India’s Strategic Trade Diversification Gains Fresh Momentum with CETA

Amid the inordinate delays in trade negotiations with the US and the Damocles Sword of Trump tariffs, India has sealed an FTA with the UK. PM Modi, on his fourth visit to the UK, was hosted by his UK counterpart Kier Starmer at his official Country residence, Chequers, for the FTA signing ceremony on July 24, 2025. Leaders formally announced the successful conclusion of the India-UK FTA on May 6^th after three years of negotiations.

The FTA was indeed the cornerstone of the collaborative 2030 India-UK Roadmap laid down by PM Modi and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. As a part of the Enhanced Trade Partnership, countries began the first round of FTA negotiations, virtually in January 2022. The next 15 rounds of talks were held alternatively in Delhi and London.

Beset by contentious issues like mobility visas, carbon tax exemptions and duty cuts on alcohol and electric vehicles and elections in both countries, the talks dragged for over three years. Notwithstanding several leadership changes, post-Brexit, the UK, keen on reviving its stagnant economy, has keenly pursued the talks. With Conservatives at the helm, mobility remained the major roadblock. Expressing willingness for early conclusion of FTA, Labour leader, PM Starmer relaunched the talks in January 2025. Reaching consensus over the thorniest issues, countries finally reached consensus in May.

Traditionally labelled as a laggard in terms of economic diplomacy, New Delhi’s readiness towards FTAs has been rather tepid. Moreso, the ill-conceived and poorly negotiated FTAs clinched pre-2014 turned out to be lopsided. Except for SAPTA (SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement), the trade imbalances with South Korea, Japan and ASEAN have been steadily increasing. Wary of burgeoning trade deficits, India walked away from China-dominated RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) in 2019.  

Driven by geopolitical conditions, to spur economic growth and access new markets, India intensified economic partnership with like-minded countries. Post-2022, India sealed new FTAs with Mauritius, Australia and the UAE.  In March 2024, India entered into a Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with EFTA (European Free Trade Association), a group of four non-EU countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Norway. Coming into force from October, the agreement will entail $100 billion in investment in the next 15 years, creating 10 lakh jobs in India.

To ensure equitable and balanced trade, India is seeking to review FTAs with South Korea, Japan and ASEAN. Alongside, to diversify trade and boost economic growth, India has strategically revived FTA negotiations with developed countries to boost investor confidence and remove uncertainty in trade policies.

India’s FTA with the UK, the CETA, Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, is a huge milestone in that direction. CETA will provide duty-free access for 99% of Indian exports and covers the entire trade basket, creating numerous opportunities for Indian textiles, marine products, leather, footwear, gems & jewellery, toys and small businesses. Access to new markets can accelerate exports and generate millions of jobs in India.

The service sector, the major growth engine of the Indian economy, would also accrue wide-ranging benefits under Contractual Service Suppliers (CSS) of CETA for IT and IT-enabled services and other 36 sectors, providing vast avenues for growth. Simplified visa procedures and liberalised entry categories are expected to increase the mobility of skilled talent in 16 Independent Professional (IPs) categories, such as Research and Development, Chef, artists, yoga instructors, to the UK.

CETA is expected to double the bilateral trade of $56 billion by 2030. India is the 11^th largest trade partner of the UK. Along with CETA, India has also sealed the Double Contribution Convention, exempting Indian workers in the UK and their employers from social security contributions for three years. This would boost earnings and remittances. The UK is currently the largest source of remittances for India after the US and UAE. 

A 50% duty reduction on 97% of UK exports, mainly alcohol products, medical devices and advanced machinery can increase its accessibility to the large Indian markets. Reeling under economic stagnation post-Brexit, CETA with India will accelerate industrial growth and revive the sixth-largest economy.

With 27 Chapters covering trade and services, labour mobility, including social and developmental issues, the India-UK FTA can serve as the benchmark for India’s future trade negotiations. As per GTRI, India is expected to forego revenue $ 542 million in the first year due to tariff reductions on a wide range of UK imports. Notwithstanding this loss of customs revenue, India went ahead with the FTA, reflecting a massive shift in the trade policy, which is more rational, intended to make Indian industries competitive in the long run. Further, the phased tariff reductions on automobiles should serve as a huge message to President Trump, who has unceremoniously picked on India for the tariffs on high-end luxury bikes.

