyadarshan-reveals-if-he-will-direct-hera-pheri-3/story

Democracy at crossroads:From people’s power to monopoly’s plaything

Has Democracy Exhausted Its Potential?

That uncomfortable question haunts political thinkers across the world today. What was once celebrated as the triumph of people’s power now appears to be little more than a cover for the consolidation of monopoly capitalism.

The result is stark: resources and power are being hoarded by a few, while the vast majority is left with little more than an illusion of choice. Lenin’s century-old warning that democracy under capitalism would serve as a mask for the interests of the powerful has never felt more prescient.

On paper, democracy still thrives. One can see citizens vote, parties campaign, and parliaments debate. Yet beneath these rituals, democracy has been hollowed out. As political theorist Sheldon Wolin observed, we are drifting toward inverted totalitarianism, where corporations and governments merge into a seamless machine that neutralizes dissent while pretending to uphold democratic ideals. The facade remains; the substance has vanished.

It is merely an instrument to legitimize the capitalist greed of very few avaricious souls.

Take the United States, where the presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders—arguably the only mainstream candidate in decades who openly challenged corporate power—were effectively neutralized by his own party establishment. The message was clear: challenges to entrenched wealth and monopoly are not permissible within the bounds of acceptable democracy.

Or look to India, where the rise of corporate titans like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani has been accompanied by political consolidation. The lines between business and governance blur to the point where policies are tailored not for citizens but for conglomerates.

The largest democracy and the oldest democracy stand as case studies in how wealth increasingly dictates political destiny. It is telling that names like Elon Musk or Ambani are spoken of with the kind of reverence once reserved for heads of state. They command not only industries but also governments, with their decisions rippling across borders.

Economist Thomas Piketty has shown that wealth concentration today rivals that of the 19th-Century Gilded Age. Yet the power of today’s billionaires is far more entrenched. Unlike the tycoons of a century ago, today’s moguls do not merely purchase influence; they write the rules, set global norms, and, in some cases, substitute themselves for public institutions.

When governments race to accommodate the interests of billionaires in fields like space exploration, artificial intelligence, and digital communications, it is hard to argue that sovereignty resides with the people.

Accumulation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands is no longer an exception—it is the defining political reality of our time.

The contradictions of democracy are even sharper when viewed internationally. Prominent democracies—especially the U.S.—have often been quick to side with dictatorships in the developing world whenever it suited their strategic or economic interests. This double standard exposes democracy as more of a geopolitical tool than a universal value.

Pakistan is perhaps the clearest example. Military rulers—from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf—found their regimes legitimized and supported not by the will of the people but by Western powers that claimed to champion democracy. The Cold War, the War on Terror, and regional rivalries all provided convenient justifications for democratic states to back authoritarian regimes abroad.

Thus, people’s will and its expression through democratic systems is a farce.

Nor do the double standards stop there. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, widely seen as one of the most ruthless leaders in modern politics, is so to say democratically elected. He continues to enjoy the overt backing of major democracies despite presiding over catastrophic assaults on Gaza and the daily suffering of Palestinians.

Israeli forces strike where they choose, jeopardizing international peace, while much of the democratic world offers cover rather than accountability. The irony is glaring: a state acting with impunity abroad, while being shielded under the language of democracy.

This is not the first time the contradiction has played out. For decades, Western democracies lent tacit and material support to apartheid South Africa, justifying ties with a brutally exclusionary regime in the name of strategic interests.

Governments were reluctant to act, but global grassroots solidarity—the boycotts, divestment campaigns, cultural sanctions, and the moral pressure exerted by millions of ordinary citizens worldwide—eventually forced a shift in policy.

The lesson is unmistakable: when democratic governments fail to uphold their professed values, it is often people’s movements that bend the arc of history toward justice.

Today, as Gaza burns under bombardment and Palestinians endure dispossession, the question is whether the world will again allow geopolitical expediency to eclipse moral clarity—or whether civil societies across the globe will summon the determination that helped end apartheid.

The malaise is global.

In Sri Lanka, citizens poured into the streets in 2022 against leaders perceived to have mismanaged the economy while shielding elites from accountability. Bangladesh has seen multiple cycles of elections overshadowed by accusations of authoritarianism and corruption. Nepal’s fragile democratic experiment is marred by instability and elite capture.

Indonesia, often hailed as a democratic success story in Southeast Asia, faces deepening concerns about oligarchic politics.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the crisis wears a different mask.

Populist leaders in Europe and the United States channel public frustration not against monopoly power, but against immigrants and minorities. Fear replaces solidarity; scapegoating substitutes for justice.

On September 13, Tommy Robinson, a known right-wing activist, gathered more than 100,000 people in London to protest against immigrants and called for them to be sent back to the countries of their origin. That has become a new normal in the developed world.

Hannah Arendt’s warning in *The Origins of Totalitarianism* echoes loud: when democratic institutions fail to deliver dignity and equality, resentment becomes fertile ground for exclusion and authoritarian tendencies.

This is a moment of reckoning.

If democracy is no more than a platform for monopolies to perform their power, then it has already failed. But history offers another path.

Democracy has survived crises before—from the robber barons of the Gilded Age to the authoritarian temptations of the 20th century. It was rescued every time by popular mobilization: labor unions, civil rights movements, anti-colonial struggles.

As political theorist Chantal Mouffe has argued, democracy can be reinvented—reborn as a politics of the people, not corporations. That requires moving beyond the myth that elections alone equal democracy.

Democracy must be participatory, not performative; redistributive, not extractive. It must empower citizens to shape decisions, hold elites accountable, and resist the monopolization of resources and institutions.

The challenge is formidable, but the alternatives are grimmer still.

If citizens resign themselves to democracy’s decline, monopoly power will harden into a new aristocracy.

