Somewhere along the way, two separate issues: delimitation and reservation, have been mixed up into one big political mess. They are not the same thing, but political tensions have tied them together, turning delimitation into a proper bone of contention and, frankly, a hot potato no one wants to handle cleanly. That said, I stand firmly in favour of the reservation itself. Women today are not waiting to “prove” anything—we already have. From STEM to farming, healthcare to business, women are everywhere, contributing, leading, building. But politics? That’s one space where entry has been slow, restricted, and often resisted. And that needs to change, urgently. The opposition has raised concerns, calling delimitation a possible political land grab and questioning whether any committee formed would favour the Centre. On the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said the process will be guided by law and built through consensus. Both sides have their arguments, but this back-and-forth cannot become an excuse to stall women’s representation yet again.



Let’s be real, elections in India are always around the corner. If every reform waits for the “perfect timing,” or every reform becomes synonyms with electoral gain then nothing will ever get done. 



 There are also concerns about the expanding Parliament, whether it will become too crowded or lose the quality of debate. Fair point. Parliamentary standards must be maintained. But that cannot come at the cost of keeping women out. That argument just doesn’t hold anymore. With India’s growing population, delimitation is bound to happen. But women’s rights should not get caught in the crossfire of political calculations. Nor should this be framed as something that takes away from men as if equality is a zero-sum game. Let’s be clear: women today are not asking to filling seats for the sake of it. This is about rightful representation.



NOT A PRIVELEGE. NOTE A TOKEN. A RIGHT LONG OVERDUE AND AND IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE.

A Right Then. A Right Now. A Right, always.

There’s a phrase quietly doing the rounds: TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out. It sounds unserious, but looking at the current US–Iran ceasefire, it starts to feel like a pattern rather than a punchline.



Because after weeks of escalation, airstrikes, and threats of wider war, we are back to something very familiar, negotiations over the same issue that triggered the conflict in the first place.



And that raises a simple but uncomfortable question: What exactly was the war for?



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



The United States and Israel justified their military action against Iran on one clear ground uranium enrichment. It was presented as a non-negotiable red line. Iran’s nuclear programme was framed as a threat that had to be stopped, not discussed.



But now, after a fragile two-week ceasefire, Iran’s 10-point peace proposal is on the table and at its centre is the right to enrichment.



This is not speculation. Even within the ceasefire framework, reports suggest that the US is engaging with proposals that include sanctions relief, security guarantees, and recognition of Iran’s nuclear position.



So the contradiction is clear: If enrichment was unacceptable before the war, how did it become negotiable after it?



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



This is where the idea of TACO becomes more than a joke.



Trump has not openly admitted any shift. He continues to call the ceasefire a “total victory.” But the reality is visible in the process—a move from hardline positions to flexible negotiations.



And this is not new.



The United States followed a similar path in Afghanistan—entering with absolute objectives and eventually negotiating its exit with the very forces it once refused to recognise.



The pattern is hard to ignore:



Set a strong red line- use force to enforce it &#8211; then negotiate around it.



Both sides are claiming success.



The US says military pressure forced Iran to the table. Iran says it resisted pressure and pushed its own framework forward. Even within the ceasefire, both sides have presented the outcome as a victory to their domestic audiences.



But if you step back, the picture looks different.



Iran has not given up enrichment. The US has not eliminated the nuclear issue. The region remains unstable. So instead of a clear winner, what we have is a stalemate packaged as success.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



What truly shaped this conflict was not just nuclear policy, but geography.



Iran’s ability to block or reopen the Strait of Hormuz became a central bargaining tool during the crisis. The ceasefire itself depended on Iran agreeing to allow safe passage of commercial shipping.



This matters because Hormuz is not just a regional route—it is a global lifeline.



And that is exactly why a Hormuz Convention is needed.



Instead of repeating cycles of escalation, a formal agreement could:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Guarantee freedom of navigation</li>



<li>Prevent the use of shipping routes as pressure tools</li>



<li>Create basic rules that reduce sudden escalation</li>
</ul>



It would not solve political tensions, but it would limit how far they can spiral.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



An interesting shift in this crisis has been Pakistan positioning itself as a mediator, even inviting both sides for talks in Islamabad.



This signals something important, regional actors are stepping in where global powers are struggling to create stable outcomes.



For India, this moment is critical.



India’s stakes are direct:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Energy security depends heavily on Gulf routes</li>



<li>Trade and investments, including connectivity projects with Iran</li>



<li>A large diaspora across West Asia</li>
</ul>



But India’s response cannot be shaped by its rivalry with Pakistan.



This is not about competition. This is about stability.



India must act as a regional stabiliser, not a reactive power. Because what matters here is not who mediates—but whether peace holds.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



The deeper issue is not just Trump, or Iran, or even this specific conflict.



It is the cycle itself.



Threats are amplified. Wars are justified. And then negotiations bring everyone back to a version of the same starting point.



Each time this happens, trust weakens. Red lines lose meaning. And future conflicts become easier to trigger.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">So, what did this war change?</h2>



Very little.



Iran still holds its position. The US is still negotiating. The core issue remains unresolved.



Which brings us back to TACO, not as an insult, but as a pattern of modern geopolitics.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



If a war begins by rejecting something and ends by negotiating over it, then the real question is not who won—but why the war was needed at all.

Trump always chickens out

On one hand, the government justifies it as a necessary step to protect the rights of individuals by ensuring that only “genuine” transgender persons can claim this identity. The argument is not entirely baseless—there have been instances where people falsely claim to be transgender, sometimes even using it as a cover to harass others or extort money. From a governance perspective, the state wants regulation, categorisation, and control.



But here’s where the problem begins.



On the other hand, this bill risks becoming deeply exclusionary. Transgender individuals already face severe discrimination—within families, in society, and in accessing education, employment, and housing. Now, by introducing bureaucratic hurdles to “prove” one’s identity, the state is effectively asking some of the most marginalised people to validate their existence through paperwork.



And what happens to those who cannot?



Those who are rejected, or unable to navigate this process, may find themselves in a dangerous limbo—unrecognised, unprotected, and pushed even further to the margins. If they are denied legal recognition, they are left without a category, without rights, and without a place in the system. Where do they go then?



What makes this even more concerning is the timing and priority. At a moment when people are grappling with rising oil prices, economic pressures, and everyday survival, the focus seems to have shifted towards regulating identities rather than addressing material realities on the ground.



The government’s claim that “only genuinely oppressed people should be allowed to identify as transgender” raises a deeper question who decides what “genuine” oppression looks like?

The Transgender Amendment Bill 2026

<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



This article has been published with:<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/how-india-began-owning-its-reform-agenda/66433"><a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/how-india-began-owning-its-reform-agenda/66433">What made 2025 different was not one dramatic announcement, but the way a series of interconnected reforms reshaped everyday economic life. Taxation, labour, energy, investment, and digital governance were not treated as isolated silos but as part of one system that ultimately affected how Indians earn, save, spend, work and power their homes.</a></a>



What made 2025 different was not one dramatic announcement, but the way a series of interconnected reforms reshaped everyday economic life. Taxation, labour, energy, investment, and digital governance were not treated as isolated silos but as part of one system that ultimately affected how Indians earn, save, spend, work and power their homes.



The most visible impact has been felt by the middle class.



When Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told a public gathering that the government would press ahead with deeper reforms, including a full overhaul of the customs duty structure, she wasn’t announcing just another policy tweak. She was signalling something more fundamental — that India’s reform strategy had moved from stealth to conviction.



Prime Minister Modi described 2025 as a ‘defining phase’ in India’s reform journey and urged investors to ‘keep trusting India and investing in our people.’ The phrase matters. This was not the language of crisis management or emergency repair. It was the language of long-term restructuring of a government increasingly willing to own its reform agenda openly rather than disguise it as technical housekeeping.



The new income tax framework delivered tangible relief, with salaried individuals effectively seeing breathing room of up to ₹12.75 lakh in annual income through exemptions and slabs. This was not symbolic; it showed up directly on salary slips, in household budgets, and in consumption patterns. More disposable income meant better household savings, stronger demand for goods and services, and rising confidence.



In economic terms, this was growth driven by confidence, not compulsion. The middle class was no longer treated merely as a tax base but repositioned as the engine of demand.



GST 2.0 continued this simplification logic. Rationalised slabs and clearer structures reduced disputes, increased predictability, and made consumer goods more affordable. The shift was from complexity to clarity and from opacity to trust.



Since 2014, around 25 crore Indians have moved out of poverty, forming what policymakers now call the “new middle class.” 2025 arguably marked the moment when policy finally began speaking directly to them.



For decades, labour reform in India was the political equivalent of a live wire — everyone agreed it needed fixing, but no one wanted to touch it. Successive governments avoided it because the costs were immediate, visible and politically painful, while the benefits were long-term. That political logic quietly changed this year.



Labour reform is where the government crossed its political Rubicon. Twenty-nine outdated labour laws were replaced with simplified codes. Gig and platform workers were formally recognised. Employers were offered a “one nation, one compliance” framework.



This wasn’t merely about making life easier for businesses. It sent a signal that India wants growth, but not jobless growth.



Manufacturing responded. Quarter after quarter, it grew steadily. Capacity utilisation rose. Logistics improved. Policy stability reduced risk. India began looking more like a manufacturing base, and the credit goes to structural conditions finally aligning.



Perhaps the most underrated reform of 2025 was the recent nuclear energy liberalisation. The opening up of atomic energy, including through the SHANTI Bill, was not cosmetic. It was about future-proofing India’s energy security. India cannot industrialise, urbanise, and digitise while burning coal indefinitely. Clean, stable base-load power is not a climate luxury; it is an economic necessity.



This reform recognised that energy security is national security.



Beneath the headline reforms sits an equally important transformation — India’s digital public infrastructure. Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, and DBT linkages have quietly rewired the state’s delivery capacity. Welfare now flows directly. Leakages have reduced. Administrative friction has fallen.



This is not ideological reform; it is an operational one, and arguably more powerful than any speech.



For all its achievements, 2025 still cannot be considered a complete miracle year, as challenges still persist.



The manufacturing sector has not translated into a larger share of overall GDP. Urban air quality remains dire. Smart cities still don’t feel very smart. Private&nbsp;&nbsp;investment remains cautious. Real wages have not quite surged. Employment growth has lagged behind output growth.



Most importantly, the government continues to avoid the most politically explosive reforms, such as land acquisition and agriculture. The farm laws collapse remains a reminder that structural reform still collides with social reality. Conviction exists, but it is selective.



Now, the governing mantra has been pragmatic: deliver public goods, incentivise participation, reduce political friction, invite private players, and avoid direct confrontation. It has produced stability and steady growth, but perhaps at the cost of deeper transformation.



So, has India pivoted from stealth to conviction? Yes, but within boundaries.



The state now openly owns its reform agenda. It is less defensive about being pro-business. It is more confident about structural change. It is more willing to talk about productivity. However, it remains cautious about reforms that provoke social rupture.



This is not necessarily a flaw. It may be India’s version of reform realism.



Now the real question is whether India is ready to extend that conviction to the reforms it still fears, and whether political courage can eventually match economic ambition. That will decide whether this was a chapter — or the beginning of a longer story.

How India began owning its reform agenda

This article has been published with : <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/inside-trump-s-board-of-power/68350">Inside Trump’s ‘board of power’</a>



The Board of Peace (BoP) is best understood not as a genuine multilateral initiative, but as a quasi-international body personally engineered by Donald Trump. While the United States initially sought UN backing for post-war plans in Gaza, the BoP’s final structure was unilaterally altered, hollowing out any claim to collective legitimacy.



Crucially, the Board does not even explicitly mention Gaza, the very crisis it claims to address.



This is not a small omission. Gaza was the moral and political justification for the initiative. Removing it from the formal mandate points toward a shift from humanitarian responsibility.



Organisationally, the BoP departs sharply from accepted international norms. Trump has appointed himself chairman, while the executive board reportedly includes family members and close associates. More troubling is who is not represented: there is no Palestinian political leadership on the Board.&nbsp;



At best, a handful of Palestinian “technical experts” are included without any democratic mandate, and without recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to decide their own future.



Perhaps the most disturbing inclusion is that of Benjamin Netanyahu, even as he faces serious allegations of committing acts of genocide.



A peace forum that sidelines the victims while offering a seat at the table to those accused of grave crimes sends a clear message that ‘power speaks louder than justice’.



Trump has defended the Board of Peace as an alternative to the United Nations, arguing that the UN is fractured, slow and ineffective. Many would agree that the UN has its flaws, but frustration with multilateralism does not justify abandoning it altogether.



Creating a parallel international structure based on personal authority is not reform, it is replacement by force of influence.



This move also fits a broader pattern. The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation weakened global public health coordination. His great ‘MAGA’ ambitions now seem to undermine public health as well.



Additionally, his disregard for the Paris agreement which jeopardises collective climate action. In each case, institutions were dismissed as unfair or inconvenient.



Well, the Board of Peace follows the same logic; when global rules limit power, build a new table and decide who gets a seat.



For Palestine, this is more than bad diplomacy, it is a betrayal of the very principles meant to protect stateless and occupied people. Decisions about governance, security and reconstruction are being shifted away from international law into a US-controlled forum where accountability at its helm remains absolutely vague.



This brings us to India now. As India was among the 22 countries invited to join the Board of Peace, yet New Delhi chose not to attend the launch. That hesitation was not diplomatic indifference it was prudence.



One immediate red flag is that Pakistan has already joined the Board, complicating India’s strategic position in a forum shaped largely by US preferences.



India, with its diplomatic tradition rooted in strategic autonomy, non-alignment and respect for international law, has little to gain from joining such an ad-hoc and personalised initiative.



A board tied so closely to one political figure’s authority and preferences lacks durability and credibility. It could easily lose relevance once Trump exist the political stage.



Importantly, staying out does not mean disengagement. India has consistently supported Palestine through humanitarian aid, medical assistance, engagement with UNRWA, and quiet diplomacy via its office in Ramallah.



India has previously resisted U.S.-led unilateral ventures. In 2003, the Vajpayee government declined Washington’s request to send Indian troops to Iraq, reaffirming that peacekeeping must be conducted only under the UN framework.



Supporting Trump’s Board of Peace, would weaken India’s moral standing. Rather than endorsing it, New Delhi should press for its integration into the UN Department of Peace Operations ensuring a multilateral oversight, and accountability, in which Gaza is included.

Inside Trump’s Board of power                                                     

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/iran-s-reckoning-world-s-calculations/67486">Iran’s reckoning, world’s calculations</a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Firan-s-reckoning-world-s-calculations%2F67486&amp;title=Iran%E2%80%99s%20reckoning%2C%20world%E2%80%99s%20calculations" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



Iran is in the middle of the most serious political unrest it has seen since 1979, and it is increasingly hard to pretend that this is just another wave of protest that the system can absorb. Across Tehran, Shiraz and dozens of other cities, crowds that once protested economics are now openly challenging the Supreme leader and the ideological foundations of the theocratic state.



The Iranian government’s response has been brutal. Mass arrests, live ammunition, nationwide internet shutdowns and reports of death sentences are part of a crackdown that human rights groups say has killed thousands and detained tens of thousands more.



It is repression that only highlights a deeper fracture, between a sovereign that fears dissent and a society that feels unheard.



But Iran’s crisis is no longer contained within its borders. The world is watching and calculating.



The United States and Israel are watching Iran’s instability as a strategic opening. President Donald Trump’s talk of ‘regime change’ and warnings of military intervention may play well domestically, but they are reckless in this context. They risk turning a domestic political reckoning into an international confrontation and handing Iranian hardliners the narrative they depend on: the nation is under siege and dissent equals betrayal.



This does not protect protesters, it exposes them.



Trump slapping a 25 per cent tariff on countries trading with Iran signals pressure not just on Tehran but on the global partners that sustain its economy. That move drew swift criticism from China, which threatened retaliatory measures, picturing how Iran’s fate is entangled with broader Sino-American rivalry.



Within the US itself, calls for harsher action are emerging from influential quarters. Some US lawmakers have urged expansive military and cyber responses, framing Tehran’s crackdown as a threat to world order.



Israeli officials have spoken in support of the protests, calling them a fight for freedom. But their interest is also strategic. For Israel, unrest in Iran weakens a major regional rival. Comments from Israeli intelligence officials about activity inside Iran suggest the protests are being seen as an opportunity, not just a moral cause.



But Iran’s warnings to the US and Israel reflect this fear. Tehran knows that foreign involvement would change the nature of the crisis. A domestic protest movement would quickly turn into an international conflict. That shift would serve outside powers far more than it would help the people protesting on the streets.



Other global players are no less invested, even if they are quieter.



Both Russia and China have little interest in regime change and particularly in stability that weakens Western influence. For them, Iran is a strategic partner in energy, arms and diplomacy and also a useful counterweight to US power.&nbsp;They are likely to back the regime diplomatically, even as it bleeds legitimacy at home.



Europe has denounced Iran’s violent crackdown. The United Kingdom has pledged expanded sanctions on Tehran’s financial, energy and transport sectors in response to killings and arrests. Yet, for European leaders, disruption in Iran could exacerbate migration pressures, threaten energy supply dynamics and deepen geopolitical rivalry with Russia.



India’s stance has been quite cautious. The Ministry of External Affairs has urged Indian nationals to avoid travel to Iran and has informed that New Delhi is monitoring developments closely, but it has stopped short of overt criticism or strong support. That reflects India’s position as an energy partner and user of Iranian trade routes, particularly through Chabahar port.



Delhi’s priority is stability that secures energy and connectivity, not instability that threatens supply chains or regional security.



Iran’s unrest is not happening in a vacuum. Every major external actor is making moves shaped by strategic interests, not solidarity. What emerges is a familiar pattern. Iran’s internal crisis is being absorbed into the calculations of others.



Even the memory of “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests remains fresh. That movement exposed both the depth of public anger and the limits of repression. The current unrest builds on that unfinished crisis. It is broader, more openly political and less willing to accept symbolic concessions.



Iran now faces choices with lasting consequences. A violent crackdown may impose surface order but will deepen isolation and resentment. A collapse of authority risks instability and fragmentation. Foreign intervention would almost certainly escalate the crisis beyond Iran’s borders.



None of these outcomes are desirable. All of them are plausible. What is no longer plausible is a return to the old normal.



A society that no longer believes it is represented cannot be governed indefinitely through fear. A state that no longer listens eventually loses control over the story it tells about itself.



Iran’s future is being shaped in this moment, not only by what happens on its streets, but by how its rulers respond and how external powers choose to use this moment, especially Trump.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="683" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-1024x683.webp" alt="" class="wp-image-193" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-1024x683.webp 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-300x200.webp 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-768x512.webp 768w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-1536x1024.webp 1536w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/iran-protest-Mahsa-Amini-15-2048x1365.webp 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>

Iran’s reckoning, world’s calculations

If reform was genuinely the objective, the government could have introduced a MGNREGA 2.0 or strengthened the existing framework. Choosing instead to discard Gandhi’s name altogether points less to administrative necessity and more to a deliberate political statement, one that alters the scheme’s identity.



On December 18, barely three days after it was circulated, Parliament passed the Viksit Bharat Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-G RAM G Bill, replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The speed of the passage triggered protests from the Opposition and civil society, both of which accused the government of bypassing consultations on a law that affects millions of rural workers. But procedure aside, the larger issue is more basic: why did MGNREGA need to be replaced at all?



Minister of Rural Development, Shivraj Singh Chouhan defended the Bill as a “more effective, corruption-free, development-oriented” employment guarantee. The government argues that rural India has changed dramatically since 2005. Poverty has declined, infrastructure has expanded, and digital governance has changed welfare- delivery. In this telling, MGNREGA’s demand-driven design belongs to another era.



Some changes do sound reasonable. The Bill increases guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125, potentially raising household income by roughly 25 per cent. It introduced a sharper focus on building long-term assets in four sectors: water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihoods and climate-resilient projects. Farmers are expected to benefit from smoother labour availability, as states can pause public works for up to 60 days during sowing and harvest periods.



The Bill also promises predictable employment through Viksit Gram Panchayat plans, secure electronic wage payments with Aadhaar verification and unemployment allowance if work is not provided. These changes are clearly designed to improve planning and asset creation.



Between 2013-14 and 2025-26, women’s participation rose from 48 per cent to 56.7 per cent, Aadhaar-seeded workers increased from 7.6 million to 12.1 million, and e-payments rose from 37 per cent to near-universal coverage. Geo-tagged assets grew from zero to 64.4 million and individual assets tracked from 17.6 per cent to 62.9 per cent. Yet, serious issues persisted. Investigations in 19 districts of West Bengal found fake and misused funds; monitoring across 23 states uncovered missing or substandard work, machine substitutions for labour, and bypassed attendance.



In 2024-25 alone, misappropriation reached nearly&nbsp;Rs 194 crore and only 7.6 per cent of households completed 100 days of work after the pandemic. Despite these challenges, MGNREGA’s demand-driven design remains its defining strength. It made employment a right rather than a favour. By guaranteeing wages and offering work on demand, it strengthened labour bargaining power and set a floor beneath rural wages. Its flexibility allowed it to act as a stabiliser during COVID-19, when it sustained rural consumption and prevented widespread distress. Fixing these operational gaps was possible without dismantling the programme’s core logic.



But the Opposition’s criticism goes much deeper than this process.



