RIO BRICS Summit: Championing the Voice of the Global South

The BRICS is a group of countries with disparate economic priorities, interests and governance systems. These divergences were at the heart of strategic speculations about its coherence and long-term relevance since its inception in 2009. The steady progress of the BRICS New Development Bank, launched in 2015 as a viable alternative, forced the global commentariat to rethink. Contrary to the popular Western perceptions about its pertinence, the group began to attract many nations.

At the 2024 Kazan BRICS Summit, opening a new chapter, BRICS welcomed new countries into its fold. BRICS transformed into BRICS+ with the joining of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE. Saudi Arabia’s membership was formalised, but it hasn’t officially joined the group. In January 2025, BRICS welcomed Indonesia. Now the extended BRICS family has a new category of 10 partner countries- Bolivia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Uganda, Uzbekistan

Comprising Emerging Markets and Developing Countries (EMDC), all these nations have one thing in common- a vision for an inclusive, multipolar world order. The pandemic has been a major turning point in terms of the collective resolve of countries. Economic crises in the post-pandemic world, further exacerbated by fuel, food and fertiliser insecurities, have exposed the ineptness of the post-World War II multilateral institutions.

The dominance of the Western powers, the exclusion of the developing countries and the persistence of inequalities have laid bare the inherent weakness of the existing world order. The prolonged marginalisation of the interests of developing nations and the inelasticity of unequal power structures to address fundamental inequalities have impelled nations to organise into a coalition or group. BRICS is not decidedly anti-West, but it is non-West.

Post-pandemic, BRICS has emerged as a nucleating centre around which countries rallied. The growing interest in the BRICS is driven by a shift in the economic centre of gravity away from the West. As a seat of fast-growing economies with a teeming young demography with a significant potential for technology adoption, countries are gravitating towards BRICS, a group of developing countries, to have access to emerging markets, regional trade blocs, and to avoid unilateral sanctions. Incidentally, prioritising the challenges of developing countries, BRICS is now positioning itself as a fairer system offering a level playing field for the Global South nations.

BRICS now represents 49.5% of the world population, 39% of the global GDP in PPP terms and conducts 26% of international trade.  With the joining of the oil-rich nations, BRICS controls 44% of global oil production and 38% of natural gas production. BRICS nations make up for 72% of rare earth mineral reserves. Dismissed as an incoherent body, the BRICS footprint is steadily expanding the global affairs. BRICS nations held the Presidency of G20 consecutively for four years- Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa. Brazil is the host for COP30 to be held at Belem in November 2025.

With the joining of new nations, while the heterogeneity of the group has further increased, there has been a significant jump of 85.1% trading (from 2012 to 2023). The use of local or alternative currencies for intra-BRICS trading has been a troubling aspect for the US, as dollar dependency has come down. The sidelining of the US dollar for transactions has been the cause of consternation for the Trump administration.

To evade, US sanctions regime, Russia encouraged trade in local currencies and emphasised reducing dependency on the US dollar. The Kazan BRICS Summit, chaired by Russia, mooted de-dollarisation. However, de-dollarisation was never on the agenda. India quickly distanced itself from the de-dollarisation move and the BRICS common currency proposal.

India has reiterated that it has no policy to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. China, India, and US allies like the UAE, which rely on the US markets, have shunned this move. While nations are making an effort to internationalise their currencies, there is no consensus on de-dollarisation within BRICS. At the Rio Summit, Russia denied discussion on BRICS currency payments between the members. On the contrary, BRICS is trying to evolve a payment mechanism to facilitate cross-border trade among the members. Hence, Trump’s concerns that BRICS is aggressively moving towards de-dollarisation are misplaced and unwarranted.

The 17^th BRICS Summit held at Rio de Janeiro, themed on “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for a More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance”, the largest participation of the BRICS family drew the ire of the Trump administration. Interestingly, the Rio Declaration took an unequivocal stand on several geopolitical issues. They condemned military strikes against Iran, terming them as violative of international law, reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, objected the use of starvation as a method of warfare and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, Lebanese territory. In a major boost to Russia, BRICS strongly voiced concerns on Ukrainian attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Russian Federation.

The firm rejection of “unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs)”, a strong attack on both Trump’s tariffs and the EU’s arbitrary trade barriers must have riled the combined west. But undeniably, the West’s unilateralism and arbitrary trade policies are becoming more disruptive. Indeed, the declaration has called out the Western hegemony in multilateral financial and trading institutions -the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.

Speaking at a BRICS session on “Strengthening Multilateralism, Economic and Financial Affairs and Artificial Intelligence”, PM Modi said, “We need to work together to make supply chains for critical minerals and technology secure and reliable. It’s important to ensure that no country uses these resources for its own selfish gain or as a weapon against others,” in a direct dig at China’s restrictive trade policies. In fact, Brazil and Indonesia have recently imposed tariffs on China over industrial overcapacity and dumping.

Comparisons of BRICS to the G7 and its ability to establish a new world order might be far-fetched. Unlike the G7, BRICS is a heterogeneous group. It is an emerging coalition seeking collaboration and cooperation to mitigate global challenges for sustainable growth and inclusive development. Considered as a stagnant grouping after the launch of the New Development Bank (NBD), BRICS is now steadily evolving. Fostering South-South cooperation, BRICS is now actively expanding cooperation in new domains- Innovation, AI, Science and Research, Climate Change, Financing, Women’s Empowerment, Startups, Space cooperation, Vaccines, Culture, Sports etc.

Reiterating the principle of “African solutions to African Problems”, BRICS is now espousing the rights of Africa. Widening global inequalities have reinforced that the Global South has been neglected. In his address at the BRICS “Global Governance and Peace and Security Session”, PM Modi stated that the Global South faced double standards in development, distribution of resources, climate finance, sustainable development issues, technology access and security-related issues. To reflect the contemporary realities of the times, he called for urgent reforms to the multilateral institutions and global governance institutions, particularly the UNSC.

In a scathing attack, he said, “The World needs a multipolar and inclusive world order- not merely symbolic, real impact should be visible. Changes must be brought in the Governance structures, voting rights and leadership positions. The global south must be given priority in policymaking. He added, “You can’t run 21st-century software on 20th-century typewriters”. In this context, his reference to strong condemnation of the Pahalgam attack by the BRICS countries flies in the face of the US, which continues to cultivate a strategic partnership with Pakistan despite being designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

BRICS has now become representative of the Global South. The Rio Summit was steered by India and Brazil. Brazil, as the host, used the BRICS platform to unequivocally assert its views on the geopolitical developments. PM Modi has set the agenda and toppled the Chinese Applecart of turning BRICS into a Chinese playground.

BRICS is not antagonistic to the West, but global uncertainties and challenges warrant comprehensive reforms in the existing system to make the World more inclusive. Established in times of Western imperialism when the majority of the Global South nations were still colonised, the Western institutions reek of bias and aren’t representative.

While questions about the cogency of BRICS still persist, BRICS countries are partnering to realise their individual aspirations, pursue new economic opportunities, enhance political influence and collectively as a group hedge against the West’s unilateral sanctions. In the process, BRICS is envisioning a plan to strengthen the BRICS framework to leverage its credibility to bid for comprehensive multilateral reforms. However, the parochial Western commentary equating BRICS to the fate of the G77 bloc of developing nations can be presumptuous.

Playing the ‘strategic autonomy card’ close to the chest, BRICS nations are aligned to drive the world towards multipolarity. As the chair for BRICS 2026, PM Modi indicated that India intends to redefine BRICS as Building Resilience and Innovation for Cooperation and Sustainability. During its G20 presidency, India promoted the aspirations of the Global South and brought their concerns to the global centre stage. With a people-centric approach and spirit of ‘Humanity First’, India intends to champion multilateralism, which is inclusive and representative.

Western fears of BRICS as anti-West and a powerful counterweight are clearly unfounded.

India and Argentina: Charting a New Strategic Horizon

PM Modi arrived in Argentina in the third leg of the five-nation trip on July 5^th. This is the first bilateral visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the country in 57 years. PM Modi last visited Argentina in 2018 for the G20 Summit. On his arrival in Buenos Aires, the City Chief conferred PM Modi with the Key to the City of Buenos Aires.

Trump’s erratic trade tariffs and Europe’s carbon tax hurdles have forced nations to realign and diversify their supply chains. PM Modi’s five-nation trip spanning the global south attempts to chart a new course by rediscovering shared values to forge economic partnerships with resource-rich nations.

Irrespective of the leadership at the helm of affairs, business and trade have largely driven the course of the India-Argentina relationship. India is the fourth-largest trade partner of Argentina. India accounts for 90% of Argentina’s Soybean oil exports.

After the Ukrainian war, India has routed its sunflower oil imports from Argentina. Now, vegetable oils account for more than 50% of India-Argentina bilateral trade, which reached $5.2 billion in 2024. The trade peaked at $6.4 billion in 2022 but subsequently dropped due to drought in Argentina. As per reports, the first quarter of 2025 recorded a 53.9% increase in trade. Other major exports of Argentina include finished leather, cereals, pulses, residual chemicals and allied products. Two-wheelers are one of the major exports of India to Argentina, and pharmaceuticals, textiles are next in line. Indian investments in Argentina, valued at over $1.2 billion, include Mphasis, TCS, Comviva, Infosys, Bajaj Motorcycles, TVS, Royal Enfield, Hero Motors, and Godrej. Conversely, Argentinian investments in India stand at $120 million, comprising Globant, OLX and TECHINT.

