The Gulf’s New Gravity: MBZ’s Pivot to India

 As geopolitical turbulence and a fluid world order continue to threaten the rules-based order, the deepening strategic partnership between India and the UAE has piqued analysts' interest. The extremely short, last-minute visit by UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, widely known as MBZ, has drawn attention to the brewing rivalry among the Arab states. Oftentimes, whirlwind visits without prior official buzz hint at an unstated strategic urgency.

Every minutia of this extremely short visit signalled a strategic clarity. Accompanied by a high-powered delegation comprising members of the Royal families of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, several ministers and officials, MBZ arrived in India. As a special gesture, PM Modi received the President at the airport, and both leaders travelled together to 7 Lok Kalyan Marg for extensive restricted talks on bilateral, regional and global issues. Seemingly unplanned, the expansive list of outcomes of the three-hour visit showcased the great deal of preparation by both countries in evolving a framework of cooperative partnership that has blended into synergism.

MBZ is seeking to strengthen the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with India at a time when the fissures between the two Arab nations-UAE and Saudi Arabia, are widening. United in their pursuits to diversify their oil-dependent economies, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, both US allies, have strongly opposed the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. They even jointly spearheaded the collective boycott of Qatar for its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, MBZ handled the American scrutiny against Saudi over the reports of MBS's involvement in Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination.

Though committed to the Palestinian cause, motivated by strategic opportunities and regional interests, during Trump’s first regime, the UAE normalised diplomatic ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords in 2020. But around the same time, Saudi Arabia, donning the mantle of the Islamic leadership as the custodian of Mecca and Medina, hesitated to establish ties with Israel. This reluctance has turned into a formal rejection of ties with Israel until the creation of an independent Palestinian state, post 10/7 Hamas terror attack. In the recent past, hardening its stance, Riyadh has adopted an adversarial tone towards Israel.

Amid rising Israel-Iran rivalry, Washington’s retrenchment and Trump’s transactionalism have drastically altered the regional security architecture. The uncertainty over security guarantees to the traditional allies and the eroding trust have forced countries to diversify their security portfolio. Given American unreliability, days after Israel’s attack on the Hamas negotiating team in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA). Modelled along the lines of NATO’s Article 5, where any aggression against one country is treated as an attack on both, the countries solidified longstanding strategic ties into a defence framework. Though the agreement had no explicit mention of nuclear cooperation and Pakistan hasn’t formally offered nuclear deterrence, Saudi Arabia has clarified, “this is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means”, implying that a nuclear shield would be extended to Riyadh.

Amid serious concerns about America’s commitment to NATO under Trump, Turkey, a NATO member with the second-largest military, has entered into talks with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for a defence alliance.  Abetting the speculations of a plausible “Islamic NATO”, Pakistan signalled potential expansion of the defence partnership, citing ‘Zionist threat’ and volatility in South Asia. Operation Sindoor has exposed the deepening military cooperation between Pakistan and Turkey. A veritable Islamic axis is emerging between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, at a time when two parallel currents, those of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are steadily diverging.

Since the intervening years of forging diplomatic ties with Israel, the bilateral relations between the UAE and Saudi Arabia ruptured, with both countries finding themselves on opposite sides. In a bid to counter political Islam and secure the maritime routes, the UAE began extending support to the dissent factions in Yemen, Sudan and Somalia, all bordering Saudi Arabia and lying along the Bab-el-Mandeb Straits. Initially, coalition partners, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, militarily intervened to stall the takeover of Yemen by Houthi rebels in 2015 and helped restore the internationally recognised government of President Mansour Hadi. But both countries soon parted ways over the UAE's perception of the dominant party of the Yemeni government Islah Party’s close affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation in 2014.

Soon UAE began training Yemeni fighters in the southern territories, boosting their secessionist struggle. Post 2019, the UAE diverted its military support to the Southern Territorial Council (STC), a group that existed before its unification with the north. Pursuing the vision of expanding maritime footprint to position itself as a global commercial hub, the UAE has been securing ports, constructing airstrips and logistical infrastructure across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. UAE backed the STC to increase its maritime presence in Southern Yemen, especially in al-Mahra, which has direct access to the Indian Ocean. Saudi Arabia wanted to build an oil pipeline from its eastern province through al-Mahra to reduce dependence on the Straits of Hormuz chokepoint.