The FTA, while preserving Indian autonomy, has balanced its commitment to the global norms as set the stage for expediting the long-pending FTA with the EU. Another important key feature of this FTA is a dedicated chapter for gender, which explicitly endorses the critical role of women in economic development. Besides strengthening investment and trade linkages, CETA marks the convergence of the UK’s quest for trade diversification and boosts India’s goal of self-reliance through ‘Make in India, for the World’. Securing its trade interests, India has carefully signed the FTA, expected to come into force by next year after the ratification by the respective Parliaments.

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CABM) will come into force in the UK in 2027, and it is not included in the FTA. Alleviating the concerns of the Indian businesses, India has asserted its right to introduce counterbalancing measures to mitigate its impact. However, critical gaps still exist, especially in mobility. Despite Indian efforts, the UK administration is still recalcitrant on its immigration outlook. Similarly, India has restricted access for the UK’s financial and legal services. While the stringent phytosanitary measures of the UK can be an onerous hurdle for Indian farmers.

By and large, India’s landmark FTA with the UK will now serve as a framework for trade agreements with the EU and the US. Trade agreements can help build indigenous manufacturing capabilities to match with the global partners and eventually facilitate integration with the global economy.

CETA has laid the ground for deepening economic partnership with the UK, which is the sixth-largest investor in India with cumulative investments worth $36 billion. India's investments in the UK, valued at $20 billion, generate one lakh jobs. Modi and Starmer also unveiled the India-UK 2035 Vision plan to deepen and diversify bilateral cooperation.

The ambitious Roadmap seeks to nurture education and skills partnership, intellectual partnership, health and life sciences partnership, develop cutting-edge technology and research through the year-old UK-India Technology Security Initiative (TSI) and foster climate partnership to work towards net zero goals.

Leaders have adopted the 10-year defence-industrial roadmap, opening enormous opportunities for collaboration between defence industries. Countries have decided to collaborate on advanced connectivity, cyber resilience, semiconductors, quantum biotechnology and harness the UK-India Research and Innovation Corridor focused on future telecoms, AI and critical minerals.

Replete with geopolitical contestations, challenges and growth opportunities, Indo-Pacific is now a pivotal theatre. Committed to a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific, India can be an indispensable partner for the UK in the region. Steering clear of mistrust, resentment and colonial misgivings, both countries have laid a foundation to build a pragmatic and forward-looking relationship based on shared interests with the trade agreement.

Battling similar threats, leaders condemned terrorism and decided to strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation in counter-radicalisation, combat financing of terrorism and take concerted action against terrorist entities and their patrons. As marked disapproval of London mayor Sadiq Khan’s inaction despite repeated requests from Indian authorities of the threat from Khalistanis, PM Modi deliberately avoided London. The security breach during EAM Jaishankar’s London visit is still fresh in Indian memory. The two most important appointments of PM Modi – the signing of FTA and meeting with King Charles III were held away from London.

The UK has become a safe haven for Khalistani terrorism and India’s economic offenders. PM Modi brought these issues to the fore in his press briefing. He remarked, “We are united in our view that there can be no place for double standards in the fight against terrorism. We also agree that forces with extremist ideologies must not be allowed to misuse democratic freedoms. Those who misuse democratic freedoms to undermine democracy itself must be held to account. On the matter of extradition of economic offenders as well, our agencies will continue to work together in close coordination and cooperation”.

At a time when mercurial Trump is raining down tariff threats on India, India deftly sealed a trade agreement with the UK as a strategic message to the US. Trump announced a trade deal with India as early as February and set an ambitious target of $500billion bilateral trade. Six months hence, both countries held five rounds of negotiations, with the sixth round scheduled for August 25^th.

At the time of writing, news just trickled in that Trump has announced 25% tariffs on India plus a penalty. By weaponising trade, Trump has recklessly undermined the India-US Global Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Instructively, factoring in Trump’s transactionalism, India has fast-tracked trade negotiations with various countries. India-UK FTA is thus very timely and augurs well with India’s attempts to buffet the headwinds of Trump’s whimsical trade policies.   