Argentina has the World’s second-largest shale gas reserves and third-largest shale oil reserves and is part of the Lithium triangle, the other two being Bolivia and Chile. In February 2023, India and Argentina signed agreements to promote cooperation in oil and natural gas.

For the first time ever, India’s KABIL (Khanij Bidesh India Limited) inked a deal with Argentina’s CAMYEN (PSU in Catamarca province) to lease five lithium blocks for mining and exploration in January 2024. In February 2025, KABIL concluded another MoU with Argentina’s Greenco for five Lithium blocks. Other than mineral and energy cooperation, India and Argentina have ramped up defence and nuclear cooperation. India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the Argentine Air Force sealed the first commercial agreement for the supply of helicopter spares and engine maintenance. In November 2024, the Heavy Water Board of India signed a four-year agreement for the supply of heavy water with Nuclear Electric Company of Argentina (NASA).

Amid growing India’s energy needs and China’s weaponisation of rare earth minerals, Argentina which also has significant copper reserves could serve as a crucial, reliable partner. After the warm welcome at Casa Rosada Palace, leaders, PM Modi and President Javier Milei reviewed the entire range of bilateral cooperation and decided to diversify and expand the trade basket.

To realise this, India sought Argentina’s support in expanding the India-MERCOSUR Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) signed in 2004 and which came into force in 2009.PTA, which is less comprehensive than FTA, removes tariffs on a limited number of goods. MERCOSUR, the fourth largest trade bloc globally behind the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). MERCOSUR include Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

To explore vital opportunities in health care and pharma, PM Modi discussed the possibility of moving India from Annexure II to Annexure I of Argentina's Pharmaceutical Regulatory Framework to expedite the entry of life-saving, affordable Indian pharmaceuticals into the Argentine market.

ISRO launched Argentina’s first space satellite in 2007. In 2023, ISRO and Argentina’s CONAE signed several outer space cooperation framework agreements. Seeking to steadily elevate the defence partnership, Argentina's Defence Minister made the first-ever bilateral visit to India in 2023. This was preceded by two trips by the Argentine Air Force commander and the Argentine Armed Forces chief in 2022 to HAL. After decommissioning the Dassault Mirage fleet in 2015, Argentina is looking a replacement and India’s LCA Tejas jet was in contention. Argentina has also expressed interest in BrahMos.

India and Argentina traditionally support each other in research and logistical support in Antarctica, especially Bharati and Maitri (India’s permanent research stations in Antarctica) and cooperate in the UN peacekeeping missions. Besides strengthening space collaboration, countries are exploring avenues in telemedicine, digital health solutions, capacity building, agriculture and food security, green energy, science and technology and people-to-people linkages. Yoga and Ayurveda are very popular in Argentina.

Though separated by oceans, countries share democratic values and share inclusive, global development vision and hence are natural partners. India welcomed Argentina to join the India-led International Big Cat Alliance (BCA). Argentina backs India’s permanent membership to an expanded UNSC and is counting on India’s support for the resumption of negotiations with the UK on the Malvinas Islands dispute. Argentina, which strongly condemned the Pahalgam attacks, adopts a tough stance on terrorism. Argentina faced two brutal terror attacks- the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing and the 1994 AMIA Jewish Centre bombing in Buenos Aires.

President Milei showed great interest in India’s Drone Didi initiative in improving agricultural production and usage of drone technology for conservation of fauna, animal husbandry, surveillance of high-tension power transmission and discussed the possibility of using drone to tackle IUU (Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported) fishing especially in Argentina’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Cooperation in digital Infrastructure, building a startup ecosystem and sports also featured in the talks.

PM Modi’s visit to Argentina comes at a time when the country is going through a phase of pathbreaking economic reforms. President Milei, known for his radical approach and kick-named ‘anarcho-capitalist’, is endeavouring to revive the economic outlook of the country through legislation- Large Investment Incentive Regime or RIGI, offering tax breaks for investments. This legislation has increased energy investments, steering the shale oil and gas production. Consequently, Argentina has transitioned from being an energy importer to an exporter.

Impelled by the geopolitical uncertainties, plunging foreign reserves and rising inflation, Argentina directed energy investments towards the lucrative shale patch, Vaca Muerta. Asserting ‘resource nationalism’, President Milei is boldly tapping into the natural resources to resurrect the economic fortunes of Argentina.

India and Argentina elevated relations to a ‘strategic partnership’ in 2019 during President Mauricio Macri's visit. Latin America offers huge potential for economic opportunities. Interestingly, the word ‘strategic’ is largely attributed to India’s relations with influential countries. But in the era of diversification, interconnectedness, to meet its growing needs, India must forge ties with countries far and distant.

Latin America, though geographically distant, shares several commonalities in terms of world vision and similar challenges like food security, climate change, reliable supply, cybersecurity, and terrorism. As the World transitions into Industrialisation 4.0, countries require critical mineral elements to build modern technologies and infrastructure for the large-scale launch of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. India can’t afford to lag in this technological evolution. In tandem with its aspirations to build a scientifically advanced economy, India must ensure a steady supply of critical resources.  India must widen its horizons and build reliable partnerships with countries.

Besides being developing countries, the global south identity also binds India and Argentina. High-profile visits between countries in recent times have laid the ground for building a pragmatic relationship. PM Modi’s historic visit to Argentina signals India’s readiness to deepen the expanding economic partnership.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India's Ghana Reconnect

On the first leg of his five-nation visit, PM Modi travelled to the West African nation, Ghana, on July 3, 2025. This marks the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the country after three decades. In a touching gesture, PM Modi was warmly received by President John Dramani Mahama, re-elected in December 2024. This departure from the protocol demonstrates how Ghana, which had a similar trajectory of freedom struggle, colonial challenges, looks to India as a model to evolve as a vibrant nation.

India was among the first countries to recognise Ghana and establish full-fledged diplomatic relations after it attained independence in 1957. India and Ghana share an anti-colonial sentiment and have been founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Both countries are members of the Commonwealth and part of the GoI’s Team-9 Initiative to foster techno-economic development partnerships. Team 9 includes India and eight West African countries. Since the turn of the century, countries have nurtured bilateral ties under the South-South framework.

Boosting the diplomatic engagement through the third India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS), 2015, India widened the arena of cooperation with African countries, with Ghana as India’s Gateway to West Africa. Earlier, India’s approach to African Countries followed the Banjul Format, a three-tiered approach of cooperation through the African Union (AU), Regional Economic Communities (REC) and traditional bilateral engagements.

Setting aside the Banjul Format, IAFS III adopted an All-Africa approach, inviting all 54 African countries. India also preferred to deliver assistance through Lines of Credit (LoC). With African countries increasingly opting to move away from debt, India must now pursue the FDI-led model driven by the active participation of the private sector. Recognising this shift, India has stopped announcing LoC during bilateral engagements and started encouraging Indian companies to invest in Africa.

The contributions of Indian private investments were hailed by The Harambee Factor, a book on India-African partnership authored by Gurjit Singh, former Indian Ambassador.  Indian companies are making remarkable progress in railway development projects, port development, regional transmission lines, logistical terminals, water and solar projects. India must now pursue Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models in Africa, which is brimming with new opportunities. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) can increase the scope of accessing African regional markets by Indian companies and facilitate economic integration. Ghana hosts the secretariat of AfCFTA.

Reviewing the wide spectrum of the bilateral relationship on PM Modi’s landmark visit, both leaders acknowledged the need for deepening economic engagement, especially in the wake of Ghana’s rebound from the IMF conditionalities and restructuring. Ghana is part of the 15-member Economic Community of West Africa and the Sahel (ECOWAS), which also includes powerhouses like Nigeria and Senegal. ECOWAS is among the eight Regional Economic Communities (REC) of the African Union (AU). As of now, India’s Exim Bank has provided loans to the tune of $1.5 billion to ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID) and is well poised to emerge as the pioneering development partner of the region.

To date, India has provided $450 million concessional grants and credits to various projects such as rural electrification, processing plants, agricultural mechanisation, and potable water supply. India-Ghana Kofi Annan ICT Centre and Foreign Service Training Institute, Tema – Mpakadan rail line, inaugurated last year, stand as testimony to India-Ghana friendship.

India is the third-largest trading partner of Ghana, behind China and Switzerland. The bilateral trade worth $3.3 billion is largely in favour of Ghana. Leaders have set a five-year target to double the trade. India imports Gold, Timber and Cashew nuts, while Ghana mainly imports Rice, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and electrical equipment from India. Indian investments amounting to $ 2 billion in Ghana make it the second-largest investor. The majority of them are driven by over 900 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Ghana sought India’s technical support for the President’s “Feed Ghana” programme. India has also offered cooperation in the development of a vaccine hub in Ghana for West Africa. India is already working with Ghana through the Global Vaccine Alliance to set up manufacturing units. India has also proposed to provide affordable health care to citizens of Ghana through Jan Aushadi Kendras.

Considering a significant rise in extremism in West Africa and the Sahel Region, defence cooperation has emerged as the third major area of cooperation. Ghana strongly condemned the Pahalgam attack. Piracy is another major area of concern for Ghana. India has pledged to extend cooperation in training of the armed forces, maritime security, defence supplies and cyber security.  

India has a structured regional cooperation mechanism for facilitating synergies between the militaries of India and Africa, named AMRUT (Africa India Militaries Regional Unity). Ghana is now increasing availing the Defence ITEC (the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation) training program. India has decided to double ICCR and Defence ITEC slots for Ghana and further cooperation with the mantra of “Security through Stability”.