To resist this, three steps are vital:

**First, grassroots organizing:** social movements, unions, community groups, and citizen coalitions must rebuild the culture of democratic participation from below. Change has rarely come from elites; it is won by ordinary people demanding dignity.

**Second, global regulation of monopolies:** unchecked wealth accumulation is not just a national issue. In a world of borderless finance and technology, international cooperation is essential to tax the ultra-rich, regulate corporations, and prevent the capture of public goods by private hands.

**Third, strengthening democratic institutions:** parliaments, courts, and media must be shielded from corporate capture and political manipulation. Independent oversight and citizen-led accountability mechanisms can help restore credibility to institutions that have lost public trust.

The choice is clear. Either democracy remains a hollow ritual serving monopoly interests, or it is reclaimed as the true expression of people’s will.

The hour is late, but not beyond redemption.

As the struggle against apartheid once proved, when people organize across borders and demand accountability, even the most entrenched systems of injustice can be forced to change.

Democracy will either be reclaimed by the people—or it will cease to be democracy.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1345117-democracy-at-crossroadsfrom-peoples-power-to-monopolys-plaything

Nepal’s Gen Z

A week ago, I was drafting a research report on growing inequality in Asia and its link to increasing state repression of civic freedoms. Amidst the largely desolate landscape of state crackdowns and draconian laws across the region, I sought islands of hope. One country that quickly came to mind was Nepal.

Nepal adopted a rather inclusive and radical constitution in 2015. Subsequent legal reforms gave civil society a formal role in developmental planning. The Local Government Operation Act of 2017 was a landmark law that required local governments to ensure inclusive and participatory planning. Tools such as ward committees, social audits, public hearings, and citizen scorecards were regularly used to engage the public and civil society organizations in municipal budgeting, project selection, and oversight.

Moreover, civil society groups participated in performance audits with the Office of the Auditor General, directly monitoring public service delivery and corruption, and publicly reporting their findings. Even Freedom House, which rated Nepal as partly free, noted with satisfaction the country’s real progress in media freedom, local protest rights, and inclusive development.

However, that optimism evaporated overnight.

News broke that 19 protesters had been killed after young demonstrators—self-identifying as Gen Z—took to the streets in protest against a sweeping social media ban. WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram—the virtual lifelines of a generation—were suddenly blocked.

What followed was rapid unraveling across the country.

A virtual uprising swept Nepal, marked by mass-scale arson and destruction of public institutions, including the Parliament, Supreme Court, five-star hotels, private residences of the rich and famous, and politicians’ homes across party lines. Anarchy had been unleashed.

Even as the army finally took charge of the streets, by the time things settled, more than 70 people were dead; senior politicians had been publicly beaten, and the government was gone.

Several facts stand out from this upheaval.

It took the killing of just 19 people to topple a government—the 14th to fall since 2008, when the long-reigning monarchy was overthrown. The outgoing prime minister, KP Oli, had been sworn into power three times. As governments changed, there was a perception that political parties were merely playing musical chairs.

Despite the so-called progressive reforms mentioned earlier, Nepal was spiraling deeper into a debt crisis similar to those faced by Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Once boasting one of the highest social protection budgets in the region—around 6 percent of GDP—the country was forced to cut welfare allocations to address its debt crisis.

Per capita income remained among the lowest in the region, and youth unemployment was a significant challenge. Nepal is one of the youngest countries in Asia, with more than a fifth of its youth unemployed.

The young protesters distrusted the so-called independent media and targeted outlets they called corrupt. They stressed that their protest concerned rampant corruption and “nepo-kids” flaunting ostentatious lifestyles. The social media ban symbolized not only censorship but also the denial of the last tool young people had to organize against nepotism, corruption, and elite privilege.

So, how do we view this in the broader context of South Asia?

Nepal is the third country in the region to witness a youth-led mass uprising in recent times. We have already seen live-streamed, viral video takeovers of palatial residences belonging to virtual monarchs like Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka and Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh.

In all these cases, the uprisings coincided with declining macroeconomic indicators. Sri Lanka, facing its first sovereign debt default, implemented massive welfare cuts. The youth movement there organized around the Aragalaya (Struggle) against economic collapse and government corruption. The protest site at Galle Face Green—dubbed Gota Go Gama—became a symbol of democratic resistance, uniting people across ethnic and religious divides.

Similarly, the uprising in Bangladesh began over a disputed job quota. In 2023, 40 percent of youth aged 15-29 were classified as NEET—not in employment, education, or training—with about 18 million young people out of work.

Looking at two of the region’s largest countries, Pakistan and India, the picture varies but remains troubling.

Pakistan, long troubled by debt, has suppressed mass political protests in recent years. Its principal opposition leader remains in jail. India, on the other hand, has seen Prime Minister Modi’s iron hand crushing political opposition while channeling youth frustration into targeting minorities and promoting aggressive Hindutva nationalism.

Across these local contexts, common threads emerge: economic precarity, youth anger, distrust of political elites, and a widespread sense that the system is irredeemably corrupt.

Yet the outcomes remain uncertain.

Challenges persist, as evidenced by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Under IMF pressure, Sri Lanka’s elected government has not altered its grim debt trajectory. The political situation in Bangladesh remains unsettled, with elections yet to take place as an aging Nobel Laureate holds the fort. Nepal has followed Dhaka’s lead by appointing a retired Supreme Court judge to head its caretaker government.

The larger question is: how will these battered societies rebuild trust in their political class?

History is often rewritten in hindsight. Nepal’s abrupt turn from a model of participation to a theater of upheaval serves as a sobering reminder of how quickly hope can collapse.

Needless to say, I had to return to my first draft and rewrite the entire section.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1345075-nepals-gen-z