Shashi Tharoor and several other MPs argue that the Bill violates Article 348 of the Constitution by pushing a Hindi-dominant title for a law meant to apply uniformly across India. The sharper controversy, however, centred on the renaming itself. Opposition leaders pointed out that while Mahatma Gandhi used Ram Rajya to talk about value and good governance, but invoking “RAM” now brings ideology and religion into the picture.



Well, if reform was genuinely the objective, the government could have introduced a MGNREGA 2.0 or strengthened the existing framework. Choosing instead to discard Gandhi’s name altogether points less to administrative necessity and more to a deliberate political statement, one that alters the scheme’s identity.



There are also serious federal concerns. The revised funding model shifts part of the financial burden to states, which the Opposition describes as unfair and fiscally irresponsible. At a time when states are already stretched, this change weakens their ability to respond to genuine demand for employment.



Central assurances of 60:40 cost-sharing (90:10 for North-eastern and Himalayan states, and 100 per cent funding for UTs without legislatures) do little to assuage worries about reduced flexibility or local planning authority.



The Bill’s labour provisions are perhaps a departure from MGNREGA’s philosophy. The 60-day no-work provision is framed as a practical measure to ensure labour availability during peak agricultural seasons. But it is also a retreat from the principle of the state as an employer of last resort. Under MGNREGA, workers could demand work as a right. VB-G RAM G makes work conditional, planned and partially capped. While it promises higher workdays and better asset creation, it quietly treats worker’s bargaining power as a problem to be managed rather than a feature to be preserved.



The broader question then is not about reform; rural employment policy can and should evolve. The question is why dismantle a programme that functioned effectively as a safety net for millions for rural households. MGNREGA’s flaws were real, but they could have been addressed through better monitoring, planning and digital tools. The government’s own statistics show improvements over the past decade.



What VB G-RAM G introduces is more controlled. Until the government answers all questions clearly—why a replacement was necessary, why the open-ended demand-driven design could not be retained, and why Gandhi’s name was removed—these&nbsp;uneasy question around VB-G RAM G will persist. Not because reform is unwelcome, but because replacing a proven, rights-based safety net demands far stronger justification than what Parliament has received.

Replacing MGNREGA: Was it necessary?

A few weeks ago at the APEC Summit, a familiar but confusing scene returned to global politics. US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, two leaders who are rewriting the rhythm of 21st century geopolitics, shared a moment that seemed to restore the idea of a “G-2” world. Both countries quietly acknowledged each other as the ultimate arbiters of power.



It was the return of ‘Chimerica’- a term coined by historian Niall Ferguson in the late 2006 to describe the symbiotic economic relationship that had developed between the United States and China. It captured how the U.S and China became economically interdependent- America driving global consumption and China powering global production. This fusion, which gained momentum after China’s economic reforms and entry into global markets, sustained worldwide growth for decades. The U.S spent, China saved and both benefitted.



Well, it may describe their interdependent relationship but now it is a more complicated coexistence.



Just days before this diplomatic spectacle, Washington and New Delhi signed a new 10-year defence framework. The deal, covering cooperation across land, air, sea, space and cyber domains was presented as a major milestone in India-U.S ties. But beneath the optics lies a more sobering reality.



The arrangement looks like a strategic partnership and more like a buyer-seller relationship. As Trump extends a hand to Beijing while selling arms to India, it becomes clear that U.S isn’t choosing between its tow Asian priorities. It is simply keeping both in play, an act of pure diplomatic dexterity.



Today, Trump’s second presidency has revived the idea of Chimerica in a play with a harder edge. His approach toward Beijing is not one of warm cooperation but of “competitive coexistence.” His recent Asia tour spanning Japan, South Korea and ASEAN alongside his engagement with Xi, shows a shift from full confrontation to selective engagement. Washington is learning to live with China while limiting its rise.



For Asian nations, this renewed Chimerica brings as much unease as opportunity. America’s approach seems to oscillate between tariffs and handshakes, sanctions and summits.



Trump’s style may be unpredictable, but his method is consistent: deal with rivals from a position of strength, keep allies close but dependent and ensure that U.S remains the indispensable power in Asia.



India’s position becomes uniquely delicate. The new 10-year defence agreement gives New Delhi access to advanced technologies and greater interoperability with U.S forces. Yet, India must ask- is it truly a co-author of this security architecture, or merely a consumer of it?



A partnership built on purchases cannot define India’s long-term security ambitions. What New Delhi needs is capability-building, not dependency.



Moreover, as the U.S juggles its engagement with both China and India. Washington’s larger strategy appears clear- contain Beijing without losing Beijing. The goal is to maintain competition without escalation. In that balance, India becomes both a partner and a pawn.



This is where India’s own diplomacy must evolve. Instead of being trapped in the binary of the U.S-China contest, New Delhi should look outward and sideways. Europe, Japan Brazil and ASEAN are no longer passive spectators in global politics. Each of these actors hold growing influence whether in trade, technology, or the climate transition.



Taking into account the recent developments, India must fast-track the India-EU free trade agreement and the Investment protection agreement, which is currently back on the negotiating table.



Second, Tokyo’s long-term investments in projects like the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor and bullet train show enduring trust. Strengthening these while expanding joint R&amp;D in clean energy and digital tech will make the partnership more strategic and self-reliant.



With Brazil, collaboration through BRICS and shared global south priorities can jointly push for fairer economic order.



And with ASEAN, India must revive its Act East policy by improving connectivity, trade links and maritime cooperation in the Indo-pacific. As ASEAN balances between the U.S and China, it values India’s neutrality and stability as well. Also, with Australia, India must secure critical minerals for its green industries and expand cooperation under the QUAD framework.



Together, such engagements can ensure that India isn’t trapped in either U.S-China rivalry or a new reviving bond, it must by all means emerge as a third pole of stability with shaping, not following this new bipolar world.



There is also a broader question: what does India’s strategic autonomy mean in this new order? It cannot simply mean staying non-aligned; it must be multi-aligned, engaging with all, dependent on none. That requires India to strengthen its indigenous defence production, invest in diplomacy that is both principled and pragmatic, and position itself as a bridge between the Global North and South.



Trump’s transactional worldview also offers India both a warning and an opening. The warning being that alliances built on convenience can quickly turn into liabilities. &nbsp;While the opening is that a power still exists between the two poles, and India can fill it not as a junior ally but a pole in it’s own right.



Well, the return of Chimerica may once again define the global balance of power. But this time, India’s task is not to pick sides but to build its own.

The Chimerica challenge for India                                                                                                   

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-populist-america-needs-today/61553">The populist America needs today</a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



It’s not every day that a Muslim of Indian origin becomes the mayor of the world’s richest city—New York. But today, Zohran Mamdani, born in Uganda to Indian parents, raised in Queens and long seen as an outsider in American politics, pulled off what many called impossible.



In a city built by immigrants but ruled by elites, a man who once rapped about inequality and later worked as a tenant organiser fighting evictions now holds keys to the city hall.



Mamdani’s victory isn’t just his own. It’s a mirror held up to America, a country still wrestling with what it means to be “American.”



In a political landscape fractured by polarisation between the populist right and an exhausted liberal establishment, Mamdani has found resonance by talking about something both sides often forget, the cost of living. His promises of free bus rides, rent freezes, public grocery stores, and universal childcare sound almost utopian to his critics, but to many ordinary New Yorkers burdened by rent hikes and long commutes, they ring as necessary, even overdue.



For nearly a decade, political populism in the United States has worn a single face that of Donald Trump. His “America first” rhetoric, nationalist nostalgia, and resentment-driven movement have defined one half of the nation’s mood. But Mamdani’s win represents a very different kind of populism—one built not on fear and exclusion, but on empathy and inclusion.



Mamdani’s campaign wasn’t about identity politics, though identity was impossible to ignore. His very presence challenged the unspoken hierarchies of American powers. Yet, what propelled him wasn’t his biography, but his politics; one of survival.



One tells his followers that they have been robbed by outsiders, the other tells his voters that they have been forgotten by insiders. It is a subtle but radical difference, the shift from populism as protectionism to populism as participation.



That Mamdani openly identifies himself as a Democratic Socialist would have seemed unthinkable in the America of even a decade ago. Yet it reflects the slow transformation of political imagination among young voters who came at age through crisis like 9/11, 2008 financial crash and the pandemic each, chipping away at the myth that capitalism alone guarantees freedom.



Mamdani has revived socialism not as an imported ideology, but as an American inheritance rooted in the labour struggles, anti-war movements, and civil rights campaigns that have long coexisted with capitalism’s glare.



Still, his rise has unsettled many in the party. Centrists fear that his identity and socialist economics will be used by Trumpist to stoke old cultural divides ahead of the 2026 midterms. Yet the left within the party sees Mamdani what the Democrats have long lacked; moral clarity.



He talks not about “unity” as a slogan but about justice as a material condition. His message of affordability and inclusion gives populism back its original democratic meaning.



In that sense, Mamdani’s victory is less a footnote in New York’s political history than a window into America’s ideological future. It suggests that populism need not always carry the smell of nationalism. It can instead, be the language of a new social contract, one that redefines “the people” not by who they exclude, but by what they endure together.



The MAGA movement made anger the grammar of American politics. Mamdani’s populism makes solidarity it’s syntax. Both claim to speak for “the forgotten,” but only one seeks to ensure that no one is forgotten again.

The populist America needs today

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/act-east-deliver-east/61063">Act east, deliver east</a>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading"></h3>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



In the soft-lit hills of Kuala Lumpur, Southeast Asia’s leaders gathered this October to take stock of an unsettled world. The 47th&nbsp;ASEAN Summit hosted by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, carried both promise and paradox of Asia’s regional diplomacy.



Under the theme of “inclusivity and sustainability,” the three-day deliberation sought to reimagine Asia’s regional order, one that must now adapt to the slow erosion of multilateral trust.



Among the summit’s tangible outcomes, something became historic: Timor-Leste’s induction as ASEAN’s 11th&nbsp;member. The move was symbolic of ASEAN’s expanding horizons and the bloc’s continued relevance as a bridge across the Indo-pacific. Yet, amid the handshakes and declarations, the conversation in diplomatic circles revolved around the chair left empty by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.



Modi’s virtual participation at the summit sparked more speculation than his speech. His absence was read not as neglect but as a strategic signal, one that left many wondering whether India, which once championed the ‘Act East’ slogan is now content to act virtually.



To his credit, Modi’s address did not lack substance. He described ASEAN as the ‘cultural capital of India,’ reiterating, during civilisational links that anchor India’s eastern outreach. He stressed that even in this “era of uncertainties,” the ASEAN-India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership continues to serve as a foundation for global stability.



The declaration of 2026 as the ASEAN-India Year of Maritime Cooperation underlined Delhi’s growing investment in maritime security, counter-piracy operations, and cyber-resilience across shared waters. These are vital for India, given that nearly 80 per cent of its energy imports flow through ASEAN-controlled routes such as the Malacca Strait.



There were other signs of progress, too. Both sides agreed to expediate the modernisation of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA), a critical move as India’s trade deficit with ASEAN has widened alarmingly, from $9.6 billion in 2016-17 to $43.5 billion in 2022-23. The India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway and Kaladan multi-modal transport project, long symbolic of India’s sluggish project diplomacy, reappeared in joint statements, this time with promises of renewed speed.



Meanwhile, digital cooperation has emerged as a new frontier. India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has drawn admiration across ASEAN for its accessibility and reliability. The first ASEAN-India Track 1 Cyber Policy Dialogue was also welcomed, setting up structured channels for tackling cyber threats, a sign that the partnership is finally venturing into 21st&nbsp;century domains rather than lingering on the 20th&nbsp;century rhetoric.



Officially, the Ministry of External Affairs attributed PM Modi’s absence to scheduling conflicts, the Diwali season and Bihar elections.



According to Professor Rajan Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University, the absence might reflect unease over stalled trade negotiations with the US, especially after President Trump’s 50 per cent tariff hike on Indian imports and Washington’s sanctions on Russian firms integral to India’s energy supply. In that context, a face-to face encounter might have been diplomatically uncomfortable.



Still, India was far from absent. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar represented the country, holding substantive bilateral meetings with his Malaysian, Singaporean and Thai counterparts. Yet, the “empty chair” had its own symbolism.



In the lexicon of geopolitics, “diplomacy of presence” matters, the sheer act of being there can shape discussions, perceptions, and hierarchies. An unoccupied seat can be louder than a statement.



Well, India’s engagement with ASEAN remains one of the more consistent threads of its foreign policy. It aligns neatly with Delhi’s Act East Policy, seeking to turn India from a South Asian power into a broader Indo-Pacific actor. For ASEAN too, India offers something unique: a democratic counterweight in a region often defined by US-China contestation.



Unlike Beijing or Washington, Delhi doesn’t seek to dominate ASEAN’s decision making. Its policy supports ASEAN centrality the idea that Southeast Asia, not external partners, should lead its regional agenda. That humility has given India quiet but durable credibility within ASEAN capitals.



Yet, substance must keep peace with sentiment as well. India has been slow to deliver on infrastructure promises and trade facilitation. While projects like the Trilateral Highway remains unfinished, China’s belt and road initiative continues to reshape the region’s connectivity map.



If India wants to be seen as a reliable partner rather than a distant admirer, execution must replace declarations.



Economically, ASEAN represents India’s fourth-largest trading partner and a key pillar in its effort to diversify supply chains away from China. But to move from potential to power, India needs sustained investment, private sector push and trade predictability, not just rhetoric of friendship.



The Kuala Lumpur summit reaffirmed that ASEAN-India relations are not faltering, they are evolving sometimes unevenly, but there does exist a strategic purpose.



The shared agenda on digital finance, cybersecurity and maritime governance shows that cooperation is moving into newer, more pragmatic spaces.



However, India’s challenge is one of consistency and presence. The Indo-Pacific is not shaped only in war rooms or treaties but through the quiet choreography of constant engagement.



If India wants the 21st&nbsp;century to truly be the “India-ASEAN Century,” as PM Modi declared. The region is watching not just for India’s words, but for its willingness to show up consistently, credibly and confidently.

Act east, deliver east

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/why-gen-z-protests-are-shaking-the-world/59502">Why Gen Z protests are shaking the world</a>



Unlike their predecessors, Gen Z is not content with gradual change. They have grown up in a digital world where progress is instantaneous and transparency is expected. Their protests are organised online, powered by memes, videos and digital solidarity. The internet is not just their stage; it is their weapon.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhy-gen-z-protests-are-shaking-the-world%2F59502&amp;text=Why%20Gen%20Z%20protests%20are%20shaking%20the%20world" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Why%20Gen%20Z%20protests%20are%20shaking%20the%20world%20https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhy-gen-z-protests-are-shaking-the-world%2F59502" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhy-gen-z-protests-are-shaking-the-world%2F59502" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fwhy-gen-z-protests-are-shaking-the-world%2F59502&amp;title=Why%20Gen%20Z%20protests%20are%20shaking%20the%20world" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



For years, the world watched the protests erupted from Hong Kong to Cairo marking 2019 as the so-called “year of protest.” But in 2025, a different kind of uprising has taken shape. This time, it is much younger, sharper, and more connected.



From Nepal to Indonesia, the Philippines to Morocco and Madagascar, a restless generation has taken to the streets, transforming frustration into defiance. Experts are calling it the wave of ‘Gen Z protests,’ and it may redefine how dissent looks in the modern age.



The sparks that ignite these protests differ from one country to another, yet the underlying fire is the same: anger over poor governance, inequality, corruption and a future that feels increasingly out of reach. In Nepal, the outrage began with a government-imposed social media ban that was quickly reversed, but not before triggering a nationwide reckoning. For a generation raised online, the ban was not just an attack on communication but a silencing of identity and expression.



It became the final straw in a long history of corruption, nepotism, and political failure. Prime Minister Oli’s resignation soon followed, exposing a deep disillusionment among young Nepalis who feel their democracy has been hijacked by the elite.



In Indonesia and the Philippines, the frustration runs parallel over widening inequality, soaring youth unemployment, and an economy that no longer guarantees dignity. Many young people are working multiple low-paying jobs, watching the promise of education dissolve into a market that no longer rewards effort.



A recent World Bank update highlights that one in seven people in China and Indonesia is unemployed, and that much of the region’s job creation has shifted from factories to unstable service work. The ladder that once lifted millions into the middle class has started to crack.



In Morocco, protests have flared up around social justice reforms and the state of public services. The country’s youth are furious that billions of dollars are being pushed into hosting the 2030 FIFA World Cup while healthcare, education, and transport systems remain broken. To them, it is not just about sports, it is about misplaced priorities.



The glittering stadiums are being built on the back of neglect. The government’s vision of progress feels hollow when water shortages, unemployment and social inequality persist.







Across the Indian ocean, in Madagascar, young protesters are demanding something even more basic: electricity and clean water. The island nation faces an ironic dilemma, while political elites make grand promises of development, ordinary families continue to suffer from erratic power cuts and unreliable water supplies, often left in darkness and neglect.



What unites these different uprisings is not just ideology, but exhaustion, a generation that feels cheated by those who claim to lead them.



Well, it’s quite clear that this generation does not want symbolic reforms or slow-moving promises. They want results they are visible.



Unlike their predecessors, Gen Z is not content with gradual change. They have grown up in a digital world where progress is instantaneous and transparency is expected. Their protests are organised online, powered by memes, videos and digital solidarity. The internet is not just their stage; it is their weapon.



Every government scandal, every instance of elite privilege, every broken promise becomes public within seconds.



Older generations often dismiss this as performative outrage, but it is much deeper than that. For Gen Z, activism is survival. They are fighting for jobs, dignity and relevance in systems that continue to exclude them. Their rebellion is not simply about demanding reforms; it is about reclaiming agency in societies that ignore them.



In many ways Gen Z protests of 2025 are not just reactions to crisis; they are reflections of a larger global fatigue. The world has been living through years of economic uncertainty, climate anxiety and political stagnation. For young people who have inherited these challenges, protest is not a choice it has become a necessity.



What is happening in these parts of the world is not chaos, it is clarity. These protests reveal a generation that refuses to wait, one that demands accountability now, not later.



Governments can either listen or continue to pretend that stability is the same as peace. But the truth is clear: this generation is no longer asking for permission to change the world, it is already doing it.

Why Gen Z protests are shaking the world

The article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-s-role-in-the-new-gaza-peace/59001">As the first phase of US president Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza gains traction, with both Hamas and Israel cautiously signing onto its initial framework, a new moment of reckoning arises not just for the region but for India, whose interests and ideals converge at the heart of Gaza’s fragile peace.</a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



As the first phase of US president Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza gains traction, with both Hamas and Israel cautiously signing onto its initial framework, a new moment of reckoning arises not just for the region but for India, whose interests and ideals converge at the heart of Gaza’s fragile peace.



The plan, which emphasises large-scale international investment in water, energy, health, and infrastructure, has drawn careful support from the European Union and several Arab states, including Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.



While many remain concerned over the absence of a clear timeline for Israel’s withdrawal, the momentum itself is significant. Prime Minister Modi welcomed the plan as “decisive progress” and a “significant step forward,” signaling India’s willingness to see stability return to Gaza after years of destruction and despair.



For India, peace in Gaza is not an abstract moral issue but a question deeply linked to its historical diplomacy, energy security, and regional aspirations.&nbsp;New Delhi’s engagement with the Palestinian question predates its own independence. 



In 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru ensured India’s participation in the UN&nbsp;Special Committee on Palestine, where India defied the Western bloc to support a single federal state with Arab and Jewish provinces, a stance consistent with its postcolonial belief in coexistence and self-determination.



In the following decades, India extended sustained financial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and contributed troops to successive UN peacekeeping missions, including the UN Emergency Force in the Suez and Sinai, where Indian soldiers even lost their lives during the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict.



India’s solidarity with the Palestinian cause has never been merely symbolic. In 1988, it became one of the first non-Arab nations to recognise the State of Palestine, a step that many Western democracies only began contemplating decades later. Yet, the early 1990s marked a recalibration. When India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, it was not a repudiation of its commitment to Palestine but a response to the changing geopolitical order.



The Madrid Peace Conference has brought new players to the table, and India, wary of being excluded from the evolving peace process, adjusted its strategy to engage with both sides. Since then, India has attended donor conferences, participated in UN committees on Palestinian rights, and provided development assistance and technical training to the Palestinian Authority (PA), while simultaneously building robust defence, agricultural, and technology partnerships with Israel.



This dual approach, combining principled support for Palestinian sovereignty with pragmatic engagement with Israel, has been the defining feature of India’s Middle East policy for over three decades.



India has repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms, including attacks on Israeli civilians, while also expressing concern when Israel’s military operations inflict civilian suffering in Gaza. Its response to the recent conflict, particularly after the airstrikes near Doha, was carefully worded but deliberate, reiterating the need to respect international humanitarian law and resume dialogue toward a two-state solution.



At the heart of India’s interest in the new Gaza plan lies not just diplomacy but economics as well. With the Abraham Accords reshaping West Asia, India finds itself part of a new cooperative architecture that bridges both Israel and the Gulf.



The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), announced in 2023, exemplifies this shift, a project linking India’s ports to the Gulf, Israel, and onward to Europe through rail and maritime routes. Its success depends on regional stability.



A peaceful Gaza, integrated into a broader framework of reconstruction and trade, directly serves India’s interests in securing energy supplies, ensuring uninterrupted trade flows, and maintaining safe conditions for over eight million Indians living and working in the Gulf region, whose remittances exceed $40 billion annually.