STC’s takeover of al-Mahra and Hadramawt has intensified the Saudi-Emirati rift as both contested for influence over maritime routes across the Red Sea. Dominating the Red Sea has been an integral part of Mohammed bin Salman’s ambitious Vision 2030. While the UAE is backing armed proxies, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in Somalia, to securitise ports and its economic investments in this crucial region, Saudi Arabia is resorting to financial leverage and coalition-building.   

Conflict between Arab states spilled into the open with Saudi airstrikes on Mukkalla seaport targeting the transfer of weapons from the UAE to STC. Saudi Arabia accused the UAE of arming the STC, reportedly carrying out military operations along its Southern border. Riyadh termed it a national security threat and a ‘red line’. With immediate effect, Saudi-allied Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) issued a decree suspending the joint defence agreement with the UAE and demanded the withdrawal of forces within 24 hours. Indeed, Riyadh's hard stance against the UAE and strikes were prompted by Israel’s recognition of Somaliland on December 26. While the Arab League strongly condemned this move, the UAE didn’t issue any condemnation.

UAE’s silence implied a tacit alignment with Israel. Arab states perceived the recognition of proxy forces or parallel entities as a threat to their sovereignty, and diplomatic recognition of such forces could embolden secessionists. The ongoing churn in the Middle East and the contest for maritime influence eventually shaped the rise of two axes- steered by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Speculations of Turkey joining the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan alliance might invariably turn it into an ideological Islamic axis. Aligning with Saudi Arabia against the UAE, Egypt, Sudan and Somalia are now coalescing with this ideological axis. On the otherhand, the UAE is building a coalition driven by strategic interests and common threats.

Abrahamic Accords of 2020 heralded a new shift in the UAE’s policy away from conflict towards diversification, economic and security integration. In 2021, the UAE established a multi-dimensional trilateral with Greece in Cyprus. Around the same period, the UAE joined I2U2, also known as Western Quad, a strategic partnership between India, Israel and the US. This engagement was further strengthened under the aegis of IMEC (India Middle East European Economic Cooperation), launched in 2023. UAE’s pragmatic restructuring of strategic partnerships has set it apart from its Arab-Islamic peer nations.

While news of SMDA has been buzzing, Israel, Cyprus and Greece have signed a trilateral military cooperation plan on Dec 28, 2025, to counter expanding Turkey’s footprint in the Mediterranean region. In response, Turkey moved to join SMDA. Reportedly, India has received a formal invitation to join the 3+1 format, triggering the rise of a ‘Mediterranean Quad’. MBZ’s India visit is an attempt to bolster its strategic autonomy in the face of global uncertainty and regional turbulences.

The 13^th High-Level Task Force on Investments meeting in September 2025, the 16^th India-UAE Joint Commission, and the 5^th Strategic Dialogue engagement in December 2025 indeed laid the ground for the visit. ‘Trumpnomics’ tore apart the fragile global economic architecture. Developing nations, which are facing the rough end of the stick, are strategically recalibrating their trade and economic ties to mitigate the effect. As a full-term member of BRICS, the UAE is swiftly diversifying its foreign ties and aligning with dedollarisation by prioritising trade in national currencies. Being economically consequential, strategically autonomous and non-intrusive, India has emerged as an epitome of multipolarity.  Direct talks between the leaders is attempt to infuse a new level of confidence with both countries seeking to consolidate multi-faceted cooperation. 

Over the past decade, PM Modi has invested diplomatic capital to reshape and promote ties with the Gulf region, especially Emiratis. Along with strengthening the legendary bilateral and security pillars with the signing of a Letter of Intent (LoI) for Strategic Defence Partnership, countries are seeking to partner in defence innovation, defence industrial cooperation, and training between special forces in interoperability, cyberspace, counter terrorism. Countries registered $100 billion in bilateral trade through the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in 2022. Buoyed by the progress, leaders set a new trade target of $200 billion by 2032. The UAE is currently India’s third-largest trade partner and seventh-largest investment partner with a cumulative FDI of $22.84 billion. Strengthening the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) signed in 2024, the UAE is seeking to partner in the development of the Special Investment Region in Dholera, which includes an international airport, a pilot training centre, a Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) facility, a green field port, an urban township, rail connectivity and energy infrastructure.