Cooperation in Public Digital Infrastructure and skill development were also discussed. Ghana, with significant sources of critical minerals, is a key player in the global supply chain considering their criticality of green technologies and, renewable energy transition. Both leaders extensively discussed the prospect of collaboration and investments to harness this mineral wealth. Amid China’s ban on rare-earth exports, Ghana can be a reliable supply partner for India. Countries have exchanged four MoUs on cultural exchange programmes, traditional medicine, institutionalising joint commission meetings and standardisation and certification practices.

To promote renewable energy efforts, India invited Ghana to join the Global Biofuel Alliance and offered cooperation in the development of digital public infrastructure and skill development. India is the regional founding member of the International Solar Alliance. India is positively reviewing Ghana’s aspirations to be part of BRICS.

The perspectives on UN reforms are closely aligned. Most African nations support India’s bid for permanent membership at the expanded UNSC. Seeking better representation, Africa created the Ezulwini Consensus outlining the need for UN reforms. AU’s Committee of Ten (C-10) demands at least two permanent and five non-permanent seats in the UNSC. Ghana is part of C-10. Strong bilateral ties with Ghana could further India’s multilateral objectives.

India lobbied for the inclusion of the African Union in the G20 during its presidency. Endeavouring to deliberate on the concerns, interests and priorities of the Global South, India has initiated Voice of the Global South Summits. African countries comprise the bulk of the Global South. Ghana has been an active participant in the summits. India has always championed the causes of African countries.

At the joint press conference, PM Modi remarked, “In Ghana’s journey of nation building, India is not just a supporter, but also a fellow traveller”. In recognition of India’s leadership, President Mahama has conferred Ghana’s national award, “The Officer of the Order of the Star of Ghana”, on Prime Minister Modi.

Ghana’s syncretic and pluralistic society is now home to various Hindu denominations as well. The positive contribution of the 15,000-strong Indian community to Ghana’s economic development is now evolving into a robust friendship bridge between both countries.

PM Modi addressed the Parliament of Ghana and announced that both leaders have decided to elevate ties to “Comprehensive Partnership” and termed that the friendship is sweeter than Ghana’s famous ‘Sugarloaf’ pineapple. He conveyed India’s support for Africa’s Development Framework, Agenda 2063. Paying tribute to Kwame Nkrumah, first Prime Minister of Ghana who laid the foundations for the India-Ghana bilateral ties, PM Modi said, “India carries Africa in its heart. Let us build a partnership not only for today, but for generations to come”.

Ghana’s vibrant democracy serves as a "Beacon of Hope” in West Africa. By revitalising ties with Ghana, India seeks to reshape and intensify collaboration with Africa.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Tibetan Equation: Time for a Policy Overhaul

Considered as ‘Living Buddha’, the 14^th Dalai Lama, has announced a succession plan on the eve of his 90^th birthday, ending speculations over reincarnation and disbanding of the 600-year-old religious institution of Tibetan Buddhism. Bestowing the exclusive power to carry out the succession plan with the members of Gaden Phodrang Trust, the Dalai Lama has rejected Chinese legal jurisdiction and authority. He indicated that the next incarnation will be born in the ‘free world’ in regions not under Chinese rule.

This has also put to rest decades of uncertainty about whether the Dalai Lama would reincarnate or emanate. Earlier, the Dalai Lama had signalled that he would choose not to reincarnate and be the last in the line of this tradition. He also indicated that he might pass on the mantle to someone of his choosing during his lifetime and not reincarnate. Besides profound spiritual significance, the announcement has been at the heart of complex geo-political conflict in the region.

Born as Lhamo Thondup in the Amodo region of Tibet in 1935, identified as the Dalai Lama incarnate at the age of two, after the death of the 13^th Dalai Lama in 1933, he was trained to become the next Dalai Lama.  Conferred with the monastic name of Tenzin Gyatso, at the age of 15, he was enthroned as the spiritual and religious leader of Tibetans. Following China’s annexation of Tibet in 1950-51, the Dalai Lama left Lhasa and fled to India in 1959 and established the Tibetan government in exile or CTA (Central Tibetan Administration), in Dharamsala.

In his recent book, published in March, “Voice of the Voiceless”, Dalai Lama wrote, “Since the purpose of a reincarnation is to carry on the work of the predecessor, the new Dalai Lama will be born in the free world”. It wouldn’t be a surprise if the Dalai Lama chooses to reincarnate in India, for he has lived in India for 66 years. The 4^th Dalai Lama was born in Mongolia, and the 6^th Dalai Lama was traced to the Tawang region of Arunachal Pradesh.

After the Dalai Lama’s announcement, China insisted that the ‘Golden Urn method’ instituted by the Qing Dynasty would prevail. The Imperial Ordinance of 1793 (Better Governance of Tibet or the 29-article ordinance) of China prescribes the procedure for reincarnation of the Living Buddhas and subjects the selected candidate to the approval by Beijing.  Acceding to the challenging times of the time, the ordinance was applied in the 11^th, 12^th Dalai Lamas and dispensed with in the 9^th, 13^th and 14^th Dalai Lamas.  China’s disapproval of the Dalai Lama’s succession plan is a painful reminder of its blatant interference in the religious matters of Tibetans.

In 1995, just three days after the Dalai Lama recognised a six-year-old child reincarnate, born in Lhari County, Tibet, for the second-highest office of the 11^th Panchen Lama, he was abducted along with his parents. His mysterious disappearance is still unresolved. Despite international pressure, Chinese authorities refuse to confirm his whereabouts. The Panchen Lama is historically tasked with identifying the Dalai Lama's reincarnation, and hence, the position assumes considerable significance. In 1996, China replaced the Panchen Lama with another boy whose parents were believed to be members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). China’s disapproval of the Dalai Lama’s succession plan has ascertained the prospect of Tibetans having two Dalai Lamas.

Given the large population of the Tibetan exile community in India, the Tibetan question is both a foreign policy issue and a domestic affair as well. The bulk of Tibetan exiles, roughly 85,000 people, live in India. Beijing views India’s asylum of the Dalai Lama as a contentious issue. Considered as the potent symbol of non-violence, compassion and religious tolerance, his presence in India rankles China as this effectively undermines the legitimacy of Chinese claims to Tibet.

Though he hasn’t alluded to independent status for Tibet, the Dalai Lama rejected China’s historical claims to Tibet by stating that ‘Chinese and Tibetan people have lived as neighbours’. He proposed a “Middle-way” approach of having a “genuine autonomy” while being a part of the PRC, frustrating Chinese dreams of reunification. Even though the CTA and Tibetan parliament have passed legislation on the “middle way solution” as a way to resolve the Sino-Tibetan issue, Tibetans haven’t forsaken the independence question. Thus, the Tibet question remains a vexatious issue for China.

Getting to the heart of China’s discomfort with the Dalai Lama, Vijay Gokhale, former Indian ambassador to China, in his paper- “The Next Dalai Lama Preparing for Incarnation: Why It Matters to India?” writes that the CCP’s policy approaches the Tibet question through the lens of social stability and national security. Religion is antithetical to communism. As a natural consequence, the CCP is highly distrustful of the religious influence of the Dalai Lama over the Tibetan populace.

China’s intolerance towards the Dalai Lama flows from the CCP’s inherent ideological intolerance towards religion and the disproportionate influence of the Dalai Lama on indigenous Tibetans despite over six decades of his absence from the original seat of Tibetan Buddhism, Potala Palace, Lhasa. He is revered as the embodiment of Tibetan identity, values and religious beliefs. Sadly, for Beijing, its military might and economic integration attempts have failed to erase the Dalai Lama from the collective memories of Tibetans. CCP considers the Dalai Lama a threat to social stability.

After the two rounds of failed exploratory talks between the CCP and the Dalai Lama in 1982 and 1984, to build international pressure on China, the Dalai Lama has internationalised the Tibetan issue. Subsequently, the CCP, which is extremely irascible about its international image, labelled him a “splittist” and a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

Additionally, burgeoning Western interest in the Tibetan question accentuated the CCP’s fears of religious institutions becoming conduits for foreign interference. CCP is keen on having a pliant Dalai Lama to bury the Tibetan question. The Dalai Lama’s rejection of Chinese authority on the reincarnation process has widened the existing discordance. PRC intends to quell the idea of the Dalai Lama to subdue Tibet into complete subservience. CCP believes Tibetan Buddhism has a potential destabilisation role and deems reincarnation as the cornerstone of the ‘securitisation’ of PRC.

Notwithstanding several centuries of religious and cultural contacts with Tibet, India has meekly surrendered its customary rights in Tibetan territory after the Chinese invasion to avoid confrontation with the PRC.  Even after ceding its extraterritorial privileges in 1954, thanks to India’s diplomatic pusillanimity, China invaded India in 1962.

China acknowledges Indian influence on the Dalai Lama, but India refrained from overtly playing the ‘Tibet Card’ to avoid provoking Beijing. However, India permits the Tibetan exile community to practice and nurture their religion and culture. The CTA and the Tibetan parliament operate from India. India accords high respect to the Dalai Lama as the living legend of Tibetan Buddhism and allows foreign delegations to visit Dharmsala.