Israel’s ambassador to India recently suggested that New Delhi should take an active role in Gaza’s reconstruction, citing India’s expertise in infrastructure, water management, and digital governance. Indian companies such as Larsen &amp; Toubro and Tata Projects have already demonstrated their capacity to execute large-scale civil works across the Middle East.



India’s engagement in the region would not only consolidate the nation’s image as a development partner but also reinforce its credentials as a responsible power capable of constructive mediation.



Beyond economic calculations, India’s participation would resonate with its broader foreign policy doctrine, one that blends strategic autonomy with normative leadership. As a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, India has historically positioned itself as a bridge between the Global North and South.



Today, that legacy continues through new minilateral groupings such as the I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, United States), which promote cooperation in food, energy, and innovation. By constructively engaging in Gaza’s recovery while upholding Palestinian sovereignty, India can project itself as a moderating force that values peace without partisanship.



However, the path ahead demands caution. Aligning too closely with the Israeli or American approach could alienate traditional Arab partners, especially those sensitive to Palestinian sovereignty.



The challenge for India, therefore, is to sustain a credible middle course one that upholds humanitarian principles while remaining anchored in realpolitik.



In Gaza’s fragile future, India’s role could go beyond financial assistance. Its record in peacekeeping, institution building, and capacity training makes it uniquely positioned to help restore basic governance, healthcare, and education systems.



Indian NGOs and development agencies, working alongside UN bodies, could contribute to skill-building programmes that empower Palestinian youth and reduce dependence on aid.



From Nehru’s moral idealism to Modi’s pragmatic outreach, India’s policy on Palestine and Israel has been marked by adaptation without abandonment. The new Gaza peace plan presents yet another test of that balance.



Whether India chooses to remain a cautious observer or an active participant in reconstruction will reveal how it defines power in the twenty-first century.

India’s role in the new Gaza peace

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/rethinking-free-speech-through-sahyog/58111">Rethinking free speech through Sahyog</a>



Sahyog can serve public good but only if backed by transparency, statutory clarity and judicial review. Otherwise, it will remain a contested experiment seen by some as shield against cybercrime and by others as a step toward state overreach.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Frethinking-free-speech-through-sahyog%2F58111&amp;text=Rethinking%20free%20speech%20through%20Sahyog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Rethinking%20free%20speech%20through%20Sahyog%20https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Frethinking-free-speech-through-sahyog%2F58111" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Frethinking-free-speech-through-sahyog%2F58111" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Frethinking-free-speech-through-sahyog%2F58111&amp;title=Rethinking%20free%20speech%20through%20Sahyog" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



From the very beginning, India’s free speech story has been a push and pull between expansive liberty and cautious regulation. When the framers of India’s Constitution enshrined freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), they understood that democracy thrives on debate, disagreement and dissent. Yet they built in caveats; Article 19(2) that permits the State to impose “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of sovereignty, public order, morality and security.



In this regard, the Supreme Court has often stepped in. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), it struck down a ban on a political journal, declaring that freedom of speech lay “at the foundation of all democratic organisation.” In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), it famously scrapped Section 66A of the IT Act, holding that vague powers to police online speech violated constitutional guarantees.



Time and again, the judiciary has stressed: restrictions must be narrowly tailored, reasoned and subject to oversight. Which brings us today to the Sahyog portal. Launched by the Union IT Ministry last year, it is a centralised digital platform through which government agencies and police can issue takedown requests to social media intermediaries. Officially designed to combat cybercrime and harmful online content, it allows authorities to flag and demand removal of posts directly.



The controversy arises because critics argue that the portal bypasses the safeguards of Section 69A, operates in secrecy and risks enabling censorship.



Yet, in a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court took a different view: it upheld the government’s use of this digital tool, dismissing X Corporation’s plea that labelled the system “extra-legal censorship&#8221;, and instead described the portal as “an instrument of public good” and a “beacon of cooperation” against online harms, and that it is a cooperative mechanism to tackle cybercrime.



Soon after, Elon Musk’s company declared it was “deeply concerned,” warning that Sahyog allows millions of officers to demand removals in secrecy, bypassing safeguards of Section 69A, infringing on constitutional rights.



So, is this really censorship?



Supporters say this is not an arbitrary censorship but enforcement. The internet is flooded with deepfakes, child exploitation material, hate campaigns and frauds. Harm spreads at the speed of a click, while legal blocking orders often take weeks. A centralised portal, they argue, makes cooperation efficient, protects victims swiftly and reflects the State’s duty to maintain public order.



Seen in this light, Sahyog is a policing tool against criminal misuse not a muzzle on political dissent.



The high court’s view fits this reasoning: challenging the portal is, in its words to ‘misunderstand its very purpose.’



Yet critics, civil society, legal scholars and X see danger in how Sahyog operates. Unlike Section 69A, which requires reasoned, reviewable orders, Sahyog enables opaque takedown requests. No public record, no notice to users, no guaranteed oversight. This, they argue is ‘arbitrary censorship,’ not in its declared intent, but in its unchecked potential.



The real threat is that an officer in one corner of the country could order content down in another, with the citizen left unaware of the grounds. Genuine dissent or inconvenient reporting may vanish under the same framework meant to remove harmful content. When removals happen without transparency, it often seems as silencing even if done unintentionally.



Well, censorship is not always about intent, but also about a process. A system that removes content without reasoned orders, without notice, and without accountability resembles censorship in practice, even if born of noble objectives. Sahyog, as currently designed, can risks blurring that line.



The government insists that “the Constitution wins.” Musk insists that free expression is under threat. The truth lies in neither extreme. Sahyog can serve public good but only if backed by transparency, statutory clarity and judicial review. Otherwise, it will remain a contested experiment seen by some as shield against cybercrime and by others as a step toward state overreach.



India’s constitutional journey has always been about negotiating liberty and restraint. Whether Sahyog becomes a cooperative safeguard or a creeping censor will depend less on its technology, and more on how faithfully it is made to follow the spirit of Article 19.

Rethinking free speech through Sahyog

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/will-ladakh-s-demands-finally-be-met/57593">Will Ladakh’s demands finally be met?</a>



Ladakh is simmering, and the latest violence has brought long-standing frustrations to a head. Four people have been killed, at least 50 injured and a community once known for it’s peaceful strikes now find itself in the eye of a storm.



Well, the spark is clear: demands for statehood and the extension of Sixth Schedule protections, issues that go beyond politics and strike at the heart of identity, autonomy, and democracy in this fragile Himalayan region.



Climate activist Sonam Wangchuck, who had been on a hunger strike for 35 days in solidarity with Ladakhi’s demands, called off his fast amid escalating tensions. The unrest erupted just days before talks were scheduled between the Centre and the Leh Apex Body on October 6, after a four-month haitus, with reports suggesting that Wangchuck was deliberately sidelined, seen as a stumbling block by the authorities. One might wonder, is there a better way to bridge communication gaps in such sensitive negotiations?



Frustration runs deep. Locals feel promises made in previous elections have gathered dust, and with national elections looming, patience has worn thin.



The roots of Ladakh’s unrest lie in a democratic deficit. When Article 370 was abrogated in 2019, Jammu and Kashmir retained a legislative assembly but Ladakh was left without any local governing body. Control over land and other powers was stripped away, leaving residents voiceless&nbsp; in matters that affect their daily lives. This is not mere political tussle; it is a fight for recognition, representation and survival.



The demands being voiced are measured, residents seek recognition by including the territory under Sixth Schedule that confers judicial, legislative and executive powers similar to those enjoyed in the north-eastern regions of Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura and Assam. Additional requests include job reservations for locals and an increase to two parliamentary seats to ensure regional perspectives are represented at the national level.



These are not demands for special treatment, but a call for balanced governance and equitable representation. But at the same time, it begs the question, how can such aspirations be harmonised with wiser administrative and strategic considerations.



Well, the government has taken steps in response. Measures include 85% job reservations for local, one-third of seats in hill development councils reserved for women, and the formation of a high-powered committee under the Ministry of Home Affairs to engage with leaders from both Leh and Kargil. Yet, challenges remain with the path forward requiring careful navigation.



However, several factors make resolution a nuanced endeavour. Constitutional and legal complexities exist, given the distinct religious, cultural and economic interests of Leh and Kargil. Implementation gaps and limited clarity in administrative mechanisms can slow outcomes, and the strategic location of Ladakh, bordering China and Pakistan adds layers of national security considerations as well.



Economic implications too, are tangible: tourism, a key source of revenue, could face disruption, with effects on regional and national GDP. Beyond economics, the question of cultural preservation remains central as well: how can infrastructure and development be planned so that heritage, language and traditions of the region are respected.



Yet, what stands out in this situation is the continued commitment to dialogue and peaceful engagement. Patience has been a recurring theme, even in the face of prolonged uncertainty. And with any situation where expectations meet reality, tensions inevitably rise. This makes structured engagement, thoughtful negotiation and clarity of intent more important than ever.



The situation calls for measured steps, informed dialogue, and a shared vision for the region’s development. These considerations strike at the core of democratic practice in regions with unique histories and geographies.



But the answer to whether Ladakh’s demands will finally be met remains uncertain.



The coming weeks will be crucial in determining if trust gets rebuilt. The real challenge lies in proving whether considered steps can strengthen both local representation and national cohesion, while upholding what India is built upon, “unity in diversity.” Until then, it remains a story one of simmering protests, promises and a long watchful wait of a region yearning for clarity.

Will Ladakh demands finally be met?

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-american-dream-crumbles/57109">The American dream crumbles</a>



In quintessential Trump fashion, the US president has yet again upended millions of Indian aspirations with a single stroke of the pen. His latest executive order, hiking the H-1B visa fee to a staggering $1,00,000 has sent shockwaves through India’s tech corridors and diaspora communities.



This move will impact countless Indians, many of whom may be forced to return to India only to face unemployment and frustration, feeing both berefit and disillusioned. For countless engineers, scientists, and innovators, the “American dream” long considered a gateway to global opportunity now seems painfully out of reach.



The H-1B program, which issues 65,000 visas annually for specialised foreign workers and another 20,000 for advanced-degree holders, has traditionally been dominated by Indians, who account for 70% of all approved beneficiaries. Previously, the visa fee was roughly $965; Trump’s new proclamation has pushed it to $1,00,000, or over ₹88 lakh an astronomical increase that makes working in the US a near-impossible proposition for most.



The fallout is immediate and multifaceted. Industry leaders warn of disruptions for major IT companies such as Infosys, TCS and Wipro, particularly for onshore projects in the US that rely heavily on Indian talent. Bikram Chabhal, president of the Association of Visa and IELTS Centres, cautioned that Indians will bear the brunt of this policy shift. Social media is awash with panic, resignation and debate.



One X user lamented, “Trump just killed the H-1B. The American dream of Indian techies is over.” Another warned of cascading effects on India’s domestic job market, as returning professionals confront limited opportunities.



Yet, amid the panic, there is a silver lining one that India must seize with strategic clarity. Former NITI Ayog CEO Amitabh Kant has suggested that this disruption could become a catalyst for India’s innovation ecosystem. With top-tier engineers, scientists, and innovators potentially redirected back home, India now has a rare opportunity to leverage global talent for domestic development.



Tech hubs like Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune and Gurgaon could witness an influx of highly skilled professionals, enhancing research and development capabilities, fostering startups and strengthen country’s position in the global technology market. What the US loses, India could gain.



However, to truly capitalise on this opportunity, India must address both the push factors driving talent abroad and the pull factors that have historically drawn them to the U.S. Push factors include stagnant wages, limited research infrastructure and bureaucratic hurdles within India. Pull factors of the US encompass higher salaries, access to cutting-edge technology, global exposure and a sense of meritocratic mobility. While the US has historically offered these pull factors, India can begin to create its own ecosystem that mitigates the push factors.



By improving wages in the tech sector, streamlining regulations, and creating incentives for innovation-driven startups, India can offer an alternative to its professionals.



Diplomacy is equally critical. Trump’s impulsive actions which have unsettled even countries with longstanding agreements highlight the unpredictable nature of US policy, India must engage strategically, treating the H-1B fee hike as a temporary shock rather than a permanent rupture.



Experts suggest leveraging high-level dialogues, such as the US-India strategic and commercial dialogue, to highlight mutual benefits : Indian talent strengthens US companies while promoting cross-border innovation.



India can engage industry and trade bodies like NASSCOM, CII and FICCI to present data-backed concerns about the impact on ongoing projects. Constructive proposals such as tiered visa fees linked to salary levels, project-specific exemptions or skill-sharing commitments can align with US priorities while protecting Indian interests.



Social reactions capture the spectrum&nbsp; of emotions: panic, disappointment, cautious optimism and pragmatic reflection. Some express relief at the prospect of focusing on domestic opportunities rather than navigating US immigration whims, while others warn of potential job market pressure if professionals return en masse.



The key lies in foresight, that is, transforming disruption into opportunity.



Trump may have shattered millions of Indian dreams, but India now faces a historic opportunity. Because, Trump has been famously described as a ‘transactional leader’, extreme policies like the H-1B fee hike and his MAGA-driven moves are part of his broader playbook.



Rather than trying to change what Trump will do, India must focus on strengthening its own factors.



The question remains; will India rise to the occasion, or will it allow a foreign policy shock to dictate its technological destiny?

The American dream crumbles

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/london-s-identity-in-question-are-indians-at-risk/56431">London’s identity in question, are Indians at risk?</a>



On a September weekend, central London became a stage of tense spectacle. A tide of Union Jacks and St George’s crosses swept through the streets, led by far-right activist Tommy Robinson under the banner of “Unite the Kingdom.” More than 1,50,000 people reportedly participating, this was one of Britain’s largest anti-immigration demonstrations in recent years. 



What transpired was more than a protest. It was a reminder that immigration has become the flashpoint of our times, capable of mobilizing crowds, unsettling governments and shaping the future of millions including the large Indian diaspora. The question many are quietly asking now is: Should Indians be worried?



Indians are the largest non-UK ethnic group in London, numbering over 6,50,000 in Greater London. British Indians own over 65,000 businesses in the UK, contributing to roughly £60 billion annually to tits economy. Almost 1 in 10 NHS doctors in the UK is of Indian origin. Whereas, Indian students make up one of the largest international student groups in the UK, with more than 1,40,000 Indian students enrolled in British universities in 2023-24, bringing billions in tuition and local spending.



The rally was framed as a show of patriotism, but immigration was the central grievance. Placards blared “Send them home” and “Stop the boats.” The rhetoric was unmistakably hostile towards migrants, particularly Muslims, though the undertone extended to anyone perceived as an “outsider.” Violence erupted when protestors clashed with police, injuring 26 officers.



London’s Muslim population is around 15%, heavily concentrated in boroughs like Newham, Tower Hamlets and Brent. Far-right activists portray this concentration as a “threat to British identity.”



Debates around halal food in schools, mosque construction or visible symbols like the hijab are exploited by right-wing groups as evidence of cultural erosion. Wars in Afghanistan, Syria and more recently the Israel-Gaza conflict have fed into anti-Muslim sentiment with Muslims abroad often conflated with Muslims at home.



Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the march as divisive, insisting Britain “will not surrender its flag to those who use it as a symbol of fear.” But the event’s scale, intensity and rapid spread across social media suggested something deeper: anti-immigration sentiment is no longer fringe. It is mainstreaming.



Economic anxieties, housing shortages and stretched public services are easy scapegoats. Security concerns, often fuelled by sensationalist reporting, add another layer. But perhaps the most significant driver is political entrepreneurship, activists like Robinson know how to weaponise frustration into mobilisation. Online misinformation then turbocharges the anger, transforming digital discontent into street protests.



London’s rally is part of a global pattern. Just last month, tens of thousands marched in Australia under the banner of “March for Australia,” while protests over asylum housing have surged in the United States. Across Europe, demonstration in Berlin, Warsaw, and Dublin echo similar themes. Migration politics is now transnational, and Britain’s far-right plugged into these global currents.



For Indians, the implications are complicated. On the one hand, the Indian diaspora in the UK is one of the country’s most successful immigrant communities being economically stable, politically active and culturally visible. But success does not immunise against xenophobia.



History has shown how quickly minorities can become collateral damage when anti-immigration rhetoric boils over.



Indians may not be specific targets of Robinson’s campaign, but visibility itself is enough. Past attacks on Indian students in Australia and racist assaults on South Asian workers in the UK illustrates how quickly resentment can translate into violence.



Beyond physical safety, social climate matters as well. Discrimination in jobs, housing, or even public spaces can intensify during such surges. For young students and workers without strong community support, this can be isolating.



India has often had to step in when its nationals abroad face hostility. Advisories, consular interventions and public outcry in India can strain ties with the host nations.



It is not alarmist to say that Indians should be cautious. But caution must not turn into a constant fear. After all, Britain is also a place where Indian-origin leaders hold office, where Bollywood films run in packed theatres and where Indian businesses thrive. Even its official national dish, chicken tikka masala, has Indian roots, a reminder of how deeply the community has shaped British life.



The chants of “we want our country back” are not just about border control, they reflect an identity crisis in Western democracies struggling to balance globalisation with local anxieties. For Britain, this identity debate is especially charged post-Brexit. The promise of taking back control of borders was a defining feature of the Leave campaign, yet migration numbers remain high due to labour shortages.



Far-right figures are now exploiting this perceived “failure” to whip up anger.



Well, Indian in the UK and elsewhere should respond with awareness rather than fear by staying alert to their surroundings, keeping close to community networks and recognising when immigration becomes a political flashpoint. For students and young professionals, this means being prepared for shifts in visa rules or public mood that can arise during election seasons.



At the same time, India’s diplomatic role will grow in importance. Protecting its citizens abroad must remain central to its foreign policy.



Anti-immigration marches may chant “send them home,” but the truth is Indians have already made Britain their home. From students to entrepreneurs, they contribute to the economy, culture and public life. As long as they remain as asset, not a threat, to the society they live in they should not be worried, though they must remain watchful of shifting political winds.

London’s identity in question, are Indians at risk?                                                                      

This article has been published with <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/nepal-s-double-uprising-revolt-and-exodus/56009">Nepal’s double uprising: Revolt and exodus</a>



Nepal is today at an inflection point. The Himalayan republic, long accustomed to political instability has rarely faced a moment this stark: the biggest youth revolt in its history colliding with the largest exodus of its people abroad. The first is noisy, combustible and impossible to ignore. The second is quieter, but no less devastating. Both are rebellions, different in form but identical in essence, against a state that has failed to deliver.



The eruption of protests last month, triggered by a government ban on 26 social media platforms, was unlike anything Nepal has seen in decades. What began as an outrage over digital censorship spiralled into a generational uprising. Demonstrations spread across all 77 district capitals, claiming at least 19 lives in Kathmandu alone.



Parliament and power centres burned, five former Prime Minister’s residences were vandalised, and Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar, wife of former PM Jhala Nath Khanal, died from severe burns after her house was torched. While Finance Minister Dhakal was stripped and paraded in public; Foreign Minister Deuba sustained injuries.



This was not the palace intrigue of the past, nor the elite factional battles Nepalis have grown weary of. This was something more, a mass demand for accountable governance, credible constitutional reform and institutions that inspire trust. For Nepal’s Gen Z, the ban on TikTok or WhatsApp was merely the spark. The fire has been smouldering for years, fuelled by corruption, inequality and the absence of dignified work opportunities.



A day after police opened fire on young demonstrators, Kathmandu was engulfed in flames. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned, and President Ram Chandra Paudel went into hiding under army protection.



The ban on social media was hastily lifted, but the damage was already done. The youth of Nepal had issued their verdict: The system is broken and patience has run out.



Yet, if the protest is a loud rebellion, migration is the quite one, perhaps even more telling. More than 4,00,000 Nepalis leave each year, an average of 10,000 departures a day. They hollow out the very demographic that should be building Nepal’s future, sustaining their families and the economy through remittances while abandoning the political order they no longer believe in.



The absent, in effect, are financing a system they refuge to inhabit. World Bank report underlines this paradox—82 per cent of Nepal’s workforce remains trapped in informal employment, far above global and regional averages. For many, leaving is less of a choice than an act of survival.



Nepal’s politics have long been a theatre of instability. Fourteen governments since 2008; none completing a full term. The Maoist insurgency of 1996 claimed 17,000 lives in its attempt to overthrow the monarchy. The 2008 abolition of the royal order was supposed to herald a people’s republic. The 2015 constitution was hailed as a landmark. And yet, KP Sharma Oli, a nationalist, populist, survivor, cycled in and out of office four times between 2015 and 2024 only to fall once again in 2025.



The pattern is depressingly familiar, tactical manoeuvring among three dominant parties, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Maoist Centre at the expense of structural reform.



Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) continues his balancing act. Sher Bahadur Deuba struggles for relevance. Meanwhile, power circulates among the same aging elites, their children flaunting privilege on social media while ordinary citizens struggle with unemployment, rising costs, and climate vulnerability. The gap between rulers and ruled has become unbridgeable.



For Gen Z, who have grown up on promises of democracy but experiences little of its substance, this political theatre has lost all legitimacy. “Nepobabies” trend online as shorthand for the dynastic impunity of Nepal’s political class. What matters to them is not ideology but the lived reality of jobs, dignity and opportunity, all of which are in short supply.



This convergence of revolt and exodus is existential. A country that loses its youth either to martyrdom in the streets or to migration risks eroding its national security.



The government’s use of excessive force did not just provoke fury; it confirmed suspicions that the system is corrupt, stagnant and unwilling to listen. The resignation of Oli only deepens the vacuum, inviting shifting alliances that promise more of the same paralysis.