@ Copyrights reserved.

The British Makeover of India: Indigenous Education and Languages Downgraded

India, that is Bharat, has been a land of seekers of knowledge. Learning and pursuit of knowledge have been an integral part of Indian civilisation. Nearly eight decades into independence, India hasn’t yet completely reclaimed its civilisational heritage. Relentless Muslim invasions and British colonisation have struck at the very foundational structures of its civilisation.

In her rigorously researched two-volume series on the impact of the British Colonisation on India’s civilisation, Padma Sri Meenakshi Jain brought to light the systematic destruction of India’s indigenous institutions by the British East India Company (EIC). The first volume, released in 2024, expertly uncovers the colonial dismantling of the native judiciary and its allied institutions, which were rooted in the Dharma Shastras and Sutras. (A review of the first volume- The British Makeover of India: Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned can be accessed here).

Structured in four sections, the second volume titled- “The British Makeover of India: Indigenous Education and Languages Downgraded” brings out in sordid detail the steady decline of the indigenous education system. Enduring the double whammy of lack of government support and impoverishment of the natives under colonial rule, the system that thrived for millennia crumbled.

Western travellers and the early EIC officials were in awe of the indigenous education system, mostly ‘single teacher run schools’ that imparted the 3 basic Rs of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. Supported by the communities, the schools erected by teachers and built in clay catered to rudimentary learning. The curriculum enabled the students to become competent in the skills needed for local transactions. Mistakenly described as rote learning, the indigenous system focused on practice and memory as a tool of learning.  The author highlights and traces the functioning of Verdah or Tinnai Schools in Tamil Nadu that survived through the early decades of the 20^th century.

Soon, the colonial government often confronted the traditional and institutionalised learning of these schools, forcing them to shift to the modern (British curriculum). Arguing for Anglicisation or Christianisation, Charles Grant, along with Rev. David Brown and George Udny, drafted a plan, Mission to Bengal, to set up missionary schools headed by clergymen in all eight provinces of Bengal. He insisted “The People are universally and wholly corrupt, they are as depraved as they are blind, and as wretched as they are depraved, and to govern them and render them obedient and orderly upon right principles is no easy Work….. to reconcile them for a foreign dominion like Ours, it seems equally clear that We and they ought to have some strong common principles…… Religion is that Common Principle, the only just and durable one that can be established between us” (p35).

Terming the European arts and science as “superior lights”, Grant proposed that the ‘implantation’ of this British curriculum through the English language would silently disconnect the Hindus from their heritage. Drawing from the earlier Muslim invaders who conducted public affairs and governance in Persian and asserted their superiority, Grant believed that English must be made the language of administration and judicial work. Grant’s plans were the meat of the Company Charter of 1793.

EIC’s plans are renewed every twenty years by the parliament. Seemingly, in the early stages of colonisation, the parliament, taking a cautious approach on sending missionaries to India, didn’t endorse the plan in its entirety. However, Grant, who had the backing of Prime Minister Henry Dundas, using his authority, sent twenty Chaplains to India. Soon, the ‘Sermapore Trio’- William Carey, William Ward and Joshua Marshman, who arrived in Calcutta without valid licences, expanded the evangelisation programme. Anglicist William Wilberforce advocated for the dissemination of Christianity through various Indian languages.

Initially, a section of EIC officials, referred to as Orientalists, endorsed the indigenous education systems and espoused revival of traditional knowledge. They established new institutions in Bengal, Bombay province. Warren Hastings started Calcutta Madrassa in 1781 and Jonathan Duncan founded Sanskrit College in 1781 to increase intellectual contact between Pandits and British officials, surmising the concept of ‘reinvigorate, not replace’. But eventually, missionaries used these institutions to become proficient in vernacular languages. Translating the Bible into local languages, they distributed Christian texts and books to the common people. Soon, the missionaries even turned their focus to different Oriental languages and spread Christianity to South East Asia as well.

With the appointment of William Bentinck as Governor General of India in 1828, the pretence of ‘engrafting European sciences’ on traditional knowledge was shed. He approved the introduction of English to reduce administrative costs, and natives also showed interest to learn the language to earn a livelihood. Eventually, the Company Charter of 1793 fructified in 1835 when Anglicists Charles Trevelyan and Thomas B Macaulay pressed hard for its implementation.