“Tibet is China’s soft underbelly”, and the CCP, wary of this vulnerability, has steadily ratcheted up repressive legislative measures to obliterate its religious identity. Ushering in “Sinicisation” of Tibet, the CCP has introduced mandatory patriotic re-education for Tibetan monks and nuns and delegated CCP cadres to oversee the functioning of Buddhist monasteries in Tibet.  It also approved and recognised 93 newly reincarnated Living Buddhas by 2022. While the CCP is systematically uprooting the basic foundations of Tibetan Buddhism, the institute blossomed in India. India is now the seat of Tibetan educational and cultural institutions.

Despite sheltering the exiled Tibetan community, India never allowed any anti-Chinese activities on its territory. Indeed, India has been circumspect in dealing with the Dalai Lama and strictly upholds the three M’s- Mutual Respect, Mutual Sensitivities and Mutual Interests. Beijing considers all aspects related to Tibet as internal affairs and brooks no external interference. China expects India to unconditionally extend all assistance regarding Tibet, but wouldn’t extend similar reciprocity. Post- Article 370 abrogation, it backed Pakistan in internationalising the Kashmir issue.

Clearly, China’s relentless anti-India campaigns, including the veto blocks at the UNSC, blatant violation of mutually agreed bilateral treaties, and continued incursions along the border, warrant a serious recalibration of India's approach. The growing list of China’s inimical unilateral anti-India actions, such as military help and intelligence support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, withdrawal of Chinese technicians from Indian electronic manufacturing, stalling of rare earths and speciality fertilisers and infiltration of India’s military supply chains are now reaching a geopolitical inflexion point.

Unlike India’s nuanced diplomacy, the US has swiftly and tactfully rechartered its Tibetan policy to align with its strategic interests.  During World War II, the US never questioned China’s claims to Tibet but directed the Dalai Lama to disavow the Seventeenth Amendment after the 1950 Korean War. The CIA had assisted the Khampa Rebellion in East Tibet. After the failed rebellion, the US recognised the special status of Tibet and acknowledged its self-determination.

In 1979, the Nixon administration adopted a hands-off approach to Tibet to establish diplomatic ties with China. By the late 1980s, the US Congress supported the Tibetan Buddhist cause, hosted the Dalai Lama at the White House and created a special coordinator for Tibetan affairs to oversee human rights issues of Tibetans

By 2002, when US-China ties reached a new level, the US Congress passed the Tibetan Policy Act (TPA), making it a political agenda. In 2020, Trump signed the second piece of legislation, turning the Tibetan Policy and Support Act (TPSA) into a law. TPSA endorsed Tibetan rights to select their leaders and termed China’s interference in the reincarnation process as “blatant violation of the fundamental religious freedom of Tibetan Buddhists”, and allowed the US administration to sanction CCP officials interfering with the identification and installation of the 15^th Dalai Lama. The law mandated the special coordinator on Tibetan affairs to explore international coalitions to oppose Chinese efforts to select Tibetan Living Buddhas and protect Tibetan religious rights.

Bolstering Tibetan policy, in 2024, Biden signed the third piece of legislation- the Resolve Tibet Act (Promotion of a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act), which asserted that the US government “has never taken a position that Tibet was a part of China since ancient times”. It specifically defined that the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) comprises Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan. Washington’s three-piece legislation, besides safeguarding the Tibetan Buddhist rights, can double up as a potent geopolitical tool against China’s grand reunification dream. The US has certainly played into Chinese fears of foreign interference. To ward off any external forces, Xi has tightened regulations on Tibetans and to reassert China’s legitimacy, started calling Tibet 'Xizang'.

Eschewing the US administration's international coalition for the Tibetan question, India explicitly remained neutral to the US legislation on Tibet. Cognisant of the potential implications of the Tibet issue on India-China relations, New Delhi deliberately manages the Dalai Lama very cautiously.

Reacting to the Dalai Lama’s succession plan, the MEA clarified, “The government of India does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion. The government has always upheld freedom of religion for all in India and will continue to do so”. However, in a significant departure, GoI will be represented by Ministers Kiren Rijiju, Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Chief Minister of Arunachal Pema Khandu, Chief Minister of Sikkim Prem Singh Tamang and Karnataka Minister Gangadaraiah at the 90^th Birthday celebration of Dalai Lama on July 6^th as a signal to China.

As a vibrant democracy committed to upholding the religious rights of the persecuted community and their rights, India must now take a strong stance. As a home to a major chunk of Tibetan Buddhists, the reincarnation process and the interregnum period of identification of the 15^th Dalai Lama can have significant security implications for India. India can leverage the exiled Tibetan community, but refrains from provoking China. But as Beijing continues to ruthlessly trample India’s ‘Red Lines’, it is time to recalibrate its Tibetan policy.

@ Copyrights Reserved. 

Double Standards or Realpolitik? U.S. Playbook on Nuclear Brinkmanship Part 2

The threat from Iran’s Islamic regime to Israel is clear, and a nuclear-armed Iran can be an existential danger to Israel. While an inverted logic continues to label Israel as the aggressor, a close look at the Ayatollah’s remarks approves of a jihadi war against Israel.

Iran’s Axis of Resistance is not a figment of imagination as Khamenei at a prayer sermon in February 2012 said, “We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on, we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime; we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not”².

Iran’s deeply entrenched anti-Zionism gradually evolved into a series of proxy wars- manifesting in cyberattacks, maritime sabotages and acts of terrorism. The ongoing Gaza conflict intensified the rivalry, culminating in two rounds of direct missile and drone retaliatory strikes in April and October 2024.

Operation Rising Lion has established Israeli dominance over Iranian airspace. With excellent operational synchronisation and superior Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, Israel prevailed over Iran in an operation that had tacit American approval. Even Israel’s cities, military and intelligence installations and economic hubs also suffered severe damage in the retaliatory strikes.

Vowing a complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel refused to back down, raising fears of a full-blown war. A war in the Middle East dragged into its ninth day, in an unprecedented operation- ‘Midnight Hammer’, seven US B-2 bombers hurled 14 bunker bombs at the Iranian nuclear facilities- Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Pulling out a shocker, President Trump sent out a chilling message through a comprehensive and devastating bombing. Since assuming office, Trump repeatedly stated, “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon…. You cannot have peace if Iran has a nuclear bomb”. Shortly, as a retribution, Iran announced “Operation Tidings of Victory” to attack US bases in the region. However, barring America’s Al-Udeid base in Qatar, none have been hit. Iran had notified the US officials prior to the attack, minimising the losses, if any.  Soon, Trump called for a ceasefire, and both countries, after their fair share of violations, abided by it.

Terming the attacks on the US base in Qatar a “slap in the face”, the Iranian regime claimed victory much like Pakistan after Operation Sindoor. The eerie similarities don’t end there, as Trump’s social media posts on the ceasefire in both cases had the same template, with the only difference being a change in names.

America’s blatant breach of Iran’s territorial airspace and the audacious air raid to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities sparked a global debate. Critics argue these actions undermine the UN, erode the foundations of international law and compromise the US’s moral standing in condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Far from reinforcing deterrence, US strikes might inadvertently prompt countries to pursue nuclear weapons as a safeguard against external intervention.  

On a different count, the US strikes have provided a temporary reprieve, enabling a broader momentum for the expansion of the Abraham Accords and the realignment of US Arab allies with Israel. A weakened Iran can shift the regional dynamics, opening new avenues for addressing the Gaza issue.

Satellite imagery revealing dotted truck convoys outside Iran’s Fordow facility—captured just before US strikes—has fuelled speculation that enriched uranium was covertly relocated to secure locations. While a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might stall its ambitions, it is unlikely to extinguish them. Armed with technological know-how, Iran’s path to developing nuclear weapons would be delayed, not derailed.

The US justified its strikes on Iran citing its long-standing designation of a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s cultivated jihadi militia has ring-fenced Israel leading to regional insecurity. A parallel dynamic exists in the Indian sub-continent,  where unmissable similarities emerge between the Islamic regime of Iran and the jihadi leadership in Pakistan. While Ayatollahs refused to bow down to US wishes, Pakistan has positioned itself as a compliant proxy of Western interests. In 1979, cleric Ayatollah seized power in Tehran - around the same time, Pakistan’s Zia-ul-Haq created the Afghan Mujahideen to take on the Soviet forces.

Pakistan under Zia became the most important player in America’s fight against the Communist USSR. Aligning governance with Islamic laws, Zia Islamised Pakistan. Despite his distaste for Western values, Zia consciously aligned with the US. Capitalising on its strategic geographic location, Zia allowed Pakistan to become a launch pad for America’s strategic pursuits in the region. As a result, Pakistan continues to remain in the good books of America despite its indubitable reputation as the ‘mothership of terrorism’. Pakistan is home to several internationally proscribed terror outfits. Indeed, eight Americans were killed in the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Mumbai attacks in 2008.

Grey-listed thrice by FATF for sponsoring terrorism, Ghazwa-e-Hind, the cornerstone of Pakistan’s anti-India policy, is an existential threat to India. The core tenets of Islamic regime of Iran and Pakistan are based on same jihadi ideology. But the US chose to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program and allowed it to accumulate a stockpile and make weapons.

For decades, Pakistan wielded cross-border terrorism as a geopolitical tool to destabilise India. Yet, unlike Iran, Pakistan enjoys the status of a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Adroitly managing the US, Pakistan has evaded international censure and continues to acquire advanced weaponry from the US. Adeptly kow-towing to the US strategic interests, Pakistan amassed a nuclear arsenal on par with India, while Iran, for merely approaching that threshold, faced punitive strikes.