And here lies the danger, rebellion without reform hardens despair. If the protests fizzle into yet another cycle of unstable governments, while the exodus continues unabated, Nepal risks hollowing itself out.



For India, Nepal’s turbulence is not a distant spectacle but a pressing concern. The movement of people and ideas across the border are too close to break. Instability in Nepal inevitably spills into Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim and Uttarakhand. A large-scale exodus would intensify pressure that India is already struggling with, such as employment shortages, social friction and migration management.



The fall of Oli bears uncomfortable parallels with Bangladesh last year, where the collapse of the Sheikh Hasina government left spaces for anti-India narratives to flourish. If New Delhi mishandles its engagement with Kathmandu, it risks a similar backlash. The stakes are stark, a neighbour either renewed or unravelled.



India cannot dictate Nepal’s fate. But it can choose to engage wisely. That means listening not just to Kathmandu’s elites but to Nepal’s youth, who are demanding accountability, opportunity and dignity. It means demonstrating through aid, trade and people-to-people ties, that India hears Nepal’s young voices rather than ignoring them. And it means resisting the temptation to back shifting political alliances without regard for their democratic legitimacy.



For Nepal, the way forward requires more than cosmetic changes. The constitution of 2015 must be reinvigorated with credible reforms that strengthen institutions and protect rights. Parties must rise above tactical rivalry and commit to structural transformation such as education reform, job creation, curbing corruption and making government transparent.



For India, the imperative is to support Nepal’s democratic renewal, not its decay. This is not merely about geopolitics or China’s growing footprint in South Asia. It is about the recognition that when a Neighbour’s youth cry out in the streets or by leaving, it is a cry that reverberates across borders.



Nepal today stands at a crossroads. If its leaders keep fighting among themselves while the youth either protest on the streets or leave the country, Nepal risks becoming a republic without a future. But if both the loud revolt and the quiet rebellion are taken seriously, the country still has a chance to rebuild itself.



For India, the choice is just as clear, it can either watch a neighbour fall apart or engage in a way that gives Nepal’s youth a hope.



The stakes are bigger than Nepal alone. Its repercussions will affect the neighbours too and they must act very carefully.

Nepal’s double uprising: Revolt and exodus

Securing Punjab means more than repairing breaches. It requires urgent investment in reinforced embankments, modern flood control systems, and groundwater recharge.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fsaving-the-granary-in-peril%2F55804&amp;text=Saving%20the%20nation%E2%80%99s%20breadbasket" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Saving%20the%20nation%E2%80%99s%20breadbasket%20https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fsaving-the-granary-in-peril%2F55804" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fsaving-the-granary-in-peril%2F55804" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsarenaindia.com%2Fopinion%2Fsaving-the-granary-in-peril%2F55804&amp;title=Saving%20the%20nation%E2%80%99s%20breadbasket" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Under relentless skies, Punjab fell once again, this time into despair with its fields submerged. Over 40 lives have been lost, many remain missing and more than 1,300 villages lie underwater. Crops across lakhs of acres have been destroyed, families displaced and the very land that feeds the nation has been drowned overnight.



Many farmers voiced the same grief: “First, we fed the nation, and today our homes are drowning. Will anyone come to save us?”



These are not mere statistics, but human voices that remind us why “securing Punjab” matters, it is about preserving the breadbasket of the nation.



The tragedy came with terrifying speed. More than 20,000 acres of land under the “white gold” cultivation is adversely impacted by waterlogging. The Ravi, Sutlej, Beas, and Ghaggar swelled, and the 19t century Madhopar Barrage crumbled under the ferocity of floodwaters. The Ranjit Sagar and Pong dams crossed danger levels, and the Bhakra Dam remains perilously close to spilling over.



Yet the tragedy wasn’t entirely unforeseen. According to IMD, in August the rainfall measured 253.7 mm, 74 per cent above normal and the highest in 25 years. Heavy monsoons combined with reservoir mismanagement and delayed preparations turned predictable risk into catastrophe.



The flood preparedness meeting in Punjab was held quite late on June 5, only 17 days before the monsoon arrived on June 22.



Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s message was unambiguous. In letters to the Prime Minister and public appeals, he emphasised that three lakh acres of paddy fields, ripe for harvest, lay submerged while compensation under SDRF—Rs 6,800 per acre—was woefully inadequate. He demanded at least Rs 50,000 per acre and pressed for Rs 60,000 crore in “stuck” Central funds to be released immediately.



At the same time, Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan toured flood-ravaged districts and called it a “Jal Pralay.”



“Loss is visible, the crop is completely damaged. Fields are inundated. In this hour of crisis, we are with farmers and will make every effort to bail them out,” he said. He singled out illegal sand mining as a critical weakness that eroded embankments, making Punjab more vulnerable to deluge, an issue environmentalist have long flagged.



The Union Minister urged coordinated planning across short, medium and long-term strategies to rebuild, de-silt and safeguard future crops.



Well, these statements make an alignment of concern. However, words alone won’t suffice for such a catastrophe. Relief without real reform is like pouring water into a sinking boat.



Beyond immediate relief, however, lies the larger question of water security. The Indus Water Treaty, often praised as a model of transboundary cooperation, was designed in another era. It allocated 80 per cent of Indus basin waters to Pakistan, leaving India’s control over the eastern rivers—Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. While both banks of the Sutlej and Beas lie within India’s sovereignty, the Ravi presents a strategic vulnerability, only one bank lies in India, while the other runs through Pakistan.



Pakistan has increasingly treated the Ravi as a matter of national security, reinforcing it with embankments, spurs and studs often executed by its military. This is not without precedent—the 1988 floods saw a similar scenario where Pakistan’s concrete structures diverted flows with devastating effect on the Indian side. While Pakistan’s economy may be dwarfed by India’s, its military-led flood control initiatives indicate a calculated effort to wield water as leverage. India cannot afford to ignore this.



Securing Punjab, therefore, means more than repairing breaches. It requires urgent investment in reinforced embankments, modern flood control systems, and groundwater recharge. Former Punjab finance and planning minister Manpreet Singh Badal has long warned that Punjab’s over-dependence on groundwater is unsustainable; securing the state means replenishing aquifers alongside surface water management.



At the same time, farmers who have lost their livelihoods, need support that goes well beyond symbolic relief. Those whose fields were submerged should receive free seeds and fertilisers, while others are provided with targeted subsidies. An additional installment under PM-Kisan could be directly transferred via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), ensuring faster assistance.



Similarly, direct transfers aimed at repairing pumps, desilting fields, and strengthening social security would not only speed up recovery but also minimise bureaucratic delays. Housing losses should be carefully mapped and geotagged under PM Awas Yojana, and damaged schools must be made a priority under the National Education Mission.



Schemes such as Flood Management and Border Areas Programme (FMBAP), the Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project (DRIP) and crop insurance under PM Fasal Bima Yojana exist, but their gaps are evident in Punjab’s villages. Too often, compensation arrives late, insurance claims are at times mired in red tape and embankments remain weak until the next breach.



Punjab contributes over 35 per cent of rice and 60 per cent of wheat to India’s central pool. Its security is inseparable from the nation’s food security. Relief packages may rebuild homes, but resilience-building through infrastructure upgrades, treaty reforms, environmental regulation and farmer-first policies will determine whether Punjab continues to be India’s food bowl or slips into recurrent vulnerability.



Simply put, securing farmers means securing Punjab, and securing the state means securing the food and future of India. The floods of 2025 must be a wake-up call to move beyond temporary relief and build a system where disasters do not translate into devastation.

Saving the nation’s breadbasket

Asia’s most prestigious public service honor, Ramon Magsaysay Award, has this year been conferred on “Educate Girls,” an Indian non-profit that has brought millions of out-of-school girls back into classrooms. The recognition stands both as celebration of achievement and as a symbol of aspiration.  



For the first time, an Indian organisation and one dedicated solely to girl’s education has received this prestigious honour. The award not only highlights how far India has come in transforming the lives of millions of girls through education, but also serves as a reminder of the long journey that still lies ahead before this silent revolution reaches its full promise.



From a time when literacy among girls was an exception, India now has near-universal enrolment at the primary level, gender parity in early schooling, and the foundations of a society that is increasingly recognising the right of every girl to study.



India’s education system today is among the largest in the world, with 250 million children enrolled in schools. Yet many girls drop out due to poverty, patriarchy, household chores, early marriage, lack of nearby schools, and sometimes due to basic barriers such as absence of toilets. Addressing these last-mile challenges will decide whether India’s educational revolution matures into a lasting transformation.



To deny a girl education is not just injustice, it is a self-inflicted wound.



The organization “Educate Girls,” founded by Safeena Hussain, began with just 50 villages in Rajasthan and today, it operates in more than 30,000 villages, having mobilised over 1.4 million girls into schools.



The organisation’s genius lies not just in advocacy, but in architecture as well. Team Balika, an army of 20,000 community volunteers works door-to-door, persuading families, negotiating with local authorities, and hand-holding children back into classrooms. This blending of grassroot energy with systemic reform has made the model durable and scalable. Hussain’s earlier recognition with the WISE Prize, and now the Magsaysay, underline that India’s innovation in education resonates across the globe. As “Educate Girl’s” chair Ujwal Thakur puts it, “This is not charity or welfare, but the most powerful investment in the nation’s future.”



Well, this story of change is not of civil society alone. The Indian state has laid strong foundations for this educational transformation. The Right to Education Act, made schooling a constitutional guarantee. Samagra Shiksha integrated quality, equity, and access into one umbrella scheme.



Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas created safe residential schools for marginalised girls. Beti Bachao Beti Padhao shifted the national imagination about the value of the girl child. States, too, innovated, like the Bihar’s bicycle scheme became a symbol of adolescent girls mobility and confidence, reducing dropouts and inspiring replicas across India. These interventions, combined with grassroot efforts, have pushed the revolution forward.



It is worth remembering that this is the fulfilment of a vision long articulated by Indian reformers. Savitribai Phule, the country’s first woman teacher, defied caste and gender prejudice to open schools for girls in the 19th century. Her husband, Jyotirao Phule, fought alongside her to expand education as a right of the oppressed. Rabindranath Tagore saw learning as liberation of the mind, while Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar regarded education as the pathway to equality and justice.



In more recent times, Amartya Sen has persuasively argued that women’s education is not just a moral imperative but a developmental multiplier.



Today’s progress is attribute to these thinkers and to the ordinary teachers. Volunteers, and families who are carrying their legacy forward.



The dividends are quite visible. Each year of secondary schooling delays early marriage, improves mental health, and boosts lifetime earnings. The World Bank estimates that every girl in India completed 12 years of schooling, the GDP could grow nearly 10% within a decade. Girls’ education has ripple effects across health, productivity and democracy itself.



When given the chance to study, rural girls often break cycles of poverty and challenge deep-rooted stereotypes. Their education becomes a multiplier. Anita Gupta from Bihar, born to a family of daily wage labourers, studied under streetlights because her home had no electricity. Her determination earned her scholarship and a place at the UN Youth forum.



These journeys show that rural girls are not passive benefeciaries but active changemakers.



The challenge now is to sustain momentum and extend gains. Rural India still sees the widest gender gaps, with millions of young women having dropped out between the ages of 15 and 30. Educate Girls’ PRAGATI programme, which reintroduces adolescent girls to learning through camps and open-school exams, shows how to plug this gap. Expanding Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidaylayas up to Class 12, ensuring universal access to safe transport, and prioritising foundational literacy by Grade 3 are critical next steps. Most importantly, India must move beyond enrolment as a metric, and make completion and learning outcomes the new benchmarks of success.



Globally, there are lessons to borrow. Bangladesh tied stipends to attendance and delayed marriage, keeping adolescent girls in school. Vietnam invested heavily in rural schools and achieved near-universal lower secondary completion. Whereas, Indonesia focused on safe transport and teacher training. India, with its scale and experience, is positioned not just to catch up but to lead, provided it sharpens its focus on secondary education, harnesses technology and data to track progress.



The Ramon Magsaysay Award for Educate Girls is a recognition of what India has achieved, but also a reminder of what remains unfinished. The fact that millions of girls today step into classrooms who once would have been denied even the chance is itself a revolution. However, the true measure of success will not be the enrolment figures we celebrate, there must be expansion of secondary schooling, securing their safety, tackling rural dropouts, and ensuring that learning outcomes match enrolment gains.



The revolution must continue in classrooms, in villages, in policies, and in the hearts of families who choose to send their daughters to school. 



The next leap will come from treating these not as isolated successes but as non-negotiable rights guaranteed to every girl child.

India’s silent education revolution finds its voice                       

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/neither-us-words-nor-china-s-weight-india-must-script-its-own/54155#google_vignette">Neither US words nor China’s weight, India must script its own</a>



If Washington and Moscow reduce their hostility, China may find itself subtly squeezed, a development India could exploit diplomatically. But history warns us not to take Trump’s overture at face value: his unpredictability is his only constant.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/neither-us-words-nor-china-s-weight-india-must-script-its-own/54155&amp;text=Neither%20US%20words%20nor%20China%E2%80%99s%20weight,%20India%20must%20script%20its%20own" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Neither%20US%20words%20nor%20China%E2%80%99s%20weight,%20India%20must%20script%20its%20own%20https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/neither-us-words-nor-china-s-weight-india-must-script-its-own/54155" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/neither-us-words-nor-china-s-weight-india-must-script-its-own/54155" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/neither-us-words-nor-china-s-weight-india-must-script-its-own/54155&amp;title=Neither%20US%20words%20nor%20China%E2%80%99s%20weight,%20India%20must%20script%20its%20own" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Today, it feels as if geopolitics is a game scripted, twisted, and replayed at the whims of one capital—Washington, and more precisely: Donald Trump. His mercurial policies and sudden resets are not just redrawing alliances but also forcing countries to constantly recalibrate their foreign policy stance.



The turbulence of Trump’s world is not just background noise, it is an everyday strategic dilemma. The recent meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska stirred speculation about shifting alignments in the global order.



Trump’s outreach to these nations is seen as a strategic gambit, not nostalgia for Putin, but a “reverse Kissinger” strategy. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger opened the door to China to contain the Soviet Union. Today, Washington dreams of peeling Moscow away from Beijing to contain China. But for India, this realignment poses a problem; if Washington warms simultaneously to Moscow and Beijing, New Delhi risks being pushed to the margin of an evolving balance of power.



But India’s immediate concern lies closer to home: the Himalayan frontier with China. Despite multiple rounds of military and diplomatic talks, the business of disengagement remains unfinished.



Reports indicate that Indian troops still face restrictions on patrolling, while local herdsmen continue to be denied access to grazing grounds in “buffer zones” they traditionally frequented.



Wang Yi’s recent visit to New Delhi, coming on the heels of his high-profile stop in Islamabad, added layers of complexity. In Pakistan, he declared that the “ironclad friendship” between Beijing and Islamabad was “unbreakable,” underlining China’s South Asian balancing act.



While in New Delhi, his outreach carried both signals of de-escalation and veiled pressure. Beijing simultaneously pushes ahead with constructing the world’s largest hydropower project on the Brahmaputra in Tibet, close to the Indian border, ignoring India’s lower riparian concerns.



China’s actions are puzzling but calculated. By offering de-escalation talks while advancing projects that threaten India’s strategic water security, Beijing keeps pressure points alive. On the One-China policy, New Delhi has maintained consistency, refusing to dilute its position despite heightened tensions.



Simultaneously, both India and China have found rare convergence in opposing what they term “unilateral bullying” from Washington. Yet this fragile overlap cannot mask the reality that Beijing’s assertiveness is still here to stay, and India must act with caution.



Overlay this with Trump’s Alaska gambit with Russia, and the contours of a changing world order become clearer. If Washington and Moscow reduce their hostility, China may find itself subtly squeezed, a development India could exploit diplomatically. But history warns us not to take Trump’s overture at face value: his unpredictability is his only constant.



For India, therefore, strategy must rest not on speculation about Trump’s impulses but on a long-term recalibration of its own place in a multipolar world. Henry Kissinger’s balance of power theory resonates strongly today. The Cold War was defined by a bipolar struggle; the post-Cold War decades by American unipolarity. But the 2020s are unmistakably multipolar, marked by shifting alignments and fragmented solidarities.



The Alaska meeting, the assertiveness of Europe in resisting US dominance, the Indo-Pacific alliances, and China’s Pakistan axis all signal the blurring of neat binaries.



What then should New Delhi’s playbook be? First, if Asia’s two strongest players, India and China, can sustain channels of cooperation, both stand to benefit, not only for each other but for Asia as a whole, for they also recognise that prolonged hostility carries immense risks. As Kuldip Singh, a retired army officer, observes, war between India and China is never a lucrative venture: Beijing gains little by fighting a near-peer competitor. Even a military victory would leave China weakened economically and politically, and strategically undermine its pursuit of “great power” status vis-à-vis the United States.



Second, India must strengthen its economic resilience. China’s hydropower gamble is a reminder that economic vulnerabilities translate directly into strategic risks. Water security, technology, supply chains, and critical minerals must form the new pillars of India’s security doctrine.



Third, India must invest more in narratives. Beijing and Islamabad have mastered the art of framing their ties as “ironclad.” India must project its civilizational ethos and democratic pluralism as soft power anchors in a world where narratives matter as much as navies.



The world order is shifting; neither America’s word nor China’s weight can be taken as absolute.



The age of great-power flux demands an India that is nimble, assertive, and imaginative. India’s game is not merely to react but to shape, ensuring that neither Beijing’s ambitions nor Washington’s impulsive deals undermine its rise.

Neither US words nor China’s weight, India must script its own

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/sudarshan-chakra-can-india-build-its-own-iron-dome/53616">Sudarshan Chakra: Can India build its own Iron Dome?</a>



There is symbolism and morale factor—for a country positioning itself as a rising power, demonstrating capability in futuristic defence technology is as much about deterrence as it is about actual use.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/sudarshan-chakra-can-india-build-its-own-iron-dome/53616&amp;text=Sudarshan%20Chakra:%20Can%20India%20build%20its%20own%20Iron%20Dome?" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=Sudarshan%20Chakra:%20Can%20India%20build%20its%20own%20Iron%20Dome?%20https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/sudarshan-chakra-can-india-build-its-own-iron-dome/53616" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/sudarshan-chakra-can-india-build-its-own-iron-dome/53616" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/sudarshan-chakra-can-india-build-its-own-iron-dome/53616&amp;title=Sudarshan%20Chakra:%20Can%20India%20build%20its%20own%20Iron%20Dome?" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



National security is no longer defined only by troop strength or nuclear deterrence. In the age of drones and cyber-enabled strikes, air defence has become the first line of survival. Recognising this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched Mission Sudarshan Chakra, an ambitious plan to develop an indigenous Iron Dome-like system by 2035.



This decision reflects both the lessons of global conflicts and the pressing need to shield India from asymmetric threats.



PM Modi said the project draws inspiration from Lord Krishna’s Sudarshan Chakra, a weapon that symbolised divine protection and precision strike in India’s civilisational history.



The recent India-Pakistan escalation was just the latest reminder that our neighbour continues to probe and provoke. Moreover, China’s growing military assertiveness and its expanding missile arsenal have sharpened the prospect of India confronting a real two-front challenge.



Both adversaries have invested in drones, rocket systems and increasingly sophisticated precision strikes. Meanwhile, non-state actors have shown that they do not need billion-dollar arsenals to unleash chaos; low cost UAVs can achieve devastating effects as well.



Wars raging elsewhere should erase complacency. Ukraine’s blackouts, caused by Russian drones and missile strikes, show how civilian life collapses when skies are left unguarded.



India’s air defence architecture today is a patchwork of imported systems and indigenous efforts. The country relies on Russian S-400s, indigenous Akash missiles, Israeli Barak systems, and the DRDO’s Advanced Air Defence (AAD) programme. Yet, as recent conflicts have shown, even the most sophisticated militaries struggle against the new face of warfare which is cheap, fast and swarming drones combined with precision missiles.



The Iron Dome’s effectiveness in Israel, intercepting thousands of rockets, has become the gold standard in layered air defence. But replicating that success in India, a subcontinent with vast borders, diverse terrain and different threat perceptions, poses immense challenges as well.



The government has set an ambitious timeline, reportedly aiming for full deployment till 2035. However, defence projects in India have not been quite linear. The Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) took decades to reach induction. Even the Agni and Prithvi missile systems, though ultimately successful, faced long delays.



Critics may wonder: Is Mission Sudarshan Chakra another lofty promise or a realistic possibility?



Why this pursuit matters goes beyond immediate timelines. Developing Sudarshan Chakra carries weight for three key reasons. First, it strengthens strategic autonomy, reducing India’s reliance on Russia and Israel for crucial defence technology while allowing the creation of a system tailored to its own geography and threats.



Second, it reflects the changing nature of warfare, recent conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East have shown how drone swarms and rocket barrages can overwhelm traditional defences, a reality India cannot afford to overlook.



Finally, there is symbolism and morale factor—for a country positioning itself as a rising power, demonstrating capability in futuristic defence technology is as much about deterrence as it is about actual use.



However, caution is very much warranted. India must avoid the trap of turning this mission into a political slogan. National security requires continuity across governments, not announcements tied to electoral cycles.



So, what can be expected in the near term?



Realistically, India may roll out a limited shield for major metros or strategic assets within the next decade, rather than a nationwide system.