As a testimony to growing trust and keenness to collaborate on AI and emerging technologies, countries are set to explore an interesting concept of Digital Embassy- protecting the most critical data of national and strategic importance in another territory to safeguard it from potential cyberattacks under mutually recognised sovereignty agreements. To secure India’s energy front, HPCL and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Gas (ADNOC) signed a 10-year agreement for the supply of 0.5 million tonnes of LNG starting in 2028. Boosting financial and logistics cooperation, UAE companies- DP World and First Abu Dhabi Bank will now open offices in GIFT City. For settlement of trade in national currencies and reducing reliance on the US dollar, India and the UAE are operationalising the Local Currency Settlement System (LCSS), interlinking payment platforms and through UPI and Jaywan Card.

Countries signed an MoU on food security, space cooperation, and polar expeditions, and firmed up educational linkages by building offshore campuses and integrating Digital Locker and UAE platforms for seamless authentication of Indian degrees. Leaders expressed keen interest in exploring opportunities for nuclear cooperation under the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) bill, including deployment of large nuclear reactors and Small Modular Reactors (SMR). The UAE has offered to provide historical artefacts for the National Maritime Heritage Complex at Lothal and establish India House in Abu Dhabi.

Geopolitical turbulence is not an understatement in contemporary times, but an inexorable reality. No region is insulated from this geopolitical churn. Instead of waiting for a crisis to unfold and then respond, in the face of shifting power dynamics, growing uncertainties, and the unreliability of external superpower security guarantees, MBZ made a quick visit to India for direct interaction to formalise a framework for long-term cooperation. Amid the geopolitical churn, India has emerged as an anchor of stability. Seeking stability, prioritising national interests, MBZ sought to personally invoke underlying mutual trust and respect to realign and reorient the partnership to tide through the geopolitical flux.

MBZ’s visit reinforces India’s steady rise as a reliable strategic partner of the Middle East, specifically the UAE. Pursuing an independent foreign policy shaped by multilateralism and strategic autonomy, the UAE has naturally drifted towards New Delhi, which is uncompromisingly safeguarding its strategic autonomy amid the headwinds of global uncertainties.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India-Russia Strategic Convergence: Pillar of Multipolarity

President Putin’s visit to India for the 23^rd annual summit, Dec 4-5, after a four-year gap, has expectedly drawn global attention. West’s attempts to isolate Putin faced a setback after PM Modi reneged on the diplomatic protocol and received him on the tarmac. Affirming the longstanding friendship, both leaders rode back together to PM Modi’s residence for a private dinner and candid exchange of views on bilateral, regional and global issues.

India’s friendship with Russia dates back to the nearly eight decades old diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union. Russia upheld the mantle of friendship after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consolidating the ties, countries elevated their relationship to “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership’ in 2010 and institutionalised it through annual summits, a unique arrangement, an exclusive preserve for trusted friends.

Styled on the Soviet Union’s Communist approach, the India-Russia bilateral cooperation is guided by the framework of the India-Russia Intergovernmental Commission (IRIGC), comprising two divisions- IRIGC-TEC (Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation) and IRIGC-M&MTC (Military & Military Technical Cooperation). By and large, the partnership was largely steered by an uncharacteristically large number of intergovernmental implementation agencies and working groups. Despite longstanding relations, the partnership was largely government-driven with a very limited business-to-business engagement.

Moscow’s worldview of India, dominated and shaped by the Soviet era, has largely limited its cooperation to the core areas of yesteryears like defence and nuclear energy. Extensively engaging with the European countries and China for energy exports and consumer goods till 2022, Russia’s economic engagement was largely Eurocentric. Post-Crimean annexation and sanctions, Russia made a strategic pivot to China, and this consistently deepened after the West’s punitive actions. Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT payment and secondary sanctions have further accelerated Russia’s pivot to the East, with China eventually emerging as Russia’s largest trade partner.