Despite deep-rooted ideological divergences and lingering distrust, many Muslim-majority nations continue to pursue diplomatic engagement with the United States. While Islamic sentiment often shapes their foreign policy postures, geopolitical pragmatism prevails. Notably, Iran’s Supreme Leader has never concealed his antagonism toward Washington and never attempted to mend ties since the 1979 revolution.

Post-US air strikes, the Middle East might still witness a protracted period of instability. The Islamic regime, backed by the IRGC, is still under control and back in the saddle. Operation Rising Lion, much like the Ukrainian attacks on Russia, has exposed the presence of Mossad’s robust undercover network. Given the magnitude of the internal sabotage, Iranian authorities have swung into action to identify the moles. Iranians are yearning for freedom and secular democracy. But any external intervention can push the country into further chaos.

Pakistan and Iran, both epicentres of terrorism, pose a serious and imminent threat to global peace and stability. The spectre of a nuclear-armed state guided by a jihadi ideology is a geopolitical time bomb that demands urgent attention. While nations like North Korea and Iran face severe Western sanctions, Pakistan, despite its track record, continues to be shielded for its utility as a strategic ally. This glaring disparity in Western responses raises unsettling questions about the consistency and credibility of global non-proliferation efforts.

Double Standards or Realpolitik? U.S. Playbook on Nuclear Brinkmanship Part 1

Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion on June 13^th, the Middle East has been on the brink. Israeli fighter jets striking deep into the Iranian territory attacked nuclear facilities, missile strikes and the senior leadership. Drawing the first blood, Israel set Iran into a tizzy by systematically eliminating the senior ranks of military leaders and nuclear scientists.

Since the October 7^th Hamas terror attack, Israel has clinically neutralised Iranian proxies and reduced its sway. Through a string of assassinations, including Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, Israel brought Hamas and Hezbollah to their knees. Iran’s Islamic regime wields great influence in Lebanon, Syria and has a destabilising effect on Yemen and Iraq. Hezbollah’s losses and the fall of the Assad regime diminished Iran’s power and influence in the region and significantly weakened Iran’s axis of resistance.

Israel and Iran have been strategic collaborators and friends before the radical Islamic ideology engulfed and roiled the relations. Iran transitioned to an Islamic regime with the takeover by the Ayatollahs in 1979. The Iranian revolution ushered the country into an Islamic ambit. Israel’s relations with Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty were friendly. Iran was among the second major-Muslim country after Turkey to recognise the Jewish State following its founding in 1948. Iran, along with India and Yugoslavia, was part of the special UN committee formed to formulate a future course for Palestine and voted against the UN’s partition plan for Palestine.

Iran saw Israel as a key partner to counter the rising Arab nationalism and to maintain positive relations with the West. The ties took a brief hit under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh in 1951, who wanted to nationalise the oil and expel the British.  Following his ouster and the installation of the Shah in 1953, the ties blossomed, and countries exchanged ambassadors.

As a part of the strategic ‘Periphery Doctrine’,  Israel forged alliances with non-Arab states to counter hostile neighbours. In 1958, Israel, Turkey and Iran formed the “Alliance of Periphery” and solidified the “Trident” pact- an agreement encompassing intelligence sharing, economic cooperation and arms trade. Indeed, Mossad and the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK collaborated closely, and Israel provided extensive technical support to help develop Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure.

During the crippling Arab boycott and oil embargo, Iran emerged a major oil supplier to Israel helping Israel to circumvent the crisis. In return, Israel provided technological and agricultural assistance. Both countries jointly constructed a pipeline and supplied oil to Europe. Israel supported Iran’s covert efforts to assist the Kurdish separatists in Iraq.

The 1979 overthrow of the Shah marked Iran’s transformation into an Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The new clerical regime redefined Iran’s national identity around religiously driven anti-Zionism, severing decades of covert cooperation with Israel. In response, Israel shut down its embassy in Tehran, which was soon replaced by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) mission. This dramatic realignment also prompted an exodus of many Iranian Jews, who fled the country amid rising hostility and uncertainty.

Denouncing the US as “the Big Satan” and Israel as “Little Satan”, the clerical regime championed the Palestinian issue. The jihadi roadmap for the Islamic regime can be traced to the Khomeini’s “The Little Green Book” akin to the Mao Zedong’s “The Little Red Book”.

Transforming the Palestinian cause into an Islamic cause, Khomeini declared every last Friday of Ramadan as Quds Day (Jerusalem is called al-Quds in Arabic), and held rallies across Iran in support of Palestine to brandish Iran’s Islamic credentials. The larger idea was to put the Arab countries allied to the US on the defensive. But through the 1980s, Israel considered Saddam Hussein of Iraq a greater threat than Khomeini’s Iran. Israel supplied military equipment to Iran during the long wars with Iraq and served as a conduit for US weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

As per CIA reports, contrary to American assessment, Israel believed Iran could be an important partner in promoting its interests in the region and eventually hoped that it could play a role in facilitating rapprochement between the US and Iran. Ironically, Khamenini portrayed Israel as a ‘usurper Zionist regime’; a tool of American imperialism.

At the First Islamic Conference on December 4^th, 1990, Khamenei expounded the goal of liberating Palestine, “Regarding, the Palestine issue, the problem is taking back Palestine, which means disappearance of Israel. There is no difference between the occupied territories before and after [the Arab-Israeli war of] 1967. Every inch of Palestinian land is an inch of Palestinians’ home. Any entity ruling Palestine is illegitimate unless it is Islamic and by Palestinians. Our position is what our late Imam (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini) said, “Israel must disappear”. The Jews of Palestine can live there if they accept the Islamic government there. We are not against Jews. The issue is the illegal ownership of Muslims’ homes”¹.

Reiterating support for a new Palestine government, Khamenini in August 1991, said, “Solving the Palestinian problem entails destroying and eliminating the illegitimate government there, so that the true owners [of the land] can form a new government; Muslims, Christians, and Jews can live side by side. . . Our view regarding the Palestine issue is clear. We believe the solution is destroying the Israeli regime. Forty years have passed [since establishment of the state of Israel], and if another forty years passes, Israel must disappear, and will”².

Around the same time, Iran nurtured Hezbollah in Lebanon, which bombed a Jewish community centre and the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992. Khamenini began backing the Islamist jihadi groups like Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihadi groups stating, “The United States cannot solve the Palestinian problem to its own liking. The issue is like a bone choking them and, God willing, with Israel’s disappearance will be solved”². This pathological hatred reached a crescendo with the election of a hardliner, President Ahmadinejad, in 2005, who hosted the Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran. This irrevocably damaged Iran-Israel relations.

In 1990s, Israel-Iran secret collaboration ended after Israel got a whiff of Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Iran’s nuclear program, which began under the Pahlavi dynasty, hit a pause during the Iranian revolution. But it secretly continued to pursue the program under the codename AMAD project. After the first reports of a nuclear enrichment centre surfaced in 2003, facing the prospect of censure, Iran agreed to sign the Tehran Agreement with Britain, France and Germany to suspend enrichment.

However, huge inconsistencies uncovered by the IAEA led to the imposition of sanctions by the UNSC in 2006. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Agreement between P (5+1) and Iran in 2015 provided limited relief after Iran agreed to cap enrichment at 3.7%.

While publicly asserting its nuclear plan served civilian use, appearing to uphold commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Additional  Protocols, Iran covertly pursued enrichment activities. In 2018, a covert Mossad operation uncovered blueprints detailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, revealing undisclosed weapons-related facilities. Contending that the checks under the JCPOA as inadequate, then President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA.

From 2006, the covert hostilities escalated significantly as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces (IRGC) provided substantial backing to Hezbollah’s resistance against Israel. In response, Israel intensified cyber warfare against the Iranian nuclear programme. By early  2010s, amid the Arab Spring upheaval, Iran consolidated its ‘Axis of Resistance’ to strangulate Israel. The threat from the Ayatollah regime is real and undeniable, and the October 7 attacks have reinforced the same.

The IAEA reports from 2022 have consistently reported a steady increase in the Iranian stockpile of enriched Uranium. The latest IAEA report of May 2025 notes an expanded production of 60% enriched Uranium of 408 kg below the weapons-grade. This quantity places Iran perilously close to the nuclear threshold, raising international concerns should the trend continue unchecked.

On June 12, 2025, the IAEA board found Iran non-compliant with nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years³, and the board voted to censure Iran. In response, Iran announced it would activate a third nuclear enrichment facility⁴. Hours later, Israel launched strikes on Iran. Considering Israel’s record of taking down Iraq’s Osirak in 1981 and Syria’s putative nuclear facility in the Deir ez-Zor region in 2007, the air strikes on Iran aren’t unprecedented but just a continuation of a pattern.

Copyrights Reserved.

PM Modi’s Historic Visit to Croatia Opens a Fresh Chapter in Indian Diplomacy

Given its timeless antiquity, India has been a fount of wisdom and knowledge and a melting pot of cultures. In its long illustrious cilivisational journey, India attracted people from far and wide and engaged extensively with different societies. But centuries of invasions and colonisation disrupted the cultural and social fabric of this self-sustaining, prosperous civilisation. However, even after independence, internalising a sense of inferiority, attempting to fit into the Western rubric, Indian leadership undervalued its rich cultural heritage.

The vestige of colonial hangover lingeringly impacted its worldview. Since assuming power in 2014, PM Modi has reshaped foreign policy with Indian values and energised it. Wearing his identity proudly on his sleeves, PM Modi boosted Indian pride. This reimagination of foreign relations is mirrored in India’s new confidence to forge relationships on the strength of its civilisational connection as well.