In his speech before the Parliament opposing scholarships and funds to the indigenous institutions Macaulay said, “To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own”. Confessing to having no knowledge of Sanskrit or Arabic, Macaulay argued, “who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia… It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sancrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England” (p70).

The Macaulay Minute of Feb 2, 1835, which has veered the indigenous education system away from its traditional moorings and produced thousands of brown sahibs, was unhinged about its contempt for natives. Obtrusively citing the end goal, Macaulay indicated, “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern- a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of this country to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population”(p70). Perhaps, given the brazenness of Macaulay’s stance, the Minute was published in 1853. Macaulay didn’t want it to be published.

Apprised of the consequences of this wily Charter, which was approved by the Parliament, in a letter to his father, Macaulay confessed- “No Hindoo, who has received an English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy; but many profess themselves as pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity. It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be affected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty; merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect”. (p74). In fact, the growing tribe of influentials HINOs is a direct outcome of the Macaulay education system, which was imposed on the unsuspecting natives.

The Charter Act 1833 opened the floodgates for missionaries so much so that the period between 1830-57 was reckoned as “Age of Mission School”. Offering elementary education in vernacular languages, missionaries successfully penetrated even the rural areas. Given their increasing reach, evangelists argued for grants-in-aid for missionary schools, pressed for introduction of Bible as a class book and called for abolishing Oriental schools and colleges. Alexander Duff, author of educational despatch, described imparting English education without religion, “a blind suicidal” policy.

The EIC, wary of perceived threats to the interests of the Empire in the wake of the Vellore Mutiny, Tinnevelley riots and Nagpur riots, halted direct financial assistance to missionaries and tried to rein on the religious bigotry of missionaries. However, the missionaries soon ventured into secondary education. Simultaneously, the colonial government began tweaking the indigenous curriculum in colleges by removing key Sanskrit texts and adding the Western classics in arts and literature.

Post-1857 revolt, the government totally abandoned the policy of religious neutrality and imposed Christianity. Postulating, keeping people away from Christianity caused the 1857 Mutiny, Herbert Edwardes said, “between us and the Indian people, the great want is the want of a link. We are divided by our religions. There is no amalgamation between the races. There is nothing to twine one within the other and cement our interests. We stand aloof- and find nothing in our worldly policy to bridge the space. We shall only find that link in Christianity. If we Christianise one man, we have made one friend. If we Christianise a race, we have got an army. If we Christianise a province, we have founded a government. If we Christianise a people, we have made an empire…”. (p253).

In addition to Christianisation, rampant exploitation rendered the prosperous Indian society impoverished. Dire economic straits resulted in teachers' reluctance to barter knowledge. Further, the mandatory fees for enrolment into schools denied the masses basic access to elementary education. Once a thriving society of knowledge and education, the education system of India collapsed due to a lack of patronage from the government and the dire poverty of people.

The last section of the book examines the colonial times when Hindus and Muslims asserted civilisation identity through language. Stripping Hindavi, an amalgamation of Sanskrit and Persian languages of the Sanskrit heritage, elite Muslims during the decline of the Mughal Empire developed Urdu. Refurbishing Hindavi with Persian heritage, Muslims flaunted a separate identity. Urdu created fundamental dissensions between Hindus and Muslims. Soon, Hindus asserted their Indic heritage under the umbrella of Hindi, which became a unifying factor for Hindus during the freedom struggle. As politicians rake up language issues for electoral gains in different parts of India now, it would be the right time to revisit the pursuits of Hindu stalwarts to unite under a common language to awaken national pride and national unity.

Impeccably packed with numerous references, authentic original sources, survey reports and memorandums, the book is a testimony to the objective and unbigoted research of historian Meenakshi Jain. As a foremost historian of our times, she has silently brought out inconvenient and uncomfortable facts that tore into smithereens the colonial narrative peddled by left-lib historians. This book meticulously decodes the malevolence of British colonialism.

 

Number of pages: 400

Publishers: Aryan Books

@ Copyrights reserved. 

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.