Spanning two continents-Europe and Asia—Russia has traditionally leaned towards Europe. In its efforts to align and modernise, Russian institutions are rooted in European traditions. Although a large part of Russia is geographically in Asia, Russia sought comfort in its European identity. Indeed, after the Cold War until the early 2000s, Moscow made repeated attempts to join NATO. However, all its proposals were rejected. Geographically, a Eurasian power, Russia prioritised European ties over Asian influences.

The Ukraine conflict of 2022 has thus been a turning point for Russia's geopolitics. Isolated, sanctioned and ostracised from global systems, Russia was forced to recalibrate its policy. It is no secret that Mackinder’s Heartland theory of global dominance has been at the root of the West’s relentless efforts to draw Ukraine into its ambit. With access to Black Sea that connects West Asia to Europe and Russia, Ukraine is geographically pivotal. With vast mineral resources and a strategic position, any power controlling this heartland can project dominance to the vastly interconnected world. West’s control of Ukraine is Russia’s strategic vulnerability. To retain dominance over Eurasia, the West has invested heavily in Ukraine.

Though Halford John Mackinder’s theory is still debated, through impressive territorial gains in Ukraine, Russia is inching closer to gaining access to the Black Sea and the huge network of pipelines running through the region. Along with steady gains in Eurasia, reinventing its Asian identity, Russia is now geopolitically aligning with major Asian countries and giants. Pursuing economic diversification, Moscow has intensified trade ties with Asia and African countries. Eurasia holds the key to global dominance, and implicitly so, Russia’s strategic realignment has restructured the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

Putin’s visit to India came a day after he “threatened Europe with a war, if it wants one”. Catalysed by European intransigence to the Ukrainian peace plan and castigated for importing Russian energy, Moscow and New Delhi have found themselves in a rare strategic congruity where deepening ties could be a mutually win-win. Shedding the legacy baggage of the Soviet era, Russia is now seeking economic opportunities in India’s expanding markets. As the fourth-largest economy with immense development potential, India offers a platform for reimagining bilateral relations.

Since the Ukraine conflict, the West has targeted India for not taking sides, condemning Russia and sourcing oil imports from Moscow. Earlier in August, Trump slapped an additional 25% tariff on India for importing Russian imports in addition to the baseline reciprocal 25% taking the overall tariffs to 50% as a punishment. Resisting economic pressure, India kept its ties with Russia intact. Lately, Washington has pursued hard bargains with New Delhi by linking trade negotiations to the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets and pressing for unfettered market access to US agricultural and dairy products in India. By withholding access to critical source codes and weapons integration systems, Washington seeks to leverage defence technology to pin down India into strategic dependence.

Rebuffing the offer and refusing to cave in, India explicitly expressed its readiness to expand the gamut of cooperation with Russia. Instructively, acknowledging India’s rising international stature, in a bid to economically diversify and derisk from China, during the Summit meeting, PM Modi and President Putin unveiled, “Time Tested, Progressive Partnership anchored in trust and mutual respect for 2030”. Setting an ambitious target of $100 billion bilateral target, countries broadened the partnership to balance the skewed trade and bolstered people-to-people cooperation, a quintessential foundation to rejuvenate cultural, political and economic connections between the countries.

India-Russia partnership was anchored in defence cooperation, which included co-production, co-development and technology transfer. Aligning these aspects with “Make in India” countries have now agreed to manufacture the spares for Russian defence procurements in India. Apart from fast-tracking negotiations on FTA with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), leaders have addressed the India-Russia Business Forum to promote private investments, cooperation in startups and unveiled Programme 2030 to foster cooperation in AI, innovation, critical and emerging technologies. With a fundamental reorientation of economic conversations, leaders discussed the use of national currencies for bilateral trade and interoperability of financial systems.

The panoply of agreements and announcements on Putin’s State visit is a testament to an ambitious vision plan for India-Russia's longstanding partnership. Notable MoUs signed included - Migration and Mobility agreement (on temporary labour activity & combating irregular migration), health care, medical education and science, food safety compliances, cooperation in shipping, ports, joint mineral exploration, border postal cooperation, scientific and academic collaboration, training students and professionals for academic activity, training specialists for ships operating in Polar waters and media cooperation. Countries also signed an MoU on a joint venture in Urea manufacturing in Russia. India has announced a 30-day e-tourist visa on a gratis basis to Russian nationals on a reciprocal basis.