Adeptly deploying soft power and economic influence, India is now widening engagement with the comity of nations. PM Modi’s landmark visit to Croatia rightly fits into the new paradigm of his transformational agenda of foreign policy.

After wrapping official visits to Cyprus and Canada, in the last leg of a three-nation trip, PM Modi headed for Croatia on June 18, the first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the Balkan nation. Extending a rousing welcome, Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic received PM Modi at the airport. Other than shared values of democracy, pluralism and the rule of law, marked cultural resonance sets India-Croatian relations on a unique pedestal.

After establishing diplomatic ties in 1992, countries witnessed several high-level leadership visits including President Ramnath Kovind’s state visit in 2019 and EAM Jaishankar’s trip in 2021. PM Modi met his Croatian counterpart on the sidelines of COP26 at Glasgow in 2023.

PM Modi’s pioneering visit to Croatia comes months after the first-ever European Union College of Commissioners visit to India, which included a delegate from Croatia. In 2023, during Croatian Foreign Minister Radman’s visit to India to attend the Raisina Dialogue, countries exchanged an MoU on defence cooperation. Taking this forward, PM Modi advocated a ‘Defence Cooperation Plan’ for long-term cooperation in defence sector including seeking opportunities for defence collaboration, training and military exchanges.

In the period of the 1970s and 1980s, India had strong trade relations with Yugoslavia and even purchased ships from Yugoslavia. Croatia, which was then part of Yugoslavia, accounted for two-thirds of the trade. Keen on strengthening cooperation in ship building, reinvoking the past ties, PM Modi invited Croatian companies to explore opportunities in port modernisation, coastal-zone development and participate in India’s multi-modal connectivity initiative, SAGARMALA.

Croatia is an integral part of the European Union’s meticulously planned Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). Strategically located on the Adriatic Sea, the Croatian ports of Rijeka, Split and Ploce have been the vital nodes for European exports. Situated at the intersection of key European transport corridors, Croatia is a gateway to Central and Eastern Europe.

Croatia is also part of the 12-nation Three Sea Initiative (TSI) that aims to promote economic cooperation in energy, transport and communication infrastructure. Comprising nations lying along the north-south axis from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea to the Black Sea, the initiative fosters interconnectedness. Croatia hosted the initiative’s inaugural summit at Dubrovnik in 2016.

Initially enthused by the prospect of trans-continental connectivity opportunities of China’s BRI, Croatia invited Beijing to the inaugural summit of TSI.  However, Croatia’s enthusiasm soon dissipated, giving way to caution and scepticism. Given India’s democratic credentials and transparent functioning, IMEC can emerge as a pragmatic choice for Croatia. Countries like Italy, France, Greece, Germany and the EU are weighing in to be part of IMEC. Considering the maritime traditions, leaders acknowledged the need for improving connectivity by expanding cooperation in ports, shipping domains, including through IMEC.

Recognising the importance of supply chain resilience, leaders affirmed to boost bilateral trade worth $515 million, through greater business-to-business collaboration, joint ventures and investment partnerships and innovation.

To foster collaboration and innovation partnerships, countries plan to strengthen the India-Croatia Startup Bridge launched in December 2021. PM Modi suggested that Croatia leverage the skilled talent of India and expedite the mobility partnership agreement.

To inject fresh impetus into the bilateral partnership, countries exchanged four MoUs- cooperation in agriculture and allied sectors; cooperation in science and technology; a cultural exchange program; and an MOU on Hindi chair at the University of Zagreb. India has offered to share space expertise with Croatia.

Countries are exploring opportunities for cooperation in digitalisation, AI, renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, tourism, hospitality, health care, cybersecurity and machine learning.

Being part of NATO and as the youngest member of the EU, Croatia wields immense influence way beyond its size. Its position in the European institutions can be valuable in terms of advocating Indian interests during decision-making. Croatia can play an important role in furthering the early conclusion of the India-EU FTA and advancing the India-EU strategic partnership. 

Yoga and Ayurveda are very popular in Croatia. The Department of Indology of the University of Zagreb, functioning for the past 60 years with a dedicated Sanskrit Chair, has been doing commendable work in Indology. Traditional Ratha Yatra has been carried out in Zagreb downtown since 2016. The Inter-University Centre of Dubrovnik was the venue for the 7^th International Vedic Workshop. India and Croatia have close cultural links dating back several centuries.

Burgeoning interest in Indic-Oriented societies like The Art of Living, ISKCON, Bhakti Marga and Yoga in Daily Life are bringing both nations closer. Underscoring the close cultural connections PM Plenkovic has gifted the first printed Sanskrit grammar book in 1790 written by Ivan Filip Vezdin to PM Modi.

Quick succession of conflicts, intense contestations across different theatres and reigning uncertainty are forcing countries to rapidly reconfigure partnerships. Trump’s tariff regime, threat of supply chain disruptions have compelled the EU to seek new markets, investment opportunities and derisk from China. Complementing Europe’s attempts to diversify trade, India is engaging in intensive deliberations on market access and tariffs. Having finalised the FTA with the UK, India and the EU have fast-tracked the FTA negotiations. Raring to conclude FTA with the EU by the end of this year, EAM Jaishankar has embarked on a 7-day visit to France and Belgium. India is pulling out all stops to strengthen ties with the EU and operationalise IMEC for seamless connectivity.

In the wake of Operation Sindoor, PM Modi’s trip to Europe to attend the Nordic Summit and travel to Croatia was cancelled. PM Modi’s landmark visit to Croatia is an attempt to resurrect the cultural and trade ties, which languished due to the political apathy and were roiled by scandals of the previous leadership. The visit marks an important milestone in India’s European engagement.

@ Copyrights Reserved.

India- Cyprus Bonhomie: A Strategic Mediterranean Reset

The rising global stature of a country must be reflected in its confident diplomatic outreach. An unambiguous foreign policy and assertive geopolitical signalling can forewarn the hostile actors of the red lines.  The 88-hour-long Operation Sindoor has been a watershed moment for India regarding counter-terrorism and strategic doctrine. The lessons from the operation provided a strategic clarity, prodding India to offset the strategic encirclement of the Pakistan-Turkey axis. PM Modi’s Cyprus visit is an important strategic signal in itself.

On his first leg of the three-nation visit, PM Modi landed at Nicosia on June 15^th. This marks the third visit by an Indian Prime Minister to the island, the first being Indira Gandhi’s visit in 1983. Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Cyprus in 2002.

Reimagining and reshaping Turkey as a 21st-century Caliphate, Erdogan has been aiding radical Islamic entities like Hezbollah, Hamas and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Backing Pakistan perfectly aligned with his ideological agenda. Turkey’s strong support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, both militarily and diplomatically and Erdogan’s reckless needling of India with references to the Kashmir issue at international platforms have confirmed Ankara’s hostility towards India. Recent reports of Turkish intelligence agencies financially backing Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami have underscored Turkey’s animosity.

Aware of Turkey’s muscular strategic moves aimed at India, New Delhi has been swiftly tightening ties with its regional neighbours- Armenia, Egypt and Greece. PM Modi’s Cyprus visit is part of India’s strategic messaging to Turkey.

Countering muscular moves with studied diplomacy, India has been swiftly tightening defence cooperation with Turkey’s rivals in the region—Armenia, Egypt, Greece, and now Cyprus. PM Modi’s first overseas destination to Cyprus post-Operation Sindoor is a deft signal to Turkey.

India and Cyprus relations, anchored in anti-colonial struggles and the Non-Aligned Movement, had cordial links rooted in trust. Cyprus supported India during the 1962 Chinese aggression, while India rushed humanitarian supplies as the country battled through conflicts between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in 1964. Ever since, India has been part of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and has been a dependable partner of Cyprus.

India has flourishing trade with Cyprus, valued at $137 million (2023-24). Cyprus is among the top 10 sources of investment for India, with cumulative investments of $15 billion. The advanced financial sector services of the island and the revision of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) in 2016 had created a favourable investment climate.

 Getting ready to assume the presidency of the EU Council in early 2026, Cyprus can play a great role in the India-EU FTA and strategic partnership. India and the EU are at the cusp of finalising the FTA, and strong relations with Cyprus can help New Delhi secure the economic engagement. In February, Euro Bank of Cyprus opened a representative branch in Mumbai, serving as a gateway for Indian businesses in Cyprus.

Straddling Asia, Europe and Africa, Cyprus occupies a geographic sweet spot, making it an ideal logistical hub. Cyprus is the entry point for the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Connectivity (IMEC) trade route. India is actively exploring the prospect of increasing shipping presence on the island.

In a warm gesture, Cyprus President Nikos Christodoulides received PM Modi at the airport. Leaders addressed the Cyprus–India Business Round Table on Advancing a Strategic Economic Partnership at Limassol and welcomed the signing of two MoUs, including plans to launch UPI for cross border payments and cooperation between GIFT City and Cyprus Stock Exchange.

Extending a ceremonial welcome to PM Modi at the Presidential Palace, leaders held bilateral talks on bilateral, regional and global issues. Leaders “expressed concern” over the Israel-Iran war and conflicts in Asia and Europe, and they agreed that “this is not an era of war”. Both leaders strongly condemned terrorism and violent extremism. Calling for expeditious finalisation and adoption of the  Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) within the UN framework, Cyprus strongly condemned the Pahalgam attack.