A hybrid model where Israeli and Russian systems plug gaps until DRDO’s version matures seems more plausible. Collaboration with private Indian firms and foreign partners may accelerate progress, but success hinges on sustained funding, rigorous testing and political patience.



In that sense, Sudarshan Chakra is less an Iron Dome in the making and more a signal of intent. It shows that India recognises the shifting character of modern warfare and does not want to be caught unprepared.



PM Modi’s invocation of Lord Krishna’s Sudarshan Chakra was designed to stir pride and imagination. Yet, the true challenge lies in science, timelines and strategic clarity.



Will India actually field a working Iron Dome-like system within years, or will this remain a vision on the drawing board?



For now, this mission is both a promise of protection and a reminder that India’s quest for security is still a work in progress.

Sudarshan Chakra: Can India build its own Iron Dome?

This article has been published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-hidden-cost-of-india-s-urban-boom/52288">The hidden cost of India’s urban boom</a>



India’s flood crisis is no longer a surprise, it is the consequence of decades of poor planning, weakened regulations and a dangerous habit of responding only after disaster strikes.<a href="https://twitter.com/share?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-hidden-cost-of-india-s-urban-boom/52288&amp;text=The%20hidden%20cost%20of%20India%E2%80%99s%20urban%20boom" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=The%20hidden%20cost%20of%20India%E2%80%99s%20urban%20boom%20https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-hidden-cost-of-india-s-urban-boom/52288" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-hidden-cost-of-india-s-urban-boom/52288" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/the-hidden-cost-of-india-s-urban-boom/52288&amp;title=The%20hidden%20cost%20of%20India%E2%80%99s%20urban%20boom" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"></a>







<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



India is dealing with a flood crisis that is no longer seasonal, it’s systemic and accelerating. Flash floods are no longer rare episodes; they are becoming a lived reality across regions. Once considered localised, floods have now turned into a national emergency, fed by climate change, governance failures and unchecked urban expansion.



India has reported an alarming average of over 5,000 flood-related deaths annually. According to the Union Jal Shakti Ministry, global temperature anomalies have jumped from 132 in 2020 to 184 in 2022, highlighting the growing influence of climate change on extreme weather events. But climate alone is not to blame. In fact, government data shows that only about 25 per cent of recent floods were directly caused by precipitation. The remaining majority stem from avoidable, human-induced vulnerabilities such as poor dam management, delayed flood-control measures, encroachment on wetlands, and unscientific urban planning.



Climate change may be the trigger, but it’s colliding with systems already weakened by years of mismanagement.



The Himalayan region, western coast, and central India are now seen as emerging flood hotspots, vulnerable not just due to geography but due to aggressive human activity as well.



Himachal Pradesh is continuously witnessed catastrophic landslides and flash floods. According to the State Emergency Operations Centre (SEOC), since June 20, 170 people have died, 301 roads are blocked, and damage to homes, agriculture and livestock continues to rise. A combination of cloudbursts, electrocutions, and flooding has left parts of the state paralysed.



The recent Supreme Court’s remarks couldn’t have come at a more urgent time. Warning that Himachal Pradesh could soon “vanish into thin air”, Justice JB Pardiwala didn’t speak in abstractions, he pointed directly at what many chose to ignore: unscientific construction, short-sighted planning and unchecked pursuit of profit. In a petition filed against the notification declaring Tara Mata Hill a green area, the court warned that development driven solely by revenue has come at the expense of long-term ecological safety.



Meanwhile, Gurugram often celebrated as a model for urban success finds itself underwater after each heavy rain and has been nicknamed “Sink City” by its own residents. What is meant to be a symbol of global aspiration, floods every time it rains. It has become routine enough for locals to joke: Who needs a resort with a&nbsp;swimming pool&nbsp;when your parking lot floods for free?



But behind this sarcasm is frustration. Overflowing garbage, clogged drains, and poor civic response are daily reminders of how little thought went into the basics. Add to the criticism from foreign visitors and consultants like Suhel Seth who quipped: “Every year, without government help, we create a Venice for people to enjoy.”



Well, this rot is collective. Citizens dumping waste into drains, builders eating into wetlands, and planners approving projects without even a glance at flood maps, are all part of this civic chaos.



On the west corner, Rajasthan has a painful irony. A water-scarce state now drowning in rainwater. Schools have been shut in 11 districts, rivers are overflowing and a recent audit has revealed 2,699 weak buildings in 224 urban bodies, each one a disaster waiting for a trigger.



It’s not just flooding that’s the problem, it’s the crumbling foundations that have been ignored for decades.



Even Kerela, often admired for its planning, couldn’t escape the grip of extreme flooding. Last year, in Wayanad, landslides swept away homes, transport routes collapsed, and families were displaced overnight. The combination of urban sprawl, deforestation, and unpredictable rainfall has made even this well-governed state vulnerable.



The previous year, Ladakh saw cloudburst severing remote valleys. Sikkim faced floods that tore through infrastructure and crops. This isn’t regional problem anymore, it is national, and growing louder each year.



In Bengaluru, the signs are depressingly predictable. IT parks and global HQs sit beside choked stormwater drains, cracked roads, and sewage-filled floodwaters.



It’s a brutal mismatch, a world-class economy built on a city where even an hour’s rain can paralyse life. The problem isn’t just about bad planning; it’s about misplaced priorities and growth without grounding.



India’s flood crisis is no longer a surprise, it is the consequence of decades of poor planning, weakened regulations and a dangerous habit of responding only after disaster strikes. Climate change may be the accelerant, but the fuel has been laid by human hands as well.



Addressing this crisis demands more than relief packages and post-disaster assessments. It calls for a shift, strengthening early warning systems and modernising dam and drainage infrastructure are essential, but they must be matched with political will and community awareness.



Urban planning needs to return to first principles; respecting natural water channels, protecting wetlands, and building with climate resilience in mind.



States must enforce construction strictly, not dilute them to appease private interests. Equally, the public needs to stop treating civic rules as optional.



A culture of accountability must be shared between citizens, corporations and the state.



Floods will always be a part of India’s monsoon story. The real question is whether they continue to drown our cities or whether we begin to rise above them, together.

The hidden cost of India’s urban boom

It’s the same year and another conflict has escalated. But this time, it wasn’t where the world was looking. While eyes remained fixed on Ukraine or Gaza, a conflict erupted in the far east between two southeast Asian neighbours: Thailand and Cambodia.



There has been no shortage of headlines, calling it a “religious war”, a “Hindu temple clash,” a “culture conflict.” But let’s not be misled by the simplicity of slogans. The escalating conflict between Thailand and Cambodia may have reignited around the Preah Vihear temple but to call this war over a temple is to misunderstand both history and the present moment.



The truth is messier and far more political. The temple is very ancient and sacred. But it is not solely a Hindu site. The conflict is not solely about faith, it is about territory, military positioning, and unresolved trauma from colonial cartography. Religion, in this case is the backdrop not the battleground.



The Preah Vihar temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site perched atop the Dângrek Mountains, was handed over to Cambodia in a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). But the 4.6 square kilometres surrounding it were left undefined becoming symbolically sensitive and contested ever since.



The roots of this hostility stretch back over a century. In 1907, French colonisers drew the border between Cambodia and Thailand with ambiguous, imprecise maps. Thailand has long argued that the boundary was unfairly set. Diplomatic attempts have flickered over the decades, but resolution has never arrived. Instead, blood has.



Between 2008 and 2013, the dispute exploded into deadly skirmishes. Jungle warfare flared near Preah Vihear and other temple sites, with both sides blaming each other. In 2011, a ceasefire halted the violence, after 15 people were killed and thousands displaced. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stepped in, ordering a troop withdrawal and establishment of a demilitarised zone but stopped short of settling who controls the larger disputed territory. The troops never really left.



Presently, in 2025, the fire has been lit again.



On May 28, a Thai soldier was ambushed. Tensions, already high, turned volatile. A Cambodian soldier was killed in a subsequent skirmish. Accusations flew and each side blamed the other. Later, in June diplomatic call between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodia’s de facto leader, Hun Sen aimed to dial things down. However, it only made matters worse.



A leaked recording of the call went viral. In it, Prime Minister Shinawatra appeared to disparage her own military and referred to Hun Sen as “uncle,” offering to “arrange anything” he wanted. The reaction in Thailand was explosive. Lawmakers from her own party called for her resignation. On July 1, she was suspended by Thailand’s Constitutional court for alleged ethics violation.



Meanwhile, the war on the ground intensified. On July 23, a Thai soldier lost a leg in a landmine blast. Thailand retaliated, not only militarily but diplomatically recalling it’s ambassador and expelling Cambodia’s. Phnom Penh responded in kind. By the time artillery fire echoed across the forests, at least 12 people were reported dead, including 11 civilians and more than 40,000 villagers had fled their homes. Schools and markets were shut down. The fear of unexploded landmines once again gripped the region.



The fog of war has now thickened. Neither side’s account of the fighting matches the other’s. Thailand claims Cambodian trooped deployed surveillance drones and fired rockets near a Thai post striking civilian areas. While Thailand responded with six F-16 fighter jets targeting the latter’s military positions. Clashes erupted in six locations along the border, and Thailand reinforced it’s positions in Sisaket province. Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai insists there has been “no declaration of war” but warns that hostilities must stop before talks can begin. However, danger goes well beyond these two nations.



Southeast Asia is already on the edge, from civil war in Myanmar to tensions in the South China Sea, another full-blown war, this time between ASEAN members threatens to expose the limits of regional diplomacy. ASEAN has long prided itself on “quiet consensus,” but in moments like this, that consensus sounds suspiciously like silence.



The memory of the 2008–2011 standoff, which left over 40 dead, looms over this moment. Back then, too, there were ceasefires and court orders. But even after the dust settled, nothing changed. Today, we risk repeating history only at a greater cost.



Leaders on both sides have portrayed the skirmishes as matters of sovereignty and pride, but at the heart of it, this isn’t just about lines on a map, but people caught in crossfire of pride and power. The only question now is, how many more borders will bleed just to keep maps clean, while real lives are erased on the ground?

The temple is just a surface, the real fight is deeper                

After years of deadlocked talks under three Conservative Prime Ministers, India chose not the familiar, but the functional. It was not based on shared heritage but shared goals. And so, it was under Keir Starmer and not Rishi Sunak that India finally signed one of it’s most ambitious Free Trade Agreements.



Modi’s decision to bet on a recalibrated Labour speaks volumes. The question isn’t why India didn’t sign this deal earlier. The question is: why now, and why Starmer?



Despite a decade-long Conservative rule, the FTA had remained elusive. The Boris Johnson government launched the 2030 roadmap in 2021, which promised deeper ties across trade, defence and innovation. But symbolic gestures often outpaced substance. The Conservative era stretching from Johnson to Liz Truss to Rishi Sunak, often celebrated It’s ‘special relationship’ with India but while language was warm, the outcomes remained lukewarm.



Negotiations on the FTA began with high ambition, but soon encountered roadblocks. Key issues such as the movement of Indian professionals, mutual market access and labour mobility remained unresolved. The UK’s domestic debates on immigration, especially post Brexit created hesitations that made meaningful compromise politically complex.



While Sunak’s Indian heritage was treated as an implicit bridge, policy progress remained cautious. The FTA talks continued, but no major agreements were concluded during his tenure. Despite his visit to India during the 2023 G20 Summit and a public willingness to deepen ties, a reciprocal state visit from the Indian side never really took place.



Labour’s return to power in 2024 marked a turning point in how India perceived UK’s political climate. From 2021 onwards, Starmer’s leadership emphasised a more balanced and bilateral approach. He distanced Labour from diaspora-driven resolutions and refrained from commenting on India’s internal matters. A gesture New Delhi has welcomed. By the time Labour’s election manifesto was released, there was a clear shift in tone: no mention of contentious issues, and a strong focus on trade, investment and cooperation.



This course correction wasn’t seen as diplomatic hygiene, but it truly changed the atmosphere. It allowed both sides to return to the table with clarity and mutual trust. Long-stuck issues like skilled migration, tech exchange, education linkages and defence co-production finally found room to breathe. The tone shifted from hesitation to possibility.



This agreement also comes at a time when India is actively rebalancing it’s external partnerships. With Washington re-entering a cycle of unpredictability, India isn’t putting all it’s chips on old alliances. Instead, it’s expanding its bandwidth by seeking stable, policy-driven partners who offer long-term value without theatrics.



India signed high-impact FTA’s with the UAE and Australia to clinching an economic agreement with the European Free Trade Association(EFTA). Each of these deals reflect not just commercial intent, but a future-facing alignment.



The UK now enters this circle not as a sentimental choice, but as a re-evaluated partner that fits India’s calibrated worldview. At the same time, Modi’s parallel diplomatic choreography says even more. His visit to the Maldives reinforces India’s renewed focus on neighbourhood diplomacy, while his recent engagement with China- the first high-level visit since the Galwan clash signals a cautious but important attempt to manage regional tensions.



Unlike the earlier chapters of India-UK engagement, which was often defined by grand cultural displays, diaspora pageantry, and speeches laced with heritage, this visit stripped away the sentimentality. What emerged was a relationship finally ready to stand on it’s own terms.



Both sides seemed to quietly step past the weight of history. For decades, the relationship had often swung between romanticising the past and hesitating because of it, usually caught between post-colonial discomfort and nostalgia-driven diplomacy. However this time, there was not attempt to overplay identity, ancestry or symbolism.



This FTA wasn’t born in a moment of goodwill, it came from years of careful watching, waiting and preparing for a window that felt right. India didn’t rush, it waited for a government that was aligned institutionally.



Modi’s visit under Starmer is more than a mere handshake, it’s a reset. It reflected a larger truth that India and UK have finally outgrown their need to define the relationship by the past. The colonial chapter will always exist, but it no longer needs to dominate the page.

India and UK turns a new page

The year 2025 has shaken the aviation industry out of its illusion of invincibility. Despite decades of advancement, and rigorous safety protocols that flying remains the safest mode of travel, the skies have turned turbulent in more ways than one.



The most devastating blow came on January 29, 2025 when American Airlines Flight 5342, a Bombardier CRJ700, collided mid-air with a US Army Sikorsky UH-6 Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The crash claimed 67 lives reminding us that even in the most advanced aviation systems in the world, something can go terribly wrong. “This was not just a tragic mistake; it was a wake-up call,” said Jennifer Homendy, Chair of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), addressing the press after the preliminary findings were released.



What followed through the rest of 2025 was not a scattered series of unrelated crashes, but a global pattern of technical failures, emergency landings, fires, near-misses and fatal accidents that shook public confidence and raised urgent questions.



India’s aviation sector, which has long been praised for rapid growth, is facing a storm of technical snags, safety violations and operational failures. The most fatal moment came with the ill-fated Air India crash earlier this year in Ahmedabad. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) report revealed a disturbing detail; just seconds after take-off, fuel to both engines was found in CUTOFF mode. The cockpit voice recording reportedly captured a tense exchange where one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off?” referring to the fuel supply to both engines, only to be met with confusion from the co-pilot.



Now, aviation experts argue that such a fuel cutoff happens by accident. If that’s true, the incident hints at either a chilling human error or an even deeper systemic failure. Either way, this tragedy feels less like an anomaly and more like a red flag waving at a much larger problem. The urgency with which Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is now reviewing safety protocols suggests that even regulators know something has been slipping through the cracks.



Adding to this alarm, July 22 brought yet another unsettling event. Air India Flight AI 315, arriving from Hong Kong, caught fire after landing in Delhi. Thankfully, no injuries were reported, but the visuals of black smoke surfacing online were enough to rattle public confidence further. At this point, it feels less like isolated misfortunes and more like a pattern of operational neglect.



An Air India spokesperson tried to downplay the incident, attributing the fire to “overheating of electrical components” and insisting that passenger safety was never at risk. But for the average flyer, this assurance rings hollow. Because even if lives weren’t lost, trust surely was.



The problems don’t end here. Over the last few weeks alone, IndiGo, India’s largest airline, has reported multiple in-flight emergencies and technical glitches to viral videos showing malfunctioning ACs on packed flights. An IndiGo flight from Goa to Indore reported a snag right before landing. Another one bound for Imphal had to return to Delhi mid-air. A third flight from Chandigarh to Lucknow was cancelled after pilots detected faults during pre-flight checks. The list keeps growing. Passengers have voiced fear and frustration, with one traveller tweeting, “Flying used to be a routine, now it feels like a gamble.”



The government can’t entirely downplay the growing concerns. In a written reply to the Parliament, the Civil Aviation Ministry admitted that Air India alone had received nine safety violation notices in recent months. Yet, the official line remains that there’s “no adverse trend” in overall safety reports. That reassurance feels increasingly hollow as fresh incidents continue to surface almost weekly.



As the monsoon session of the Parliament begins, the timing couldn’t be more telling. On the opening day of the session, Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu assured the house that the probe into the crash remains “rule-based” and “unbiased.” He urged the Parliament to “respect the process” and trust the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), which successfully decoded black boxes.



However, in a climate of rising fear, growing opacity and repeated technical failures, the public needs more than just procedural reassurances. What this moment truly demands is not just patience, but radical transparency, accountability and visible action.



One is left wondering, how many more “technical snags” will it take before India’s aviation industry acknowledges that these aren’t mere bumps in the journey, but signs of a deeper credibility crisis that demands urgent attention?



Well, zooming out there are several disturbing symmetries in other countries as well. Recently, Bangladesh suffered one of its darkest aviation moment, when a fighter jet crashed into a school, killing 27, mostly children. The aircraft was Chinese-made, a model long under scrutiny for mechanical issues. In Philadelphia, a Learjet crash caused a residential explosion, killing seven. While earlier, in South Korea, an Airbus A321 caught fire moments before take-off. In South Sudan as well, a Beechcraft 1900 crash killed 20. These are not isolated events; they are symptoms of a global industry pushed to its limits.



The aviation crisis of 2025 is not rooted in a single cause, it’s a fallout of a deeply overstretched system struggling with layered, compounding pressures. Technical and mechanical failures, like engines shutdowns, faulty fuel control systems, have become disturbingly frequent. These are often linked to delayed maintenance, shortage of replacement parts and an industry willing to overlook “minor” defects to keep planes flying in the sky.



Add to this the human element: pilot errors, often caused by crew fatigue, irregular schedules and chronic understaffing of cockpit and ground teams that remain the leading causes of aviation accidents worldwide. Then comes the cyber and systemic threats, from digital outages and GPS spoofing, which were meant to make flying safer, not riskier.



On top of this, climate change is playing an invisible but deadly role, intensifying turbulence and creating hazardous flying conditions, particularly during take-off and landing. The geopolitical landscape, too, has become a factor, aircrafts flying over conflict zones face not only navigational uncertainty but also sabotage strikes.



So where does one go from here? These waves of disasters demand something bigger, fixing this isn’t just about tweaking policies or releasing carefully worded investigation reports. Regulators like the ICAO, DGCA and EASA must step beyond audits and enforce real-time accountability, increased investment, publicly accessible safety records and stricter timelines for aircraft maintenance.



Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about planes but a common man boarding a flight with the expectation of arriving safely. The stakes are terrifyingly real. We cannot afford another “wake-up call.” This industry must act before confidence falls from 35,000 feet and take lives with it.



The skies are not just turbulent; they are sending a warning. The only question now is “who’s listening?”

Skyfall: Turbulent skies in 2025

This article has been published at: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/a-strategic-reset-between-india-and-china/50882">https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/a-strategic-reset-between-india-and-china/50882</a>



While decades of mistrust and unresolved disputes remain, the current global posture is shifting fast and not in a direction either side can afford to ignore.&nbsp;



The relationship between two of Asia’s biggest powers have never been easy, nor it has ever been truly broken. Both India and China have existed in a strange state of limbo. After years of mistrust, border skirmishes and diplomatic cold shoulders, signs of slow but deliberate thaw are emerging.



With External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s recent visit to Beijing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) foreign minister’s council meeting, the first such interaction since the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, the diplomatic signals are clear: dialogue is back on the table.



Add to this, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Qingdao where he laid out his four-point proposal to resolve border crisis: disengagement, de-escalation, delimitation and dialogue also highlights India’s intent to lower the temperature.



The question is whether China is equally committed and whether both nations can move beyond crisis management toward a sustainable, more functional relationship.



While decades of mistrust and unresolved disputes remain, the current global posture is shifting fast and not in a direction either side can afford to ignore. At the heart of this recalibration is a shared strategic vulnerability: growing pressure from the United States. Washington has recently warned of tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries continuing close economic ties with Russia. This is not a veiled threat, it is a direct signal to nations like India and China, who together now account for more than 80 per cent of the sea-borne crude oil exported by Russia.



Neither Delhi nor Beijing wants to be seen as isolated from the West, nor do they want to sacrifice their long-standing energy partnerships. If both nations want to preserve their strategic autonomy, they must de-risk confrontation and begin to engage seriously, not just ceremonially.



On the other hand, the issue of Tibet and Taiwan continues to be an unspoken landmine. The Dalai Lama’s presence in India remains a point of anxiety for Beijing as well. It has repeatedly sought reaffirmation of India’s commitment to the ‘one China policy’.



The issue also represents a deeper ideological discomfort that colours this relationship &#8211; India’s democratic ethos versus China’s authoritarian assertiveness.



Economically, the relationship looks robust on paper but deeply lop-sided. India’s trade deficit with China is over $99.2 billion, and market access remains a sore point. Restrictions over rare earth magnets for EVs to India, wind turbines, electronics, and high-value fertilisers have raised fresh concerns.



