dataDp/9958.jpeg

P7as2

Aamir Khans Sitaare Zameen Par Shines Bright: Among Top Hindi Grossers Of 2025

2025 has turned out to be a blockbuster year for Hindi films, with a broad variety of films producing strong box office figures ranging from patriotic action films to tear-jerking social commentaries and big-budget comedy thrillers. Although the year started on a slightly wobbly footing, it quickly gathered momentum with a deluge of content-filled and mass-friendly releases that struck gold. Of these, Aamir Khan’s Sitaare Zameen Par has been a big hit and has been both a critical and box-office success. Marking Aamir Khan’s return to the big screen, Sitaare Zameen Par has quickly become the fourth highest-grossing Hindi film of 2025 in India, with over ₹121 crore in its 10-day net collection. Worldwide, the film has raked in an estimated ₹165 crore and is still going strong in theaters. This drama, in the spirit of Taare Zameen Par, is an emotional journey about Gulshan, a basketball coach who sets out to transform himself while training ten adults with neurodivergence as part of his community service. Directed by RS Prasanna, the movie’s rich emotional storytelling and social message have struck a chord in audiences of all ages. Aamir’s acting out of a man learning to be compassionate and empathetic has been hailed for its honesty and depth, cementing his status as a master of feel-good, conscience-driven films. Sitaare Zameen Par collected a respectable initial amount of ₹10.7 crore on Day 1 and gained momentum over the opening weekend, reaching Sunday’s figure of ₹27.25 crore. Due to positive word-of-mouth and its family-friendly stance, the film collected consistently over the week. Its second weekend was a repeat of the first, taking the film beyond the ₹121 crore mark in India alone. This performance is particularly significant given Aamir’s last release, Laal Singh Chaddha, fell short. Sitaare Zameen Par not only restores his box office rep but also proves the audience remains hungry for tales of empathy, belonging, and human connection. With half the year gone by, the roll call of highest-grossing Hindi films in 2025 is like a demonstration of Indian film’s diversity and muscle. At the top is Vicky Kaushal’s historical epic Chhaava, which has stunned the industry with ₹585.7 crore domestic and ₹807.88 crore worldwide. Based on the life of Maratha warrior Sambhaji Maharaj, Chhaava is the first blockbuster of the year and a landmark in Kaushal’s career. Second on the list is the laughter-packed cruise mystery Housefull 5, which boasts an ensemble cast and has earned ₹182.20 crore in India and ₹193.39 crore globally. Ajay Devgn’s Raid 2 follows in third, with ₹173.38 crore domestically and ₹237 crore worldwide, bringing back the intense energy of his character Amay Patnaik. Aamir Khan’s Sitaare Zameen Par now occupies the fourth spot in India, beating Akshay Kumar’s Sky Force (₹113.62 crore in India, ₹149 crore worldwide) and Salman Khan’s Sikandar (₹110.36 crore in India, ₹184.6 crore globally). Sunny Deol’s Jaat, an action-packed rural drama, earned ₹118.36 crore worldwide and also features in the top 10. 1. Chhaava – ₹585.7 crore 2. Housefull 5 – ₹182.20 crore 3. Raid 2—₹173.38 crore 4. Sitaare Zameen Par—₹121+ crore 5. Sky Force—₹113.62 crore 6. Sikandar—₹110.36crore Other films that made a mark include Kesari Chapter 2, starring Akshay Kumar and Ananya Panday, which earned ₹144.62 crore globally with its stirring courtroom drama centered on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. John Abraham’s The Diplomat, an offbeat hit, raked in ₹51.46 crore globally with its gripping interpretation of a true rescue operation. Bhool Chuk Maaf, on the other hand, a Banaras-set coming-of-age romantic drama, tugged at the heartstrings and raked in ₹88.89 crore. As the curtains fall on the first half of 2025, the Hindi film industry is leading the way with a roster of fine actors and draw-packs. Sitaare Zameen Par is not only a standout by numbers but also by heart, a movie that supports cinema’s purpose to unite people’s stories that matter. With only a couple of months left and still more blockbuster releases in the pipeline, the second half of 2025 is much more fireworks at the movies. But for now, Aamir Khan’s tear-jerking tale and the verdict of the people in absolute unison have guaranteed Sitaare Zameen Par its brightest spot among the year’s biggest blockbusters.