India reaffirmed its unwavering support for the “independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of the Republic of Cyprus”. Cyprus was partitioned following Turkey’s invasion in 1974. Turkey invaded Cyprus in response to a Greek junta military coup’s attempt to annexe the island. Since the attack, Turkey has evicted Greek Cypriots, continued to occupy 37% of the north eastern region of the island. Even after the Greek Cypriot majority formed a legitimate, internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus, Turkey refused to withdraw its military troops from Northern Cyprus.

 Soon, Turkish Cypriots migrated to the region, established their claims and declared independence in 1983. They assumed the name of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). Pakistan and Bangladesh recognised the TRNC just days after its independence. Following UNSC resolution 541, which declared North’s independence “legally invalid”, both countries revoked their recognition. Pakistan was the lone country to have voted in favour of the resolution. TNRC is currently recognised by Turkey, with whom it exchanges diplomats.

On his visit to Turkey post-Pahalgam attack, Pakistan Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif announced his support for TRNC. TRNC continues to occupy a high place in Turkey’s agenda, which Pakistan unfailing continues to support.

India’s ties with Cyprus were never transactional. Indian Military legends like Lt. Gen. P.S. Gyani, Lt. Gen. Dewan Prem Chand and Gen. K.S. Thimayya have UN peacekeeping missions on the island. Cyprus indeed named a street after Thimayya, who died in 1965 while serving (UNFICYP) and issued a commemorative stamp in his memory in 1966. India’s support to Cyprus has been legendary.

As deft message to Turkey from the Cyprus Buffer Zone/ Green Line, amid foreboding hostilities, PM Modi with President Christodoulides by his side, strongly pitched for the reunification of Cyprus. The Joint Statement also stated, “Cyprus and India expressed their strong commitment to the resumption of UN-facilitated efforts to achieve a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Cyprus Question on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, in accordance with the agreed UN framework and the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions”.

After the discovery of gas deposits in the Levant basin of the Eastern Mediterranean region - Greece, Israel, and Cyprus sealed a deal in January 2020 to build a 1900 km undersea EastMed Pipeline to transport gas to Europe.  The EastMed project would eventually make Cyprus, Greece and Israel the key links to Europe’s energy supply, reducing reliance on Azerbaijan’s Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) passing through Turkey.  Perceiving this as a slight to its importance as a regional energy hub, Turkey stymied the EastMedline by inking a maritime deal with Libya to delineate the continental shelves in the Mediterranean Sea. This maritime map overlapped the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Cyprus and Greece. Challenging Cyprus's claims over the EEZ, Turkey threw a spanner into the EastMed project, leading to its collapse.

Raking up historical disputes with Greece and Cyprus over the Aegean Islands and the TRNC, Turkey established naval bases in Northern Cyprus. Turkey’s aggressive military posturing led to the commencement of the annual edition of joint military exercises involving France, the UAE, Italy, Cyprus and Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus is rich in energy reserves. This augurs well with India’s attempts to diversify energy imports and plausible energy cooperation.

Given the threat from revisionist Turkey, India, Greece and the UAE have established a trilateral dialogue. During the current visit, PM Modi launched India–Greece–Cyprus (IGC) Business and Investment Council to foster trilateral cooperation in shipping, logistics, renewable energy, civil aviation and digital services.

Marking 60 years of diplomatic ties, India and Cyprus signed an MoU on defence cooperation in December 2022. To enhance structured and defence and military exchanges and cooperation, both countries signed the Bilateral Cooperation Development Programme (BCDP) in January 2025.

Strongly aligned in their commitment to ocean governance, countries are now exploring opportunities for increased port calls, joint maritime training and maritime domain awareness. Leaders have also agreed to institutionalise coordination in evacuation, Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. To firm up ties and lay the foundation for an enduring partnership, leaders have tasked their respective Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare an Action Plan for the next five years, 2025-29.

Cyprus firmly supports India’s on Kashmir issue and New Delhi’s inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the expanded UNSC as a permanent member.

President Christodoulides conferred on PM Modi, the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III, the highest honour bestowed by Cyprus on foreign heads of government. In a show of deep friendship, both leaders walked together in the historic centre of the capital city, Nicosia, and on the Mediterranean shore. As India seeks to recalibrate its ties with the Mediterranean and Europe, Cyprus' status as an EU member can be strategically very important.

Meticulously aligning strategic vision with national interests, PM Modi’s foreign policy doctrine has been dextrously suffused with symbolism and unambiguous strategic signalling. Rooted in trust, mutual respect, and cementing mutually beneficial partnerships, PM Modi has been consistently positioning India as a responsible power. Treating every nation as an equal partner regardless of the power calculus, India is rewriting the revisionist and hegemonistic order of geopolitical rise.

@ Copyrights Reserved.

Selective Outrage: The West’s Double Standards on Dissent

The disturbing visuals of rioting, vandalism and arson from Los Angeles have stunned the world. Large-scale violence, unrest and loot typically associated with the Third World is the unpleasant reality of America’s Tinsel Town.

Declared as a sanctuary city, in 2019, LA has been on Trump’s immigration radar. Ahead of his inauguration, Trump vowed to use all tools at his disposal to fulfil the campaign promise of mass deportations. To thwart a massive clampdown, the LA City Council adopted a “sanctuary city” ordinance forbidding the use of the city’s resources and staff for federal immigration enforcement efforts. It barred city employees from collecting individual’s immigration status and notifying federal authorities about the release or detention of illegal immigrants.

California had in place special provisions that safeguarded undocumented immigrants. In 1979, the LA Police Department adopted Special Order No.40, barring officers from questioning individuals solely about their immigration status. During Trump’s first term, California’s then-governor, Jerry Brown, signed into law the California Values Act, SB 54, limiting the use of state and local resources for federal enforcement efforts.

The state-installed legal buffers made California a safe haven for 11 million illegal immigrants. When the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched raids to apprehend illegal immigrants, mostly those with criminal histories, demonstrations escalated into violent protests. The unjustifiable violence forced President Trump to deploy the National Guard troops.

Democrats swiftly condemned the crackdown on illegal immigration as a “provocation”. Objecting to Washington’s overreach, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, urged Defence Secretary Hegesth to rescind the Federal Order on troop deployment that violated the 10^th Amendment. Even as the anarchy masquerading as protests continued, the LA Mayor, Karen Bass, downplayed the violence and termed “deployment a chaotic escalation” and “political retribution”.

Voted to power for promising decisive action on illegal immigration, Trump’s decision to call National Guard troops and mobilise Marines resonated with people beyond ideological lines. A recent Pew Research Survey in the US indicated that an overwhelming 97% favoured the deportation of illegals with a criminal background. Countries across the world are grappling with illegal immigration and the security challenges it poses. However, the far-left ecosystem, favourably disposed towards illegal immigration, is weaponising them to take on the populist and nationalist governments.

The despicable whitewashing of lawlessness and utter confusion created by the rioting mobs, most of them illegal immigrants in the LA riots, exposed the agenda of the far left.  The rioters torched public property, clashed with police, defaced buildings, raised foreign country flags and even spat on the American flag and burned it. But Democrat leaders- Elizabeth Warren called them “Peaceful Protests”, former Vice President Kamla Harris termed them as “Overwhelmingly peaceful”, and Gavin Newsom echoed “It’s under control”, justifying the violence as ‘acts of resistance’. Ironically, while Democrats vehemently oppose Trump’s ICE raids, they remained silent on Obama-era record-high ICE  formal deportations headed by Tom Homan, now Trump’s ‘Border Czar’.

America’s growing political polarisation eerily mirrors the Indian scenario. Despite their own internal turbulence, the US media and establishment often adopt a sanctimonious tone and sit in judgment of the Global South.

The year 2019 was an important milestone in India’s political history. The re-election of PM Modi for a second term with a thumping majority bolstered hopes of a much-needed political stability that can springboard India’s economic growth.

Abrogation of Article 370 boosted India’s faith in the political leadership, the historic Ram Mandir judgement and the iconic Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) law revitalised the fledgling Indic renaissance. The rise of a nationalist government and its firm commitment to rejuvenate India’s civilisational heritage rattled the vested interests and their foreign masters. Consolidating the electoral victories, the nationalist government firmed up its presence even in the States. A sprightly India, refusing to be a pliable power, not in the best interest of the foreign lobbies, was suddenly marred by waves of orchestrated protests.

The CAA, which attempted to rectify “historical wrongs” by offering citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, along with an announcement for the NRC (National Register of Citizenship) to identify illegal migrants, triggered a torrent of protests across different parts of the country. Principal opposition, Congress, which initiated the CAA process during Manmohan Singh's rule, termed the law as divisive. TMC’s Mamata Banerjee, who demanded NRC in the Parliament, cast aspersions on the government. Online misinformation and fear-mongering portrayed CAA-NRC as discriminatory, aimed at “othering of Indian Muslims”, fuelling mistrust.

Under the guise of ‘peaceful dissent’, the ‘kagz nahi dikhayenge’ gang occupied public spaces in the capital for months. Mutating into a platform for incendiary speeches, the Shaheen Bagh protests- an ostensibly non-violent demonstration- erupted into full-blown 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi riots shortly after Trump’s visit. Over 50 lives were lost, exposing the charade of peaceful protests.

Firmly backed by the global far left brigade, the Indian Opposition defended the blockade of public space as an acceptable form of democratic protest.

Soon after, for political rehabilitation, the Indian opposition aligned with anti-India elements intent on maligning India’s image. In cahoots with disgruntled elements, the Indian opposition enacted a democratic coup by backing farmers' protests that strategically blocked Delhi’s borders for 16 months to repeal transformative farm laws.  