Despite these issues, in a sign of soft diplomacy, there has been resumption of the Kailash Mansarover Yatra after a five-year suspension, the possibility of direct flights to be resumed, visa processes being relaxed, and Beijing opening up to Indian journalists. These are not just symbolic niceties; they signal that both sides are exploring an incremental reset.



Geopolitically, both countries remain wary of each other. China sees India’s deepening ties with the Quad as part of a containment strategy. India views with caution Beijing’s strategic alignment with Pakistan and Bangladesh, which has been formalised through new groupings like the China-Pakistan-Bangladesh trilateral cooperation forum.It is clear that both neighbours are arming, aligning and posturing and both understand that this is not just about bilateral mistrust, but regional dominance.



At the same time, India has voiced unease over China’s political signalling, particularly its continued closeness to Pakistan.



Yet, it would be unfair to suggest that consensus remains impossible. In fact, one of the biggest shifts in 2024 has come at the multilateral level and it deserves more attention. The recent BRICS Summit in Kazan saw, for the first time, a joint declaration that explicitly condemned the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir, rejected safe havens for terror groups, and called out “double standards” in counter-terrorism.



After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, BRICS leaders failed to even mention the incident, a silence that rankled in India. It was only in 2017 that BRICS joint declaration finally named Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. This, therefore shows that both India and China can find common ground at least if not directly, but within a multi-lateral framework.



India and China relations may never be smooth. Historical baggage, competing ambitions and mutual suspicion are unlikely to vanish overnight. However, diplomacy doesn’t require harmony, it requires commitment to process, respect for red lines and a space for compromise.



In a world which is already so fractured by great-power competition and protectionism, Asia’s two largest economies cannot afford to stumble into another confrontation. If they fail to manage their differences, the consequences will not remain confined to the Himalayas but ripple across Asia and beyond.



A fully functional relationship between India and China is no longer a diplomatic luxury, instead it is a geopolitical imperative.

A strategic reset between India and China

This article has been published at: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-s-central-axis-with-europe/48369">India’s central axis with Europe</a>



Modi’s seemingly modest visit to Croatia and Cyprus reflects a larger ambition, to solidify India’s presence not only in Western Europe but in its Central and Eastern neighbourhoods as well.



In diplomacy, symbolism often speaks louder than words. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Croatia and Cyprus, his first ever overseas engagement after Operation Sindoor was not only a matter of bilateral warmth, but a message in motion. A symbolic gesture layered with intent, this was Modi’s maiden visit to Croatia and a reaffirmation of enduring bonds with Cyprus, a country that has emerged as one of India’s most dependable friends in the Mediterranean.



Though both are not economic giants of the European Union, but it represents a strategic outreach toward Central, Eastern and Southern Europe regions increasingly aligned with India’s European calculus.



As India and the European Union race towards finalising a long-awaited Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by the end of 2025, PM Modi’s choice of the destination sends a message to Brussels: New Delhi is not just looking West, it is looking deeper.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="546" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/image-1024x546.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-78" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/image-1024x546.jpeg 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/image-300x160.jpeg 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/image-768x410.jpeg 768w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/image.jpeg 1500w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">PM Modi being greeted by Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia Andrej Plenković at Zagreb airport, Croatia, on June 18, 2025.</figcaption></figure>



Croatia and Cyprus, both members of the 27-nation bloc, are integral to India’s expanding diplomatic chessboard in Europe. New Delhi is now trying to build political capital across the EU spectrum to smoothen the road for economic integration, regulatory convergence and strategic synergy.



Modi’s visit to Croatia was punctuated by several substantive outcomes. First, an MoU on agriculture and allied sectors, renewed cultures exchange programmes, re-establishment of the ICCR Hindi Chair at the University of Zagreb, and a cooperation programme in science and technology. These are not just headline-grabbing agreements, but they represent the slow, steady stitching together of long-term cultural and academic partnerships.



On the other hand, Cyprus has also long stood by India on issues that matter. Be it consistently supporting India’s bid for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council (UNSC) or backing India’s civil nuclear cooperation within global frameworks. President of Cyprus, Nikos Christodoulides, has proven to be a reliable ally &#8211; principled, persuasive and persistent.



During this visit, Modi expressed heartfelt appreciation for Cyprus’ unflinching support in India’s fight against cross-border terrorism. Cyprus is not just a partner, it is also the Mediterranean gateway, which is a linchpin in the India-EU supply chain that could rival traditional trade routes in significance and scale.



Crucially, the visit came on the heels of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s February visit to New Delhi, where both sides committed to a sweeping agenda spanning critical technologies, supply chain resilience, digital transformation and security. This was preceded by Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s tour across France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark earlier this month, which shows a clear demonstration of India’s prioritisation of its European engagement.



Post the trauma of Russia-Ukraine war, a resurging Trump in the US, and China’s assertive global posture, the EU has been recalibrating its global partnerships. India, with its growing clout in the Indo-pacific, its’ digital prowess and geopolitical independence is an attractive partner not merely for economic purposes, but also for a more balanced world order.



Tracing back to history, the India-EU relationship formalised in the 1960s and elevated to a strategic partnership in 2004, is now being recast as a “Central Axis” in a multipolar world. It is no longer confined to rhetorical commitments, the relationship has entered a new phase of operational convergence, structured by values, economic interests and mutual anxieties about China’s assertiveness and Russia’s unpredictability.



India’s alignment with EU’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) and participation in the EU’s Maritime Security Strategy reveals this intent. In parallel, the Trade and Technology Council (TTC), launched in 2022, has laid the groundwork for cooperation on digital governance, AI, cybersecurity, and data standards areas that will define global power in the coming decades.



India’s UPI systems, accounting for over half the world’s digital transactions, has also drawn interest from Europe’s fintech industry. The EU, long cautious about digital data, sees India as a technological laboratory one that blends together inclusion, scale and innovation. Moreover, EU aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, while India has pledged net-zero emissions by 2070. Despite differing timelines, both align on SDG 13 through shared goals of expanding renewable energy and reducing emissions.



For India to transform its European engagement into a transformative alliance, it must deploy a comprehensive, multi-sectoral toolkit, which must include accelerating FTA talks with regulatory flexibility, expanding digital cooperation and joint research in emerging tech, developing migration frameworks for skilled professionals and students and consolidating energy and connectivity corridors like the IMEC.



India must also position itself as a stakeholder in Europe’s strategic future, not just as a market, but as a co-architect of a fairer, more balanced global governance framework.



Modi’s seemingly modest visit to Croatia and Cyprus reflects a larger ambition, to solidify India’s presence not only in Western Europe but in its Central and Eastern neighbourhoods as well.



As the India-EU strategic partnership enters its third decade, the relationship is no longer a side chapter in either’s foreign policy. It is becoming a balancing pole between the transatlantic drift and Indo-Pacific churn.

India’s central axis with Europe

This article has been published at:&nbsp;<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/why-new-delhi-refrained-from-condemning-israel/47892">Why New Delhi refrained from condemning Israel</a>



By all accounts, the Middle East today stands on a precarious edge. The region has again been jolted by one of the most dangerous escalations. Israel launched a wave of unprecedented attacks on Iran on early Friday, targeting nuclear and military installations deep within Iranian territory, stretching from Tehran to Isfahan and Shiraz. Iranian authorities reported over 80 fatalities, including civilians, nuclear scientists, and top IRGC commanders. Israeli strikes also devastated oil refineries, power grids, and fuel reserves, crippling critical infrastructure. In retaliation, Iran fired hundreds of missiles and drones towards Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing at least 13 and injuring many more. The tit-for-tat military exchanges have not only deepened regional instability but also derailed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States.



Amid these unfolding crisis, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) of which Iran became a full member in 2023, issued a strong condemnation of Israel accusing it of violating the UN Charter, infringing on Iranian sovereignty, and threatening global peace. Yet, one voice was conspicuously absent from the chorus: India.



New Delhi chose to distance itself from the SCO’s official stance, marking a deliberate silence that reflects it’s increasingly calibrated diplomacy. Rather than endorsing blame, India leaned into it’s now-familiar posture ‘engagement without entanglement.’



Both Iran and Israel are strategic partners for India. Consequently, ties with both nations are not just symbolic but serve vital national interests. India has consistently emphasised it’s “close and friendly relations with both countries,” while also reaffirming it’s readiness to extend support to peacebuilding efforts in the region.



India’s decision is not a lapse of morality, but a product of strategic necessity.



Foreign minister S. Jaishankar conveyed to his Iranian counterpart Seyed Abbas Araghchi that India favours “dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation.” Yet, he stopped short of criticising Israel, a nation with which India maintains robust defense ties. Israel is India’s second largest arms supplier. From precision-guided munitions to cutting-edge surveillance technology, the relationship is vital for India’s security posture.



At the same time, Iran remains indispensable to India’s connectivity, energy security and regional influence. The Chabahar Port, co-developed by India, is a crucial trade and strategic corridor linking India to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan. But India’s relationship with Iran goes far beyond just port engagement. It views Tehran as a major economic partner, and admires Iran’s geographic centrality as a gateway between the Gulf, South Asia and Eurasia.



India’s strategic silence is thus not surprising; it is a continuation of a pragmatic diplomatic tradition. As Kabir Taneja of the Observer Research Foundation aptly describes, India is an ‘outlier insider’ within groupings like the SCO. It participates, influences but preserves its sovereign flexibility.



India’s decision has consistently signalled that it will not allow any multilateral forum, including the United Nations or the SCO, to dictate its national interest. This was also visible most recently in India’s abstention from the June 2025 UN General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. While the resolution received overwhelming support amidst humanitarian concerns. India stood apart, choosing not to alienate Israel or compromise its leverage.



This moment also reflects India’s needs to juggle multiple, often competing global partnerships. Publicly siding with Iran could easily jeopardise New Delhi’s ambitions with Washington. At a time when India is negotiating a major trade agreement with Washington and facing threats of 27% tariff on exports, it cannot afford a rupture with it’s western ally.



Moreover, India’s stakes in the Middle East runs deep. The region is home to more than eight million Indian expatriates and remains the primary source of India’s oil imports. A full-scale war between Iran and Israel would not only inflame sectarian tensions across the Gulf, but pose direct economic, political and human consequences for India.



India remaining non-partisan is not hesitation, it is a form of diplomatic insulation from bias and influence. India knows that overt alignment with either side in this high-stakes rivalry would diminish its space for manoeuvre in global diplomacy. Critics may lament India’s lack of condemnation, but clarity often comes at the cost of leverage.



New Delhi has chosen the difficult path of principled pragmatism, it’s strategy of restraint may prove its strongest tool, not to pick sides, but to stay in a position to mediate, influence and protect it’s national interests.

India’s balancing act: Why New Delhi refrained from condemning Israel

This article has been published at: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/no-mediators-no-compromises-just-stop-terror/45338" data-type="link" data-id="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/no-mediators-no-compromises-just-stop-terror/45338">https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/no-mediators-no-compromises-just-stop-terror/45338</a>



India’s refusal to entertain any third-party mediation in its dealings with Pakistan is not stubbornness, it’s strategic clarity.



There is a reason why India continues to stand its ground when it comes to dialogue with Pakistan. Not out of diplomatic vanity, nor to stonewall peace but because dialogue, when overshadowed by the spectre of terror, is not diplomacy. It is delusion.



MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reminded the world that New Delhi remains committed to bilateral dialogue but only when cross-border terrorism ceases. And yet, in a now-familiar manoeuvre, Pakistan has attempted to internationalise the matter again, reportedly seeking Saudi Arabia’s involvement as a third-party mediator. The intent is clear: shift the focus, reframe the narrative and evade accountability. India, rightly has refused to play along.



To understand this position, one must return to the principle that governs it: bilateralism. Enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement and reaffirmed in subsequent moments of crisis, the notion that India and Pakistan must resolve their disputes bilaterally is not just diplomatic etiquette, it is an assertion of sovereignty.



When the US President Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire, India was swift to clarify that it was not the handiwork of Washington but a quiet understanding between New Delhi and Islamabad.



Well, extended applause is irrelevant if internal resolve is absent.



Each time peace appears within reach, violence intervenes. And yet, India has kept the door to dialogue ajar, never shut, but grounded.



As Prime Minister Modi has firmly stated on multiple occasions, “Terror and talks cannot go together.” The message is not one of hostility, but of principle and preconditions: dismantle terror, then we will talk.



In this context, Pakistan’s attempt to bring in Saudi Arabia is not just unnecessary, it is inappropriate. Saudi Arabia is no neutral arbiter, it has deep-rooted ties to Pakistan, both religious and strategic.



To suggest that it could act as a dispassionate broker is to stretch credibility. But more fundamentally, India does not require a broker. Not when the matter is one of national security. Not when the house is still burning.



During the Kargil war in 1999, backchannel diplomacy played a significant role in de-escalating the conflict and ultimately leading to the withdrawal of Pakistani troops. &nbsp;Mediation, especially in this region, has often served only to cloud accountability and offer both sides the illusion of progress, while leaving the core issues untouched.



Pakistan may knock on the doors of Riyadh and Washington, but India will remain steadfast. No third-party interventions. No diluted demands. It is not a temporary peace that India demands but rather a pending human right call and a permanent solution for terrorism.



Peace, after all, is not performed. It is prepared for. And India is simply waiting for Pakistan to do the same.



The moment now calls for a structural change to maintain sustainable peace between the two nations.



India’s refusal to entertain any third-party mediation in its dealings with Pakistan is not stubbornness, it’s strategic clarity.



There is a reason why India continues to stand its ground when it comes to dialogue with Pakistan. Not out of diplomatic vanity, nor to stonewall peace but because dialogue, when overshadowed by the spectre of terror, is not diplomacy. It is delusion.



MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reminded the world that New Delhi remains committed to bilateral dialogue but only when cross-border terrorism ceases. And yet, in a now-familiar manoeuvre, Pakistan has attempted to internationalise the matter again, reportedly seeking Saudi Arabia’s involvement as a third-party mediator. The intent is clear: shift the focus, reframe the narrative and evade accountability. India, rightly has refused to play along.



To understand this position, one must return to the principle that governs it: bilateralism. Enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement and reaffirmed in subsequent moments of crisis, the notion that India and Pakistan must resolve their disputes bilaterally is not just diplomatic etiquette, it is an assertion of sovereignty.



When the US President Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire, India was swift to clarify that it was not the handiwork of Washington but a quiet understanding between New Delhi and Islamabad.



Well, extended applause is irrelevant if internal resolve is absent.



Each time peace appears within reach, violence intervenes. And yet, India has kept the door to dialogue ajar, never shut, but grounded.



As Prime Minister Modi has firmly stated on multiple occasions, “Terror and talks cannot go together.” The message is not one of hostility, but of principle and preconditions: dismantle terror, then we will talk.



In this context, Pakistan’s attempt to bring in Saudi Arabia is not just unnecessary, it is inappropriate. Saudi Arabia is no neutral arbiter, it has deep-rooted ties to Pakistan, both religious and strategic.



To suggest that it could act as a dispassionate broker is to stretch credibility. But more fundamentally, India does not require a broker. Not when the matter is one of national security. Not when the house is still burning.



During the Kargil war in 1999, backchannel diplomacy played a significant role in de-escalating the conflict and ultimately leading to the withdrawal of Pakistani troops. &nbsp;Mediation, especially in this region, has often served only to cloud accountability and offer both sides the illusion of progress, while leaving the core issues untouched.



Pakistan may knock on the doors of Riyadh and Washington, but India will remain steadfast. No third-party interventions. No diluted demands. It is not a temporary peace that India demands but rather a pending human right call and a permanent solution for terrorism.



Peace, after all, is not performed. It is prepared for. And India is simply waiting for Pakistan to do the same.



The moment now calls for a structural change to maintain sustainable peace between the two nations.

No mediators, no compromises just stop terror

The article has been published at:&nbsp;<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-s-zero-tolerance-towards-hypocrisy/44597">India’s zero tolerance towards hypocrisy</a>



Turkey, the supposed beneficiary of India has become complicit in undermining its sovereignty. It now supplies military-grade Songar drones to violate Indian airspace in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



There are diplomatic missteps and then there is outright betrayal. What Turkey and Azerbaijan have displayed is not mere insensitivity, it is a full-throated alignment against a nation that once came to their aid without hesitation. Years of goodwill, friendship, and even humanitarian assistance were conveniently forgotten when it came to choose sides.



During sensitive military operations, they openly backed Pakistan, trampling over India’s generosity with hypocrisy, ingratitude, and strategic short-sightedness.



This behaviour warranted more than just a diplomatic frown; it called for a full-blown boycott. And that’s exactly what India has carried out, decisively and in unison.



In 2023, when Turkey was devastated by a powerful earthquake, India was among the first responders. Operation Dost was a large-scale humanitarian mission mobilised within hours, which was not just a policy, but humanity in action. India extended a hand of solidarity.



Fast forward to 2025, and that very same Turkey, the supposed beneficiary of India has become complicit in undermining its sovereignty. It now supplies military-grade Songar drones, which have been used to violate Indian airspace in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. These are not second-hand deals. This is direct complicity in acts that endanger Indian lives.



And yet, Turkey dares to pretend neutrality, issuing vague statements urging “both sides” to exercise restraint. Turkey’s hollow calls for peace are a smokescreen. If you&#8217;re actively supplying weapons to a state that harbours, trains, and exports terrorism, you can never be a neutral party.



Turkey wasn’t alone in this selective amnesia. Azerbaijan, too, expressed solidarity not with India in its fight against terror, but with Islamabad.



Let’s be honest: India has long been wary of this alliance, who increasingly behave like ideological cousins. Their joint military exercise in 2021, fittingly titled “Three Brothers,” was an early signal of what was to come. These were not routine drills, they now look more like rehearsals. Rehearsals for shared strategy, shared rhetoric, and shared hostility toward India.



Turkey’s obsession with Kashmir hasn’t helped either. President Erdogan’s repeated, unsolicited remarks on Kashmir at forums like the UN and OIC have further soured bilateral relations.



Speaking collectively on Kashmir while ignoring Pakistan-occupied territories exposes the alliance&#8217;s double standards. Now, India isn’t just expressing concern it’s responding.



Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has terminated its academic partnership with Turkey’s Inonu University, citing national security concerns. Business owners across India are taking a firm stand cancelling collaborations and cutting ties with Turkish firms. Travel platforms have reported an avalanche of cancellations, as Indians rethink their choices.



From boardrooms to boarding gates, a quiet but powerful statement is emerging: even our holiday decisions can be acts of patriotism.



The numbers speak volumes.



In 2024, Turkey’s tourism revenue hit a record $61.1 billion. Of this, a substantial chunk came from India 3,30,000 Indian tourists visited Turkey in 2024, up from just 119,503 in 2014. Azerbaijan witnessed an even steeper rise, from just 4,853 Indian tourists in 2014 to 2,43,589 in 2024, according to its tourism board. Well, those numbers are now about to change.



India is now reassessing ties not only with Pakistan but with those who cheerlead its proxies. In direct response to the “Three Brothers” axis, India has deepened strategic cooperation with their adversaries— Greece, Armenia, Israel, and Cyprus. Defence ties with Cyprus have expanded, and India is working more closely with Gulf states like UAE and Saudi Arabia to balance the influence of this trio.



These are deliberate geopolitical counterweights. Both states made their choice, aligning with terror sympathisers, supplying arms to proxies, and iterating anti-India rhetoric. India, too, has made their choice, not with anger, but with clarity.



The message is simple, ‘You cannot insult India’s sovereignty, aid its enemies and still expect their business, tourism or goodwill. India believes in peace, but not at the cost of self-respect.’



It is evident that both Turkey and Azerbaijan axed their own feet and cut the very branch they were sitting on.



PM Modi’s words are now rising louder than ever that “Trade and terror cannot flow together.” Both nations chose to be on the wrong side of history, now they cannot expect India to fund their future.

India’s zero tolerance towards hypocrisy

The article has been published at:&nbsp;<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/why-counterterrorism-needs-reinvention/43949">Why counterterrorism needs reinvention</a>



Terror does not only breed in training camps, it also festers in ideology, poverty, resentment, and political inertia. You can destroy a camp, but cannot bomb an idea. Counter-terrorism goes beyond drone precision, it is also about interfaith dialogue, regional diplomacy, community engagement and education reform.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



What fractured the already fragile peace between the two neighbours was not a conventional military confrontation, but a heinous act of terror, which is both a symptom and the root cause of this latest escalation.



India’s decision to retaliate following the grotesque, Gestapo-style massacre of innocent tourists in Pahalgam was not merely military, it was emotive. The strikes were not bombs dropped on terror camps, they were statements, both loud and deliberate against an entrenched terror-exporting infrastructure operation under the shadow of the Pakistani state.



But here lies the deeper danger. To assume that terrorism has a single address &#8211; Muzaffarabad or some cave in PoK, is to miss the forest for the trees. Eradicating terror from Pakistan, even if possible, will not automatically bring peace to the subcontinent.



That’s because terror does not only breed in training camps, but it also festers in ideology, poverty, resentment, and political inertia. You can destroy a camp but cannot bomb an idea.



The architecture of hate and radicalisation is no longer geographically confined. In an age of digital propaganda and algorithmic chambers, extremism can be brewed from across continents. It can be whispered in rooms, coded into textbooks or streamed into smartphones. The real war, then is not about territory but instead, narratives.