With no mention of high-profile defence deals in the Joint Statement, critics labelled Putin’s visit as high on theatrics and poor on substance. However, this underlines a strategic shift in military partnership, now reorienting toward joint research and development, co-development, and co-production of advanced defence technologies. Russia's Su-57 offer is on the table, with Moscow proposing to transfer technology, 60% licensed local production and integration with indigenous sensors and missiles and upgradation of the Su-30 MKI fleet. Besides promising discounted oil supply, countries are now focused on strengthening infrastructure connecting the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), the Chennai–Vladivostok (Eastern Maritime) Corridor, and the Northern Sea Route.

Ahead of Putin’s visit, the Duma has ratified the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Support (RELOS) pact with India and coinciding with Putin’s visit, Rosatom has announced the delivery of the first batch of nuclear fuel for the third reactor at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Aligning with India’s goal of 100 GW nuclear power by 2047, Russia offered to build a second nuclear plant and pledged small modular reactors.

For decades, independent India failed to leverage its strategic location and its significant maritime power. Asserting its maritime power, India signed foundational logistics agreements with the US. India has similar pacts with Japan, Singapore, France, Australia and South Korea. With the formalisation of RELOS, India can counterbalance the Western defence integration and dilute Russia’s dependence on China. RELOS serves the twin purposes of opening doors to the warm water ports for Russia and grants the Indian Navy access to the Russian Arctic (Murmansk) and Far East ports (Vladivostok). 

While India can become a stakeholder in the emerging Arctic trade routes, mineral explorations and counter the rising Chinese footprint in the Polar, Russian access to the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) will alter the Indo-Pacific balance. RELOS echoes with India's goal of setting a permanent manned mission in the Arctic region.

Besides enhancing the institutional interoperability through joint manoeuvres and mutual use of the military facilities for refuelling, supplies and maintenance, it will provide berthing facilities for troops, warships and aircraft. The pact allows the stationing of five warships, 10 aircraft and 3000 troops in the territory of the partner country. The logistics agreements with the US and Russia epitomise India's ‘strategic autonomy’ and its strategic capitalisation of geographical location.

Steadily bolstering defence, energy, military linkages, and now repurposing the partnership with a long-term view on economic engagement, India has broadened the expanse of cooperation with Russia. Diligently exploring the economic opportunities, India and Russia are reshaping their partnerships to avoid being coerced by both the US and China. Investments and economic cooperation with India can help Russia break free from the Chinese clasp. A deepening Russia partnership and a steady flow of discounted crude lend economic stability and immunity from inflationary pressures for India. A steady India-Russia defence upgrade through joint production, besides rattling the adversaries, will help India assert its sovereignty over the weapons.  India can no longer be pressurised to surrender its freedom for advanced defence technologies.

The symbolism of the recently concluded India-Russia summit is a political message to the West. Ramping up trade engagements, Indian engineering, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and electronics are now entering Russia. Leaders have laid a foundation for a “balanced, mutually beneficial, sustainable and long-term partnership” amid the complex and uncertain geopolitical situation. Instead of buckling under pressure, India has doubled down on its ties with Russia.

Trump’s ruthless rundown of Indian interests amid its trade concessions and conciliations to China, despite Beijing’s Russian energy imports, hasn’t gone down well with India. Trump’s attempts to draw India into its geo-strategic games- weaning it away from Russia while making overtures to Pakistan are now falling apart.

India has always valued its relations with the US and continues to do so. However, Washington’s blatant coercion, breaking through the seams of the Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership, threatens to dangerously damage the trust factor.

India can no longer be instructed to but negotiated with to have a mutually beneficial trade agreement. Days after Putin’s visit, a US trade delegation arrived in India for talks, and Quad officials met twice in a week to hold talks on counter terrorism and humanitarian aid. However, being a compulsive deal maker, Trump is attempting to arm-twist India with fresh tariffs on Indian rice.

China weaponises rare earths while India is inexorably wielding its strategic autonomy to secure food, fuel and fertiliser security. Steering clear of alliances, navigating its own course through strategic diversification and reviving old trusted relationships, India is emerging as a responsible power. India is not a vassal state to be dictated to, but a leader capable of charting through muddled waters towards the mission of Viksit Bharat 2047. Constantly drawing its force and energy from the centuries of resilience as a civilisational state, India is uncompromisingly advancing its national interests.