profile/5377instablog.png.webp

Instablog9ja

Reps Give Rivers Sole Administrator 48-Hour Ultimatum Over N24bn CCTV Budget

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

DRCs Peace Deal With Rwanda Risks Swapping War For Resource Exploitation

The US-brokered truce may end fighting – but could also open the door to a new scramble for Congo’s critical minerals. The United States-mediated peace agreement to be signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda on June 27 – a development ostensibly aimed at quelling decades of brutal conflict in Africa’s Great Lakes region – casts a long and familiar shadow. While the immediate cessation of hostilities provides a desperately needed respite, the deal, brokered by the Trump administration and witnessed by the State of Qatar, arrives with an unsettling undertone: The spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph. This emerging “peace for exploitation” bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order. For too long, eastern DRC has been a crucible of human suffering, its vast mineral wealth – including coltan, cobalt, lithium, copper and gold, indispensable for global technologies – serving as both a prize and a curse. This mineral richness has led to relentless conflict, contributing to one of the world’s most protracted humanitarian crises, with nearly three million people displaced and regular outbreaks of disease. The M23 rebel group, widely believed to be backed by Rwanda despite Kigali’s denials, has been a key player in this cycle of violence, reportedly earning significant monthly sums through illicit taxation and control of mining areas such as Rubaya. The group’s resurgence, coinciding with a spike in global demand for these strategic minerals, underscores how deeply entrenched economic interests are in the region’s instability. The joint statement from the Washington peace talks outlined standard provisions for territorial integrity, disarmament, and the return of refugees. Yet the official text remained conspicuously silent on the mineral sector. That omission speaks volumes. According to multiple reports, the Trump administration’s renewed diplomatic push followed Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi’s offer to facilitate direct US investment in the country’s mineral wealth. Indeed, informed sources suggest that parallel but related negotiations for a broader US-DRC minerals agreement are under way. The aim? To bolster US access to critical resources and counter China’s entrenched dominance in Africa’s supply chains – a clear geopolitical play in the global race for strategic minerals. The intertwining of peace and mineral interests is deeply alarming, echoing a tragic and persistent pattern in the DRC’s history. From the rubber and ivory atrocities under Belgium’s King Leopold II – where millions perished under forced labour regimes – to the systematic extraction of cobalt, copper, and uranium under Belgian colonial rule, the Congolese people have rarely been the beneficiaries of their own land’s bounty. After independence, Mobutu Sese Seko presided over a kleptocratic regime that channelled mineral wealth into personal and elite enrichment, further weakening governance. The Congo Wars, often referred to as “Africa’s World War”, were similarly driven by the quest to control mineral-rich territories, with both regional and international actors competing for illicit access. This is the essence of the so-called “resource curse” that has long plagued the DRC: Immense natural wealth leading not to development, but to poverty, conflict, and systemic corruption. When resource deals are struck in the shadow of conflict, exploitation takes the form of opaque contracts that favour foreign corporations, enable tax avoidance, and exclude local communities from fair revenue-sharing. The consequences are devastating: The violent displacement of people, environmental degradation, and the reinforcement of corrupt networks that siphon off national wealth. The human cost is immeasurable – communities uprooted, forced into unsafe mining work (including children), and exposed to widespread sexual violence used as a weapon of control. This “peace deal” risks becoming another instrument of neo-colonialism. As political philosopher Kwame Nkrumah warned, neo-colonialism allows foreign powers to dominate not through direct occupation, but via economic means. In this context, foreign capital is used not to build, but to extract – deepening the divide between resource-rich African nations and wealthy consumer economies. The global demand for critical minerals – from smartphones to electric vehicles – spurs an insatiable appetite that routinely trumps human rights, environmental protections, or national sovereignty. For the Congolese people, genuine peace must mean more than the end of war. It must mark the beginning of self-determination, where the country’s resources are managed transparently and equitably for the benefit of its citizens – not wielded as bargaining chips in global power struggles. The international community, particularly the mediating powers – including the US under Secretary of State Marco Rubio – bear a profound responsibility to ensure that any accompanying economic agreements are subject to rigorous scrutiny. They must demand full transparency, robust environmental and social safeguards, and a firm commitment to equitable wealth distribution that empowers local communities. Anything less would be a tragic continuation of a colonial legacy – a cynical exchange of temporary calm for sustained plunder – undermining the very principles of justice and sovereignty that a truly postcolonial world must uphold. The Congolese people deserve a peace that liberates both their lives and their land – not one that merely reshuffles the chains of exploitation. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

NATOs 5 Percent Spending Pledge Is A Threat To People And The Planet

The alliance’s spending surge will prompt war, cut services and worsen the climate crisis. NATO’s leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) on “core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035”. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a “quantum leap” in spending that would guarantee “freedom and security” for the military alliance’s one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom? The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it’s easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025. This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level. Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It’s an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet. In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: “If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.” Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon. Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules. NATO’s spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan. NATO’s justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of “Russia” and “terrorism”. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO’s actions partly set the stage for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO’s 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for “terrorism”, the idea that NATO’s increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the “War on Terror”, where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment. The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump’s pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a “dynamic growth industry” and a “mega force” that will drive investment trends in the coming years. NATO’s idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Follow Al Jazeera English:...