India’s actions are not isolated, they reflect a broader pattern seen globally. For instance, Israel’s targeted strikes against Hamas in Gaza and the United States operations against Al-Qaeda and ISIS demonstrate that while military actions can dismantle terror infrastructure, they often do not eradicate the underlying ideologies.



The Global War on Terror (GWOT) was a campaign launched in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S. The then-President George W. Bush launched a comprehensive plan to eliminate and disrupt all terrorist organisations around the globe. He said, “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there, it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The Global War on Terror (GWOT) disrupted extremist groups, dismantled safe havens, cut off terror financing, and enhanced global security, reducing the immediate threat to the U.S. homeland. However, it also fueled radicalisation and paved the way for new extremist groups to emerge and spread violence.



Terrorism isn’t a tangible disease, but its spread can be just as insidious. These ideologies, if left unaddressed can resurface in new forms and locations. Often adapting into lone-wolf attacks, digital recruitment and transnational cells as well. India’s military preparedness speaks it’s determination to protect it’s citizens and sovereignty. However, it requires a holistic strategy that includes counter-radicalisation efforts, international cooperation, and addressing the socio-economic factors behind such extremism.



India must continue to strengthen its internal resilience and work with global partners to ensure the ideology of terror finds no fertile ground to grow, because “if you let the snake live, it will grow it’s fangs again.”



Counter-terrorism today goes beyond drone precision, it is also about interfaith dialogue, regional diplomacy, community engagement and education reform.



The message from New Delhi is unequivocal: terror will not be normalised. If the past decade has taught the world anything, it is that democracies cannot afford to be complacent. Whether in Kashmir or Tel Aviv, the cost of ignoring ideological extremism is always paid in innocent lives.



Well, if terror is both a symptom and a root cause, can we truly combat it without first confronting the ideologies that give it life?

Why counterterrorism needs reinvention

The article is published with: <a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-must-turn-us-sympathy-into-strategic-support/42895" data-type="link" data-id="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-must-turn-us-sympathy-into-strategic-support/42895">https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-must-turn-us-sympathy-into-strategic-support/42895</a>



In a week dominated by the tragic incident in Pahalgam and tensions along India-Pakistan frontier, it became easy to forget an otherwise crucial diplomatic moment, the four-day visit of US Vice-President JD Vance to India.



Vance’s first official trip may not have made front-page headlines, but its impact on the Indo-U.S. relationship is worth reflecting upon. From his first stop in New Delhi to Jaipur, Vance’s message was consistent that the U.S. sees India not just as a partner of the future, but a critical ally. “We must ensure fair access to Indian markets, and we believe that deeper cooperation will unlock growth opportunities for both our countries. A fair, mutually beneficial partnership is essential for the 21st century,” Vance said.



There is a deeper pattern that links Vance’s strategic language in India. A triangle of concern, China, Islamist terrorism and economy sits at the heart of India and U.S. shared worldview. Both nations see the rise of China not just as a geopolitical issue but as a technological and trade imbalance. Vance did not name Beijing directly, but his intent was clear when he stated, “Our future cannot depend on authoritarian supply chains. We must build with partners who share our values.”



Likewise, the terror attack in Kashmir was not only a violent act, it was a strategic cry for relevance. “The attack in Kashmir wasn’t just an act of terror, it was an act of desperation,” said a senior Indian intelligence official, speaking off the record. “It aimed to remind Washington that Pakistan is still a matter of concern, but the world isn’t listening the way it once did.”



The terror attacks in India highlights that Pakistan still clings to tactics it believes can deliver results. Yet increasingly, these acts are backfiring, inviting growing international backlash against Islamabad. With US engagement with India now on a different plane, Pakistan’s military-industrial complex, unable to adjust to this new reality, seems destined to repeat its strategic missteps.



For India, this is a pivotal moment. New Delhi must now push harder to convert sympathy into sustained support, not just in words, but in actionable partnerships to counter cross-border terrorism.



Unlike Vance’s usual rhetorical style, his tone in India was warm and affirming. “If India and the United States work together successfully, we are going to see a 21st century that is prosperous and peaceful”, Vance said in a public address. His personal praise for Modi was not superficial. It was a signal that Washington sees India and Modi specifically as fundamental in determining the world order. “I have seen first-hand energy of this country, the optimism, the investment in the future, we need that spirit back home too.”, Vance said.



On Friday, the United States publicly urged India to “bring the perpetrators to justice”. “We are with you and support you as you hunt down those responsible for this heinous attack,” US Intelligence czar Tulsi Gabbard said in a statement, calling the Pahalgam attack an “Islamist terrorist attack, targeting and killing 26 Hindus.”



Trump had earlier maintained that India has the right to self-defense against acts of terror. The latest statements from Washington seem to indicate that the United States would not oppose any decisive action New Delhi might take against Pakistan even across the border, especially after a senior Pakistani minister openly admitted to institutional support for terrorism while criticising the West for reducing Pakistan to a rentier state.



India cannot afford to let this diplomatic opening slip away. Washington’s warm words and Vance’s visit must be channeled into concrete commitments on intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism cooperation. New Delhi must rise to this occasion, and ensure that goodwill turns into guarantees.

India must turn US sympathy into strategic support

The article has been published at :&nbsp;<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/waqf-an-audit-of-accountability/43284">Waqf: An audit of accountability</a>



The tragic Pahalgam attack gripped the nation and dominated headlines, but quietly in the background, a different kind of assault was underway, this time on constitutional rights. The uproar over the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 was intense. Protests surged, dissent filled the streets and one devastating headline eclipsed another.



What began as a reform measure to clean up the cobwebs around Waqf properties has spiralled into a ‘communal shouting match’.



In the latest run, over 100 petitions later, the Supreme Court refused to entertain any further fresh writ petition challenging the act, signalling that the court may be drawing a line against being used as a battleground for identity politics.



And yet, the noise outside the courtroom only gets louder. While the Congress has rolled out its ‘Samvidhan Bachao Andolan’ and leaders like Mohammed Ali Shabbir claim that the bill is an attack on Islam itself, there’s an uncomfortable but necessary truth that more Muslims need to reckon with, one that the Governor of Bihar, Arif Mohammad Khan has repeatedly underlined. “The word ‘Waqf’ doesn’t even appear in the Holy Quran”, he said. So why are we letting Maulanas drag religion into what is clearly a governance and accountability issue? He pointed out that the ultimate sufferers are the poor Muslims who need help. “Had the Waqf boards done their work efficiently, there would have been no reason to amend the old Waqf Act”, he said. This point must be kept in mind in the ongoing debate on this controversial issue.



Many leaders have pointed out that this is not about Muslims vs the BJP. This is about accountability vs opacity. The numbers speak for themselves, Waqf land holdings have more than doubled from 4.5 lakh in 2006 to 8.72 lakh in 2024, with the total land area increasing from 6 lakh acres to 37.94 lakh acres. Yet, the actual reported income generated is a pitiful ₹163 crore to ₹166 crore, while experts estimate it to be around 1 lakh crore annually.



Campaigns against the act have framed it as a threat to minority rights. But at no point does the amendment challenge the right of Muslims to practice or manage their religious spaces. Instead, it places scrutiny on the administrative functioning of the Waqf boards, how properties are identified, registered and used.



Earlier, In Karnataka, the BJP government already initiated geo-tagging and digital mapping of Waqf lands to reduce misuse. Interestingly, even Congress governments in the past like in Telangana have attempted Waqf audits and proposed stronger oversight mechanisms, though with limited success. The problem, it seems, is not who introduces the reform but who is willing to see it through.



Safeguarding minority rights should never mean exempting institutions from reform. This act, when read closely ensure that Waqf boards continue to function, but with greater public responsibility. The idea is not to dismantle but to democratise, not to erase but to ensure lawful use of charitable property.



There are genuine concerns in the community, especially in an environment that often stokes fear. But reforms should be critiqued on the basis of their text, impact, and intent not merely on who introduced them.



Campaigns are ongoing, positions have been at stakes and now the law will speak. What the court decides on May 5 will not just shape the fate of the Waqf Act, but will set the tone for how we approach institutional reform in religious and minority spaces going forward. Reform is not inherently anti-minority and resistance is not inherently unreasonable. But somewhere, the two must find a common ground.



Whatever the verdict may be, one hopes it marks a shift towards a more transparent governance not just of Waqf properties but of all public and religious trusts across India.

Waqf: An audit of accountability

The article has been published at :&nbsp;<a href="https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/pahalgam-a-geopolitical-message-in-gunfire/42459">Pahalgam: A geopolitical message in gunfire</a>



On a Tuesday, in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, that should have been filled with the sound of gushing rivers and camera shutters, there was instead gunfire targeted, brutal and chillingly symbolic. 26 people, mostly tourists, were killed and several others injured when a gunmen opened fire. This incident has drawn widespread international condemnation.



Leaders from across the world, including the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and the European Union, have expressed solidarity with India, denouncing the violence and calling a justice. The handful of statements from global capitals, standard expressions of condemnation was neatly wrapped in diplomatic courtesy. And then, silence.



Barely days before the Pahalgam bloodbath, Pakistan Army Chief General Asif Munir delivered a speech that, in hindsight, now reads like a strategic green light to terror proxies. In openly invoking the two-nation theory and branding Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” Munir was giving ideological and moral support to groups like The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which soon claimed responsibility for the attack. What followed in Pakistan’s official response strengthens this linkage. Instead of unequivocally condemning the targeting of civilians, Islamabad attempted to deflect attention, painting the attack as the act of “locals acting against the government.” It was disingenuous attempt to rebrand terrorism as revolution, violence as activism. Even more so in light of reports that of the four assailants, three were foreigners.



The timing is no coincidence. The attack happened while Prime Minister Modi was visiting Saudi Arabia, marking a deepening partnership in trade and security; which for Pakistan threatens it’s traditional hold in the Gulf. But this is not 2001. With Pakistan’s economy in shambles and it’s diplomatic capital depleting, the state’s old tactics are losing relevance. Gulf nations today are investing in stability, not in failed promises.



Adding to the context was US Vice President JD Vance’s presence in India during the same period. As India and the US move closer strategically, the attack seemed designed to raise doubts, signal unresolved volatility. But the attempt didn’t land, the US administration quickly reaffirmed support for India. With every attack, Pakistan is isolating itself further, and shows how the world is changing, but Islamabad’s narrative isn’t.



The sympathy is appreciated but what the situation demands is action. Just boasting flags of human rights won’t help. “Deeply disturbing news out of Kashmir, The United States stands strong with India against Terrorism. We pray for the souls of those lost, and for the recovery of the injured. Prime Minister Modi, and the incredible people of India, have our full support and deepest sympathies. Our hearts are with you all”, Donald Trump wrote in a post on X.



Each time blood is spilled on Indian soil, global responses follow a familiar script, condemn the violence, express solidarity, and urge restraint. But that script is wearing thin. In today’s geopolitics, symbolic gestures are no longer enough. The world must move beyond the obvious and confront the uncomfortable truth of maintaining warm ties with a state that enables terrorism, while claiming friendship with its victim, is a contradiction that undermines credibility.



Several global leaders have openly identified the permissive environment in Pakistan as a key driver of regional instability. Yet many capitals continue to pursue a balancing act, issuing statements of support for India while keeping channels open with Islamabad, often the guise of strategic necessity. This approach is not just outdated, it is dangerous.



India has drawn its red lines, It has named it’s adversaries. Now, the strategic world must do the same. It’s key allies, from London, Moscow to Paris, must resist the temptation to recycle platitudes or offer diplomatic cover to regimes that shelter and arm non-state actors. Backdoor cooperation, equivocal language and the pursuit of trade at the expense of principle. All erode the moral clarity that democracies claim to champion.



India is not asking others to fight its battles. But the sustained export of terrorism is a grave violation of human rights, one that demands international resolve. It is time for states to confront this global threat with the seriousness it warrants.

Pahalgam attack: A geopolitical message in gunfire

A remarkable development has come to light in Myanmar, though “remarkable” might be too generous a word. The country’s infamous military Junta has announced amnesties for 5,864 prisoners, including 180 foreigners slated for deportation. In a rare act of ‘benevolence’, General Min Aung Hlaing reduced life sentences for 144 prisoners to a mere 15 years. Such grand gestures may sound commendable at first, but let’s not be fooled. It is clearly a smokescreen to distract the regime’s iron-fisted rule. Conspicuously or not, but absent from the list of those freed is the ousted civilian leader and symbol of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi. At 79, she is wasted away in detention. Many of the prisoners released include Thai nationals arrested for gambling at border town. The timing? Well, it coincides with the 77th anniversary of Myanmar’s independence from Britain, a holiday often marked by prisoner releases.



While symbolic gestures of mercy may appear to honour this day, but they invite a deeper question: Do such celebrations conceal the deteriorating political and economic realities facing Myanmar today? Granting amnesties on national holidays is a tradition in Myanmar, but the irony here is suffocating, a junta celebrating independence while holding its people hostage to tyranny.



Former U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, “There remains no place in the 21st century for a military regime that suppresses freedom and denies democracy”. In an era where liberal ideals and democratic values dominate global discourse, it is easy to assume we have outgrown shadows of tyranny. Yet, even in the 21st century, Myanmar stands as a haunting exception, a nation where authoritarian rule has loomed relentlessly for more than half a century. The military coup of February 2021 was a devastating blow to Myanmar’s fragile democracy. Mass protests erupted, met with a severe crackdown that claimed hundreds of lives. In 2022, United Nations documented extensive human rights violations, with accusation of crimes committed against ethnic minorities. The Junta’s actions has drawn international condemnation yet political repression rolls on without a hitch. The coup’s aftermath has not only undermined governance but also devastated the economy completely. According to World Bank, Myanmar’s economy shrank by 18% in 2021 and it’s GDP is expected to contract by 1% by March 2021. The nation’s now ranks among the least developed in the world, plagues by corruption and mismanagement of the economy. Average citizens bear the heavy brunt of such a handicapped state facing rising unemployment, inflation and diminished prospects, while the military elite retain their privileges.



So, the question that arises is, what exactly is the future of Myanmar? It does hang by a thread with a promise of democracy on one end and chokehold of military power on the other. Such celebrations offers a shallow guise of growth, where freedom dressed up in ceremony is as hollow as a drum. True liberation required more than symbolic prisoner releases or national holidays filled with fanfare. It demands dismantling systematic repression, restoring political freedoms and ensuring accountability for the human rights abuses that continues to haunt the nation till date. Think of thousands who marches peacefully in the 2021 Spring revolution, only to be met with bullets and batons. Recall the stories of journalists like Kyaw Min Swe, imprisoned for reporting the truth and of course, the story of mass displaced Muslim Rohingyas suffering from persecution. Celebrations of independence cannot erase these ongoing struggles.

Celebrating Independence, but what about freedom in Myanmar?

Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “The will to power is the very essence of life.”



The power race is perhaps the most defining yet destructive force plaguing our world today.



At it’s core, the very desire for power is inherently wrong. Power drives human ambition, innovation, and progress. But when the pursuit of power becomes unrestrained, it morphs into a zero-sum game. The race for dominance among superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia drives this point home. Henry Kissinger warned of this cycle when he said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”&nbsp;This intoxicating pursuit leads nations to justify proxy wars, military build-ups, and economic manipulations.



Certainly, it’s becoming a hotbed of power plays. At the heart of this chaos is the US-China rivalry, a no-holds barred competition that is spilling over into every corner of the globe. While China’s Belt and Road initiative is busy redrawing the influence map. Add in the Quad and AUKUS alliances flexing in the Indo-pacific, and it’s a tug-of war with no end in sight. How can we forget the Israel-Palestine conflict? Once, a regional issue is now a pawn in the broader game of this power politics. With the US standing staunchly behind Israel, whereas Iran and Turkey championing Palestine, the war is a tragic stage for competing agendas. Add ‘ America first policy’ into the mix where alliances are transactional, and this will make the plot even thicker.



Well, this race even has it’s fingerprints all over the corporate world, where multinationals pull more strings that governments ever could. Arendt was right when she said that, “Power is actualised only where word and deed have not parted company,”&nbsp;yet corporations today seem to have parted ways with accountability. So, can we blame them? After all, capitalism itself is a power game, one designed to favour competition.



Social media has made this literal when we say&nbsp;Power is everywhere, because it comes from everywhere.&nbsp;Turning every interaction into a ground for status and validation. The quest for followers isn’t just a harmless pastime, it’s the epitome of society’s obsession with dominance. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” But on such platforms, we are practically handing over the consent, aren’t we? The paradox of power is relational. It’s value depends on someone else having less. Kofi Annan captured this tension perfectly, “You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course, you can do a lot more with power.”&nbsp;The irony is that cooperation, not domination is what we desperately need, from climate change to inequality, you name it.



Ultimately, the pursuit of power isn’t the issue but instead how we pursue it. In Gandhi’s words,&nbsp;“Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment.”&nbsp;If the power race could shift from domination to collaboration, perhaps it wouldn’t be the world’s greatest issue but its greatest solution.



Until then, we’ll continue running this exhausting race, only to find that no one truly wins.

The world’s biggest issue

North Korea, once known as the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ for it’s isolationism, is stepping out of the shadows in a way that is sending shockwaves across the global stage.



Pyongyang and Moscow have signed a ‘Mutual military aid’ pact alarming nations worldwide. The treaty, marks a significant collaboration between the two nations since the Cold War and strengthens ties between Kim Jong Un’s regime and Putin’s embattled Russia.



Intelligence reports indicate that 12,000 North Korean troops have already been deployed to bolster Russian forces in Ukraine, with another 50,000 troops from both nations reportedly preparing for a joint offensive from Russia’s Kursk region. This has been ratified by Russian authorities last week, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty is set to come into force once documents are exchanged, as confirmed by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).



This alliance isn’t just a footnote in global politics, it is a radical shift that has drawn significant reactions from the United States, China and South Korea. It is a story of power play, opportunism, unintended consequences, exposing the international order’s fragility and unpredictable ambitions of such repressive regimes.



For Russia, whose caught up in a protracted and costly war with it’s neighbour, this alliance with North Korea seems like a lifeline. It is indeed desperate for ammunitions, manpower and international backing. Moscow has found a willing partner in Kim, whose regime is equally isolated but eager to assert on a global stage.



However, the question that arises is, whether this is a genuine partnership or just Russia’s drive of desperation? Well, unsurprisingly and clearly, Moscow is exploiting Pyongyang’s vulnerabilities to sustain it’s war efforts, while Kim seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that he’s being used as yet another pawn in a broader game of chess. The danger that lies for North Korea, is that this transactional bond could leave him even more isolated in the long run.



China, North Kore’s traditional ally is closely watching this alliance with great unease. Beijing’s ambitions to dominate East and South Asia by 2049 hinges on maintaining stability in it’s neighbourhood. Yet, Kim’s growing alignment with Putin disrupts this strategy.



Pyongyang’s newfound assertiveness towards Russia threatens to upset this balance of power on the Korean peninsula. To be fair, Beijing is power-hungry but at the same time Pragmatic. While it openly supports North Korea’s survival as a buffer state, it does not want Kim to overshadow its ambitions in the region.



As far as the United States is concerned, this North Korea-Russia axis poses a challenge. Trump’s campaign promise to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours now seems increasingly implausible, as North Korean arms shipments provide Russia with the means to prolong the conflict. The U.S must definitely tread carefully. Any misstep could escalate tensions with both Russia and China, complicating Washington’s efforts to manage crisis in multiple theatres. The former Biden administration’s focus has been on sanctions and diplomacy, but these tools may prove insufficient against the growing alignment of authoritarian regimes.



South Korea, has expressed it’s frustration with Russia’s actions, calling it ‘bellicose and irresponsible’. Seoul has called on Moscow to halt its military cooperation with North Korea, criticizing the “cannon fodder” policy that sees North Korean soldiers being used to shore up Russian forces. A stronger, more militarised North Korea not only threatens the peninsula’s fragile peace but also undermines Seoul’s security and regional aspirations.



The international community has long sought to pressure North Korea into abandoning its isolationism through sanctions. However, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty demonstrates Pyongyang’s ability to sidestep these measures by forging opportunistic alliances. Yet, this strategy carries risks. If North Korea overplays its hand, it could face even harsher sanctions and deeper isolation, potentially forcing it to seek assistance from the very global powers it now defies.



Whether this marks a new era of power for North Korea or its descent into further isolation remains to be seen. For now, the world can only prepare for the repercussions of this dangerous game.

North Korea into further isolation?

Recently, I was looking at a contemporary development of Chagos Archipelago, a group of seven atolls in the Indian ocean. It’s a story of a forgotten paradise, filled with betrayal, exploitation and heartbreak.



If we tred our steps back to the 1960’s, the inhabitants, ‘Chagossians’ were torn from their homeland and have been fighting for decades to reclaim their identity and dignity. Their struggles echoes the pain of other such communities around the world who have been victims of forced deportation and unjust colonial policies.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="811" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c27d5c07-c80a-4893-8a46-cd0678d8634d.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c27d5c07-c80a-4893-8a46-cd0678d8634d.png 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c27d5c07-c80a-4893-8a46-cd0678d8634d-300x238.png 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c27d5c07-c80a-4893-8a46-cd0678d8634d-768x608.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



Recent calls for reparations stir up the age-old questions of accountability and justice.



But the question is, Can any amount of compensation right the egregious wrongs committed here? Or is this “treaty” that has been recently signed on October 3, 2024 is just another cleverly disguised diplomatic sleight of hand?