India seeks partnerships based on respect. Washington’s imperialistic and hierarchical partnerships are accelerating a global reconfiguration and promoting the emergence of a multipolar world order.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

But, Terrorism has no Religion..

Seeped in the bog of political correctness, societies across the world have willingly failed to call the bluff of an ideology that always wore a ‘victimhood’ guise. An ideology that caused the death of millions and the mass exodus of survivors. Instead of tackling the root cause, academics invented theories to shift the blame onto establishments and governments worldwide. A network strongly promoting these narratives eventually began to dominate the global discourse. The same template of exonerating the perpetrators of terrorism is being rolled out globally. In the process, anyone calling a spade a spade is labelled an ‘Islamophobe’.

After the UN has unanimously passed a resolution to combat Islamophobia and designated March 15 as International Day to Combat Islamophobia, plain speak on ideology-inspired terrorism has become anathema. Forget plain speak, pandering to this ideology has become an integral part of the political agenda. Political parties across the globe are now openly indulging in cultivating dedicated vote banks. At a time when Arab countries are strictly cleansing their societies of this radical ideology, syncretic and open societies have turned into fertile grounds for fanatical strains of this ideology. The spread and this pan-Islamic corporation can no longer be ignored as a fabrication or motivated propaganda.

The 10/11 Red Fort bomb blast that ripped the heart of the national capital has confirmed the worst fear of security analysts who have been warning of a pan-Islamic jihadi network. The blast, which killed 15 and left several injured, has shocked the entire nation. Investigation reports, besides strengthening the disillusionment about the “Ganga-Jamuni tahzeeb’ have exposed the phenomenon of “White Collar terrorism”. The rude awakening regarding the perpetrators of the terrorism being a ‘module of doctors’ has unsettled the Indian society that believes in “Vaidyo Narayano Hari” (the physician is Narayana himself). A detailed probe unearthed the network of ‘doctors of death’ operating from a Medical University, with dubious credentials and funding, has revealed links to a global-Islamic jihadi network.

The revelations outrightly demolished the deprivation, poverty, unemployment and marginalisation theories that justified terrorism. The trend of ‘white collar terrorism’ is not new. The suicide brigades of Al-Qaeda and ISIS were led by highly educated individuals hailing from upper-middle-class backgrounds. Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri were engineers, Tahawwur Hussein Rana, key conspirator of 26/11, is a doctor, Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) Chief Masood Azhar is a post-graduate. Sri Lanka Easter blast accused hailed from wealthy families. Educated individuals from well-to-do families are getting attracted to this radical ideology.

It is not for the first time that Universities have emerged as a front for terrorism. At the height of the Kashmir insurgency, the University of Kashmir served as an incubator for anti-India doctrines. The vilest extremist Islam is reaching young minds via an inconceivable route of Universities. The recent student protests in Bangladesh, among other organisations, were triggered by Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) highly active on University campuses. The proscribed organisation, HuT, determined to establish a Caliphate in the region, recruits students and conducts Islamic classes in campuses. In fact, the students who led the march in Bangladesh carrying ISIS flags were inspired by HuT.

The Al-Falah University in Haryana is emerging as the melting pot of all the terror links in the blast case, with a needle of suspicion pointing to doctor degree holders from Bangladesh and Pakistan. So far, all major arrests made in the case had a direct or indirect link with the University. Among the arrests, Dr Shaheen Saeed, nicknamed ‘Madam Surgeon’ was tasked with setting up the women’s wing of JeM, Jamaat-ul-Mominaat, headed by JeM Masood Azhar’s sister, Sadia Azhar, whose husband, Yusuf Azhar, was the master mind of the 1998 Kandahar hijacking. Yusuf was killed in Operation Sindoor. Other doctors taken into police custody were found to be working for JeM and Ansar-Ghazwat-ul-Hind.