In a planned insurrection, on the 72nd Republic Day, the protestors occupied the Red Fort and hoisted religious flags and unleashed violence, injuring hundreds of security personnel. Shortly, infantile socio-environmentalist Greta Thunberg, in a post on X, inadvertently exposed the toolkit, a global campaign to fuel unrest in India.

Five years ago, India, and more precisely, farmers' protests, hogged the international headlines. Every newspaper worth its salt had a message for India. Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Trudeau hit out at India during the farmers' protests. Trudeau, former Canadian Prime Minister, the left-wing darling, remarked, “I would be remiss if I didn't start by recognising the news coming from India about the protest by farmers. The situation is concerning. We are all very worried about family and friends….. Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue”.  

Two years hence, declaring a state of emergency, Trudeau crushed the ‘Freedom Convoy’ protests with an iron hand. Defending his actions, he tweeted, “Canadians have the right to protest, to disagree with their government, and to make their voices heard. We’ll always protect that right. But let’s be clear: They don’t have the right to blockade our economy, or our democracy, or our fellow citizens’ daily lives. It has to stop”.

This duplicity speaks volumes.  The West sets standards for others that it refuses to subscribe to. While preaching that dissent is the essence of democracy, leaders like Trump and Trudeau resorted to militarised crackdowns at home. Yet, the West demands that India show unwavering restraint toward squatters and protestors who, under the guise of democratic expression, disrupted supply chains and posed a direct threat to public order for over two years.

The LA riots have spread to 37 locations across the US, yet not a single international agency of repute has raised a concern. In stark contrast, prominent global organisations—Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, the UN Human Rights Commission, and USCIRF and celebrities like Rihanna and Jay Sean, joined the chorus to criticise India, while Western think tanks went so far as to label the country an 'electoral autocracy.'

Alas, for all its lofty moral posturing, the image of an Australian reporter hit by a rubber bullet will be hard-wired in the Indian psyche. India holding up a mirror to the United States isn’t an act of defiance—it’s a much-needed reality check. Long hailed as the bastion of liberal democracy, America is proving to be anything but the torchbearer of democratic ideals.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Delimitation and States Reorganization: For a Better Democracy in Bharat

Teeming with 1.4 billion people, India has set a lofty goal of Viksit Bharat 2047 on the strength of three Ds- Demography, Demand and Democracy. Marked by a peaceful transition of power and a five-year periodic cycle of free and fair elections, India burnishes its democratic credentials.

India has been the mother of Democracy, which has been the hallmark of mature civilisations. Self-governance and devolution of power, the vital elements of a democratic setup, have been integral to Bharatiya society even before the Mauryas and Guptas. Notably, despite sheer geographic separation, similar democratic impulses existed in Greece. While the capricious Amerisphere think-tanks designate India as an ‘electoral autocracy’, based on its Christianised version of democracy, passages in the Rig Veda Mandalas and Atharva Veda vividly describe the election of ‘rajan’ by the Samiti. Democratic system existed in various forms in India from the Vedic times. Clearly, no country, including the West, can have a monopoly over the term ‘Democracy’ and can’t be allowed to set normative benchmarks in judgment of other countries under the garb of ‘rules-based order’.

Unfortunately, waves of foreign invasions have irretrievably disturbed the embedded democratic principles of Bharatiya society. Over two centuries long British colonisation had left a deep imprint on the body politic of India. Having mastered the art of weaponisation of identity markers like religion, caste and language, the British created fissures in the Indian society. The brutal partition of India is rooted in these divisive identity politics, which are a threat to the unity of the country. However, for quick political gains, regional political parties deliberately latch onto identity politics to mobilise the electorate. Unity in diversity is the bedrock of Indian civilisation. The heightened assertion of identities coupled with a renewed call for a freeze on delimitation can be inimical to the democratic framework of any country.

Countering this frenzy, authors Gautam R Desiraju and Deekhit Bhattacharya have brought out a book, “Delimitation and States Reorganization For A Better Democracy in Bharat”, a sequel to Bharat: India 2.0 (authored by Prof. Desiraju), offering a bold, new framework for reshaping the Indian States.  Discarding the time-worn dogmatic methodology, the book gets to the root of the growing trend of identity politics. For their administrative convenience to strengthen their hold on India, the British encouraged provincial reorganisation along the linguistic lines. Soon, the political identity on linguistic lines was firmly instilled in people by around 1920. Ever since, regardless of history, culture and tradition, language emerged as the primary identity of people.

The rise of linguistic consciousness soon bred the supremacist political idea, triggering the genesis of exclusivist political parties that seeded linguistic and cultural chauvinism. During the freedom movement, these hardened linguistic identities dented the national unity by fostering sub-nationalism. Identifying Tamil language as a vector, missionaries instilled the Dravidian ideology in the Madras Province by propping up the caste divisions and designating Nadars as non-Aryan. By turning language into a vector of social engineering, the British successfully drilled in the idea of separateness and sowed seeds of division between Bharat and the Tamil people.

Upholding the objectives of the Justice Party that advocated Dravidian ideology, its offshoots are now stoking embers of separateness in Tamil Nadu. The recent doubling down on imagined Hindi-language imposition and demand for a further freeze on delimitation, provoking the North-South divide indeed warrants a serious relook at the reorganizational framework of States.

Acknowledging “Tamil language as the totem of Dravidianism”, the authors hark back to the failures of the political leadership of independent India that unsuspectedly adopted linguistic reorganisation of States. Strangely, the 1956 States Reorganisation Commission of independent India echoed the British approach of “convenience and apathy” in carving new states based on language, disregarding the economic concerns and cultural identities of the people. Applying the theme of “One Language One State”, new states were formed conforming to a new uniform identity of language, resulting in the suppression of other dialects.

This larger fragmentation created artificial homogenisation, loss of cultural diversity and accentuated dissimilarities between states. With no rationale for the division and application of metrics, India ended up having disparate states with some wielding outsized political heft. This has destabilised the crosstalk between the Unitary (Centre) and peripheral units (States). Centrifugal disruptive tendencies of the states can impact the overall unity of the country.

To stem this rising sub-nationalism and the arm-twisting of States with disproportional electoral heft, the authors recommend the creation of 75 small states based on a common ethnicity, historical connections, language, and culture that enhances self-worth, linguistic pride and self-development. Asserting that the reorganisation of states and delimitation are two sides of the same coin, the book strongly recommends delimitation of States based on the census scheduled for March 2027.

The principle of equal representation is paramount in democracy. The potential of national diversity can be best represented with “Each Vote Same Value and Each State Same Heft”. The authors believe that reorganisation into smaller units of an average 2 crore population can herald mental decolonisation, inspire citizens to embrace their civilizational identities unapologetically. In fact, small states with optimal population size and diversity, besides augmenting the country’s potential, can promote true federalism. If states are roughly the same size, none would have disproportionate heft.

The authors strongly recommend that the Centre must bite the Delimitation bullet frozen for 50 years, against the 10-year renewal after every census. The last delimitation exercise was carried out based on the 1971 census. Boundaries were readjusted in 2001, but the number of Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies remained the same.  Small states can resolve the inconsistencies of demography, economy and federal impulses to a large extent. Currently, the average voters represented by an Lok Sabha MP is 17.9 lakh, more than the size of Sweden. ‘Delimitation helps in realignment and reemergence of new power dynamics’.

Advocating for an extremely onerous task of delimitation, which involves demographic, political and legal complexities, the authors want the exercise to be done ‘ab initio’ not incrementally. As per Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, Parliament can form new states and redraw the existing boundaries. Delimitation is the first step in reshaping and reimagining India.

‘Bharat is an ancient civilisation, India is a new country’ trapped in the Westphalian artifice of the nation state. India has given in to the British imposition of institutionalised linguistic identity. British model can be exemplified by Winston Churchill’s statement, “India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the equator”. As the authors rightly contend, “intellectual colonisation outlasts political colonisation”, and the Indian elite looking at India through the British lens has embellished and institutionalised this lie.

Indeed, the “Western notion of federalism rooted in the Roman idea, of varied peoples pooling together select political power as foederatis makes little sense in the Indian context- our model is of singular all-pervading Brahman manifesting itself in many forms by declaring ‘May I be many, may I grow forth’ instead of preexisting bits and pieces of agglomerating together”.

Offering a compelling logic, the authors present Dr. Ambedkar’s note on the 1956 SRC entitled “Thoughts on Linguistic States”. He wrote, “The formation of Linguistic States, although essential, cannot be decided by any sort of hooliganism. Nor must it be solved in a manner that will serve party interest. It must be solved by cold-blooded reasoning”. Suggesting an alternative foundation, the authors have come up with the idea of “One Language One State”.

Forwarded by Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, the 245-page book comprising five chapters offers prescriptive solutions and an actionable plan for India aspiring to rediscover, reclaim its civilizational identity. Presenting a clear distinction in the end goals of a nation state and a civilizational state, rooted in a Dharmic foundation, the authors provide a blueprint that necessitates the reorganisation of States and a new constitution that resonates with the values and aspirations of people.

Historically, Bharat had small states, and the new model of 75 states aligns with the time-tested idea that uncompromisingly nurtures diversity, which is the essence of our civilisation. With a nationalist dispensation at the helm, India is going through a silent churn. The dispassionate visionary blueprint etched out by the authors to make India a better democracy deserves huge applause. The roadmap is reflective of their desire in India’s emergence as a civilisation state. The book is timely and a must-read.

@ Copyrights reserved.