Let’s not mince words: the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homeland between 1968 and 1973, not for the Chagossians’ benefit, but to accommodate a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, which is the largest and the southernmost island of the Archipelago. This was done in exchange of $14 m discount on the Polaris nuclear missile.



Well, the agreement was clear,&nbsp;“Keep Chagos “clean and sanitised” of indigenous life”&nbsp;. More than 1,500 Chagossians were displaced to Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK, left to discover nothing but a hostile world with no resources and no support, while their homeland became an exclusive military zone, a place they would only dream of returning to.



In there own Creole language, Chagossians categorised themselves as “Sagren”, which means torn from their homeland.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="743" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/d2e0c966-6087-4c74-a561-d5d642316047.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/d2e0c966-6087-4c74-a561-d5d642316047.png 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/d2e0c966-6087-4c74-a561-d5d642316047-300x218.png 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/d2e0c966-6087-4c74-a561-d5d642316047-768x557.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



These words hang heavy with betrayal, telling us how an entire community was robbed of its identity, family, and heritage. The islanders’ enforced exile and the military occupation of their homeland reflect the kind of callous imperialism most nations pretend to have outgrown.



But why now, after decades of denial and neglect, can UK make for all this lose time?



Now, as Mauritius and the UK sit down to negotiate the fate of the Chagos Archipelago, we must ask ourselves if this is really a genuine attempt at justice. What real guarantees does the UK offer that it will adhere to these commitments, let alone apologies to the Chagossians for their unimaginable suffering?



Imagine generations growing up in exile, watching their elders talk about a home they’ve never seen but still fiercely call their own.



The Chagossians who live in Crawley, Sussex in the UK still face severe socio-economic challenges, racism and are often treated as second-class citizens. Many Chagossian families in Crawley, where there is a significant population, live in poverty, struggling to access healthcare and education, still dreaming of the life they could have had in their paradise.



The irony is almost poetic, the UK, which prides itself as a promoter of democracy and human rights, has held on to its last colony in Africa, refusing to let go of its imperial past.



Well, the latest UK-Mauritius treaty negotiations over the Chagos Archipelago represent a significant development in the decades-long dispute.



These talks could lead to a historic transfer, and the UK has reportedly included provisions for reparations, which would cover compensation for the harm inflicted upon the Chagossians during their forced displacement. However, despite these promising steps, Chagossians feel deeply sidelined, voiceless and powerless in the negotiations.



Chagossian leaders and activists argue that they remain largely excluded from direct involvement in these talks, which are predominantly between British and Mauritian officials. For Chagossians, whose forced displacement and exile have left them scattered, the sense of being ignored persists.



As Olivier Bancoult, a prominent Chagossian leader, stated,&nbsp;“We are the ones who were displaced. Why are we not the ones negotiating our future?”



There are two main reasons Chagossians feel neglected. First, the discussions primarily focus on state-to-state interests and the logistics of transferring sovereignty from the UK to Mauritius, rather than on the Chagossian community’s right to return or reparations.



The potential return of the islands to Mauritius does not necessarily guarantee that Chagossians will be allowed to resettle, nor does it outline a specific framework for addressing their long-term social and economic needs, both of which are crucial for any meaningful reparations.



Second, while Mauritius has repeatedly expressed support for Chagossians’ rights to return, Chagossian leaders fear their community’s interests may become secondary to broader geopolitical goals.



Although Mauritius has pledged to protect their rights, Chagossians question whether the government would prioritise their needs once the islands are under its control.



For many, the ultimate hope is not just to reclaim land but to rebuild a self-sustaining community on their ancestral homeland, something that current negotiations still fall short of ensuring.



In essence, the UK-Mauritius treaty may seem like progress on paper, but for the Chagossian community, it remains a symbolic gesture unless their rightful place at the table is respected.



The treaty does mark a step forward but the road to real justice remains a long one.

Torn from Homeland Where’s the justice ?

India and Canada have long been seen as friendly nations, knitted with democratic values and strong cultural ties. However, the recent diplomatic blow-up between Canada’s PM Trudeau and India threatens to affect this partnership. The tensions are not just political but are permeated in historical grievances, ethnic politics and conflicting national interests.



Firstly, the core of this tension is Canada’s downright reluctance to crack down on Khalistani separatism, a movement that ‘s so relevant in India today as a dial-up internet. But in Canada? Well, it’s alive and kicking as always.



Canada’s dismissiveness towards India’s concerns over pro-khalistani activities is not just a diplomatic snub, it’s a slap in the face. The Sikh community, though dominating just 2% of Canada’s population, wields significant political weight. As Trudeau himself puts it, “Canada is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and Sikh community is an integral part of that diversity”, while some translate it as their potential vote banks and a mere political strategy, rather than some high-minded dedication to diversity. Because in this cold, calculated world of electoral politics, Khalistan is a card Trudeau won’t give up easily.



Secondly, India’s response to Trudeau’s wild accusation has been unforgiving. Describing the claims as politically motivated, India has shown that it’s not about letting it’s reputation be dragged through the mud without a fight. Cancelling visas, expelling diplomats, India’s message is clear, ‘Don’t bite the hand that holds your diplomatic goodwill’.



With both nations being influential players in the global arena, India in G20 and Quad while the latter being in G7 and the Five eyes alliance, this squabble could soon begin to force other nations to pick sides as well.



While the diplomatic punches keep flying, the economic impact has been mere simmer instead of a full-explosion. For instance, Canadian pension funds have pumped around $75 billion into India’s economy, and both countries stand to lose if they let this ruckus spill over into trade and investment.



However, let’s not pretend that money is immune to political pressure. Already, trade talks have grounded to a halt, and it won’t be long before the private sector starts feeling the pinch as well.



Another considerable point is the education exchange between the two countries. Indian students flock to Canada in droves, with one in every seven Indian students studying abroad choosing the Great White North. These aren’t just warm bodies filing the seats they are rather soft power conduits. But if this feud drags on, we might witness fewer students heading towards the west, cutting off an invaluable link in diplomatic relations.



Well, this diplomatic mess can only be cleaned up with one thing and that’s ‘Dialogue’. But not the kind where both nations talk past each other.



India and Canada need to sit down, face the hard truths and get real about the cost of letting this standoff get out of control.

An albatross around the neck

Political polarization has always been the hottest trend in pattern, and the chambers are the places to be. Forget about engaging in meaningful conversations with differing viewpoints, these days- it’s all about retreating into your bubble, cancelling anyone who dares to disagree and building ideological walls higher than ever before.



Political leaders worldwide are mastering the art of ignoring valid opinions, preferring instead to dismiss arguments that don’t fit their narratives.



The governance challenges accompanied by contentious campaigns as the backdrop, the stage is set for a drama of epic proportions where no one listens, and everyone yells.



Social media is becoming the fairy godmother to this havoc, turning platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram into tailor-made chambers.



We are all becoming experts in ignoring anything that doesn’t fit into our pre-existing beliefs.



It is the very own&nbsp;“us”&nbsp;vs&nbsp;“them”&nbsp;mentality.



Let’s look at the Partisan circus across countries:



If you’re looking for a prime example of political polarization, look no further than the United States.



The current spectacle involves former president Donald trump and president Joe Biden, whose lives are now akin to a soap opera.



Trump, currently juggling multiple indictments ranging from mishandling classified documents to allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results, remains as polarizing as ever.



His legal woes have done nothing to diminish his star power within the Republican party. If anything, they’ve only amplified his status as the victim of a supposed “deep state conspiracy”.



On the flip side, Biden’s administration is stumbling through it’s own set of crises. Recent footage of Biden’s “malfunctions” and his infamous gibberish speeches have given critics endless fodder.



Let’s not forget the media’s role in all this, Conservatives love to highlight Trump’s legal battles and recent shooting incident as proof of a biased justice system. Meanwhile, liberal networks like CNN can’t get enough of calling for accountability and denouncing political violence.



The Indian way



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="750" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/0451c62b-e060-4074-b8a9-a6b94ff63c88.png" alt="" class="wp-image-36" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/0451c62b-e060-4074-b8a9-a6b94ff63c88.png 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/0451c62b-e060-4074-b8a9-a6b94ff63c88-300x220.png 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/0451c62b-e060-4074-b8a9-a6b94ff63c88-768x563.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



In one corner, we have the&nbsp;Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister&nbsp;Narendra Modi, who’s been accused of turning the dial up on Hindu nationalism to eleven.



The BJP’s policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA) and the revocation of Article 370 are being slammed by critics as delightfully exclusionary.



Apparently, making laws that favor one religious over another is the latest fashion statement in Indian politics. On the other hand, we have the INC and other opposition parties who have donned their capes to save secularism and minority rights.



This discourse, however has become vitriolic, with little room for nuanced debate or middle ground.







The European Context



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="741" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c2f18c50-6c09-4246-8d43-19fc4c1020fa.png" alt="" class="wp-image-37" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c2f18c50-6c09-4246-8d43-19fc4c1020fa.png 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c2f18c50-6c09-4246-8d43-19fc4c1020fa-300x217.png 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/c2f18c50-6c09-4246-8d43-19fc4c1020fa-768x556.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



Europe is not immune to these trends either.



The 2024 elections for the European parliament have highlighted deep divisions between pro- European Union(EU) parties and Eurosceptic factions (being opposed to increasing powers of EU).



In countries, like Italy and Hungary, populist leaders such as&nbsp;Giorgia Meloni&nbsp;and&nbsp;Viktor Orban&nbsp;have rallied against EU regulations and immigration policies, tapping into nationalist sentiments.



Conversely, pro-EU leaders like&nbsp;Macron of France&nbsp;and&nbsp;Olaf Scholz&nbsp;of Germany advocate for greater European integration and possess liberal democratic values.



Well, the consequences of political polarization are troubling. Governance becomes increasingly difficult due to the erosion of bipartisan cooperation.



The 2024 elections around the world highlight the deepening effect of polarization that poses significant challenges to democratic governance.



So in thought, political polarization is not a result of differing opinions, but rather failing to respect and engage with those differences.



And this too reminds me of a leader’s words that how&nbsp;“we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”



Well, the choice is ultimately ours!

LATEST STATEMENT IN GOVERNANCE

We are in 2024 and the Middle East is in complete disorder, and at the center of it all Israel which was formerly a dominant regional power now faces an existential dilemma.



With attacks from Hezbollah, missiles from Iran, and a political climate turning increasingly hostile, one can&#8217;t help but ask, how bad will it get for Israel? And more pressingly, can Israel survive as it&#8217;s gradually becoming a pariah state?



Recent events have brought Israel’s prolonged tension with Iran to a boiling point.



Following Iran’s latest missile attack, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant vowed a “lethal” response. Gallant is serious, and so is Netanyahu, who is fresh off a conversation with Joe Biden discussing retaliation.



The rhetoric has grown sharper, this is no longer a cold war of covert operations and proxy conflicts, it’s gradually becoming a direct confrontation. But how many times can Israel go tit-for-tat with Tehran without triggering a regional inferno?



Israel&#8217;s strikes in Beirut and Tehran have thrown both nations into an even more dangerous cycle of escalation. And the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has eliminated one of the last key figures in Hezbollah’s leadership. While Israel’s military may celebrate that, it’s a hollow victory.



The former U.S. Army General and Director of the CIA, David Petraeus, attributed, “Hezbollah like all militant movements, thrives on martyrdom, killing Nasrallah doesn’t end Hezbollah, it galvanizes it”. He made this remark while discussing the complexities of combating Hezbollah and other militant groups, while highlighting that targeting leaders like him could lead to further radicalization rather than ending the group’s activities.



The situation gets even more complicated within Israel itself. A group of 130 Israeli soldiers has penned an ultimatum to their government, threatening to abandon their service unless a deal is made to secure the release of hostages.



These are soldiers willing to put their own military careers on risk, because they believe the current course not only endangers the hostages but fuels the conflict.



Netanyahu is struggling to hold together his coalition government and it stings when the backbone of Israel’s power, “military” turns around and says, “Reach an agreement or we’re stepping back”



The hostage situation isn’t just a humanitarian crisis, it’s more of a political time bomb.



If Netanyahu doesn’t shift gears, this internal rebellion could rip through the Israeli’s defense forces(IDF)and destabilize an already fragile system. Is Israel really in a position to lose soldiers at a time when it’s facing existential threats on every front? Can it afford to keep fighting without addressing the plight of these hostages?



Israel’s problems, of course, don’t end with its enemies. Increasingly, the international community views Israel with disdain. Western nations, long Israel’s supporters, are becoming weary of its policies.



The continuous military operations, settlements and disregard for international law all of these adds to a narrative that Israel is becoming more or a rogue state rather than a democracy under threat.



For all its military might, Israel can’t survive in isolation. The U.S. still backs Israel for now. But for how long? With mounting pressures from global organizations, human rights groups, and even internal dissent, Israel’s pariah status is quickly becoming a reality. And a nation cut off from its allies, no matter how powerful, eventually finds itself vulnerable.



Israel has survived countless wars, terrorism, and waves of international criticism, but what we’re witnessing now is completely different.



The combination of escalating conflicts with Iran, the assassination of key figures like Nasrallah, internal dissent among soldiers, and growing international isolation puts Israel in a precarious position.



The question is not just whether Israel can win its battles but whether it can survive the costs of winning.



With each missile strike, each political misstep, and each alienated ally, Israel is digging itself deeper into a hole that may soon be impossible to climb out of.



And as the situation worsens, one often wonders, how much longer can this last?

Can Israel survive by being a Pariah state?

As I sit here today on British soil, I can’t help but contemplate the two extremes of 20th-century ideology: communism and fascism. It’s a topic that intrigues me the most.



I’m struck by the fact that many have long held strong opinions on the matter. Back in 1939, a staggering 74% of the British public sided with communism over fascism in an opinion poll. Fast forward to today, and the ideological needle hasn’t stopped moving.



In a recent YouGov poll, 80% of Brits, when forced to choose, said they would back communism over fascism, once the neutral parties were excluded.



That’s a striking figure, especially in a nation with a long history of scepticism toward radicalism.



Here we are, with Labour voters overwhelmingly in favour of communism by 93%, and even Tories, the guardians of free markets and liberties, siding with communism by a 59 to 41 margin.



The question arises: why are the British so comfortable backing a system that, in many other parts of the world, evokes memories of failed five-year plans? To understand why so many Brits are siding with communism, it’s important to look back at history.



In 1939, when that first poll was conducted, the world was on the brink of war. Fascism, embodied by the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, was wreaking havoc across Europe. Communism, on the other hand, was seen by many as the only real opposition to fascism’s genocidal state.



But in today’s Britain, the situation is ambiguous. Fascism is a relic of history books, while communism has worn many faces over the years, from the dictatorships of Stalin and Mao to the more democratic socialism of modern Europe. The image of communism as the people&#8217;s champion still dominates a wide electorate, particularly those disillusioned with capitalism’s recent failures, such as the housing crisis, wealth inequality, and austerity measures.



Now, it’s fascinating that 93% of Labour voters chose communism. While Labour has long positioned itself as a centre-left party, its base clearly has a growing appetite for something more radical. Perhaps it’s a reaction to years of Conservative rule, where centrist promises often felt like patchwork solutions to systemic issues. Or maybe it’s the younger generation, raised on ideals of equality and fairness, who see capitalism as inherently exploitative and believe communism could deliver a fairer world. It’s hard to ignore that younger voters, particularly those who supported remaining in the European Union, are twice as likely to back communism over fascism.



But what really stands out is that even among Tory voters, 59% would opt for communism. Have we reached a point where the traditional right is being pulled toward collectivism out of sheer disappointment? When even the defenders of Thatcherism (often characterised by free-market policies, tax cuts, and opposition to trade unions) are leaning toward communism, something in the British psyche has clearly shifted.



Unsurprisingly, Reform UK voters, the flag-bearers of Brexit, are the only group who plump for fascism. A narrow margin of 55%, but still, they seem to feel fascism’s authoritarian order has more to offer than communism’s promise of equality. This might reflect their anti-establishment stance, where the appeal of a strong hand leading the nation through chaotic periods maintains control.



So, it’s not as if Britain is on the verge of becoming the new Cuba or North Korea. The reality is that most people probably aren’t deeply committed to either ideology.



It’s about rejecting the horrors of authoritarian nationalism rather than fully adopting Marxist policies or a centrally planned economy.



If I had to pick, I suppose I’d fall in line with the majority of Brits and choose communism, albeit miserably.



Not because I possess a secret desire to see us all living in state-assigned flats under the watchful eye of the Party, but because fascism, with its emphasis on supremacy, control, and violent oppression, is simply a dead end.



At least communism, in its purest form, promises equality, though we know from history that such promises often come at a heavy price.



Ultimately, these results highlight a broader truth about modern Britain. We are a people disillusioned with the status quo and caught in the uncomfortable space between nostalgia for a simpler world and fear of what might come next.



So, when asked to choose between two of history’s darkest alternatives, we side with the one that, despite its flaws, still offers hope no matter which part of the world we inhabit.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="723" src="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cc115202-496b-4eee-8331-7c579d8a613b-1024x723.png" alt="" class="wp-image-29" srcset="https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cc115202-496b-4eee-8331-7c579d8a613b-1024x723.png 1024w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cc115202-496b-4eee-8331-7c579d8a613b-300x212.png 300w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cc115202-496b-4eee-8331-7c579d8a613b-768x542.png 768w, https://dev.snowchildstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/cc115202-496b-4eee-8331-7c579d8a613b.png 1200w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>

Which side would you pick if you were a Brit?

While reading one of the columns today, a line sharply caught my eye: “Social justice is not about giving equal opportunities; it’s about equality in opportunities be it political, economic or administrative”



This statement churns up one of the most contentious issues at hand: “reservation”. A word that symbolises democratisation in itself, both democracy and reservation form the dynamic duo of social progress.



Democracy is a system where everyone is treated equally and freely, while reservation serves as a little trick that reminds us some are more equal than others.



Democracy is a right, often the pride of nations that grant it.



The concept of reservation similarly upholds the idea of equality, though it quietly whispers, “We will surely give you a head start, just don’t expect to win”. And here we stand,&nbsp;&nbsp;in a democracy that proudly proclaims equality, while reservation quietly admits the system’s flaws.



The ethos of&nbsp;‘Antyodaya’, or commonly known as ‘the doctrine of the last person first’ is deeply rooted in the morals of governance. But what happens when an advertisement is published saying, “Lateral entry into civil services without any provision for reservation”?



Today, this ad has been withdrawn, following MoS Jitendra Singh’s request to the UPSC for a U-turn. Eyebrows have been raiser, questioning whether this or the earlier one was the right move.



This ad clearly stated that UPSC is looking for talented and motivated applicants who can contribute to the nation- building process. Often, these banners are cloaked with judgments of ‘Merit’. Though all castes are free to apply, unfortunately, many are eventually fated to be swept away.



We stand at a critical juncture where we aspire to honouring cultural narratives, fold our hands, and walk in unison to paint a new canvas of history. Ironically, advertisements&nbsp;&nbsp;like these erode the very spirited morale of the caste community.



In my opinion, lateral entry into the UPSC is indeed a great move to encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds and to welcome fresh perspectives in tackling pressing issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;But who will these individuals be? Do we truly know if justice is being granted? It is conventionally expected that the interviewers must be completely unbiased in their approach to selecting candidates, regardless of creed, caste and social position.



The promise of lateral entry into civil services may be bold new strokes in governance, but it risks smudging the details that ensure every voice is heard.



Well, in this ongoing game, it’s not just about who earns a position at the table but who eventually designs the future.

The silent sweep of the marginalised

While treading down the path to history, we see an assortment of alliances and betrayals between different countries. Each providing lessons of the shaky nature of political backing.



The commencement of disastrous division and instability rose post cold war, where nations were pressured to pick sides between the United States and Soviet Union, vis-à-vis either capitalism or communism.



Economic sanctions, geopolitical tension and proxy wars left permanent prints on the headlines.



Whilst some nations attempted to stay non-aligned such as India, others were caught in the web of influence between competing superpowers.



Fast forward today, it’s the same circus with new clowns. The rise of China as an ascending global power has created more room for rivalries to enter and alliances to settle.



Well, these are instances when countries are divided by their power struggles, forcing nations to take sides or face the brunt of blocking the shadow. The Russia-Ukraine war serves as a dramatic reminder of this tightrope.



But what happens when such a situation occurs internally ? dragging neighbouring countries into the fray.. Where they drown in dilemma, support the government or the people ?



Shedding light upon the recent crisis in Bangladesh has sent shockwaves and generated a sense of euphoria all over the nation. Yet, there’s India standing by with an air of silence, as if it Is waiting to see if this new polity comes with a user manual.



Should they become&nbsp;Pro-Hasina&nbsp;with, Pakistan and China vying for this statement or otherwise stand with the people, advocating for democratic ideals risking further chaos and instability?



Supporting a government can mean endorsing stability in the nation but at a hefty cost of suppressing the will of the people.



In a world where the lines of domestic and international issues blur like a painting in a rainstorm, the question of whom to support to ensure safety and stability holds a lot of water.



As nations get caught up in this web, they must weigh their choices carefully, considering both immediate and long-term implications.



Ultimately, the path to a sensible settlement in a divided world is nuanced. It often requires balance of pragmatism and principle.



To put it more accurately, the world of geopolitics required a readiness to face the uncertain outcomes of each speech, action and decision.



So mastering the act of supporting and being saved demands vigilance, like a watchful scene, because in this game, the only certainty is well, uncertainty.

Top Articles

More Articles