Pakistan’s role in the Red Fort blast is further confirmed by the former Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) Prime Minister, Chaudhary Anwar-ul-Haq’s statement in the PoK assembly. Indeed, JeM launched a fundraising drive seeking Rs 6400 to carry out fidayeen attacks. Along with Pakistan’s role, the Doctors module spanning J&K, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh was found to be in touch with a Turkey-based handle ‘Ukasha’ that planned multiple blasts across India. Recovery of multiple passports from Dr Shaheen with different addresses and guardian names and visits to Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand and Saudi Arabia and her brother’s two-year stay in the Maldives, a country with the highest rates of foreign terrorist fighters, is heightening the suspicions of involvement of a global Islamic network. The Maldives is an important link in the pan-Islamic jihadi network.

Besides, investigations have unravelled that members of the Doctors Module-Dr Muzzamil, Umar (Red Fort Blast perpetrator), and Shaheen have travelled to Turkey in March 2002, where they met ISI’s Turkey asset Abu Ukasha, a key member of JeM. It has been found out that the module has been planning to launch attacks in major Indian cities since 2021 on Dec 6^th.  The systematic radicalisation process of these doctors that began in 2010 led to their eventual induction into JeM in 2015. The preparation for the large-scale attacks began in 2022 with the procurement of the explosives, recruitment and reconnaissance. For plausible deniability, Pakistan has adopted the “third country route”, in this case, Turkey and Gulf countries, for money transfers and encrypted communication. Named as D-6 Mission, the goal was to carry out a series on December 6 to avenge the Babri Masjid demolition.

Markedly restructuring its statecraft of exporting cross-border terrorism, Pakistan is now targeting Indian Muslims as soft targets for radicalisation. From the early 2000s, Muslims in J&K went to Pakistan to join medical colleges in Abbotabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Bahawalpur and Faisalabad through their separatist connections. Pakistan-based organisations with alleged terrorist links supported their education. After India’s increased surveillance on the Pakistan-educated MBBS doctors, students started going to Medical Colleges in Dhaka, Shylet, Chittagong and Rajshahi, where admissions were easy and fees were less. Bangladesh wasn’t on the security radar then. The arrest of doctors has strengthened the fears of terrorist outfits exploring the academic route to build a strong network of radicalised overground workers and terrorism enablers.

In the wake of ‘white collar terrorism’ government is probing doctors who have obtained degrees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and the UAE. It would be prudent for the Indian government to expand the probe to academics with Turkish connections. Turkey under Erdogan has rapidly shifted to neo-Ottoman Islamisation. The AKP party of Erdogan had strongly supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Erdogan has offered refuge to academics and students affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey who fled Egypt post-2013 coup. Hizbut ut Tahrir, though banned in Turkey in 2018, continues to run private study circles in the University campuses.

Aligning more closely with Pakistan after the abrogation of Article 370 and CAA, Pakistan-Turkey military and diplomatic partnership continued to grow. With its current anti-India avatar, Turkey has become a safe haven for Indian dissents. To recall, in 2020, Shah Faesal, in his bid to challenge the Indian government’s move on Article 370 at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Hague, wanted to flee Turkey. (In 2022, he renounced his political activism and rejoined the government).

Unleashing soft Islam, with Pakistan as its nodal agency in the region, Turkey is building a coalition of Muslim countries. With the radicalised Islamist groups having their sway over the interim regime after the ouster of Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh is closely following the footsteps of Islamabad. With Yunus at the helm, the strategic alliance between Pakistan’s ISI, Bangladesh’s Jamaat and Turkish intelligence-NGO organisations has deepened. Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation has allegedly renovated the office of Jamaat. Emboldened by Turkish support, Bangladesh’s Jamaat is reviving the idea of Mughalistan.

Unlike Pakistan’s covert approach of pushing radicalism through clerics and Imams, through scholarships, youth conferences, cultural engagements and digital outreaches, Turkey is reaching out to Indian Muslims. Through the academic route, Turkey is solidifying “Muslim Solidarity”. The organisations which are at the forefront of such soft-radicalisation are think-tank South Asia Strategic Research Centre (GASAM), TURGEV, a charitable foundation set up by the Erdogan Foundation, Turkish Youth Foundation (TUGVA) and KADEM (Women and Democracy Association) and IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation). IHH has strong links with the banned organisations PFI and SIMI.

In 2005, to create “Ummah consciousness” Erdogan regime supported the creation of the Istanbul-based Union of NGOs of the Islamic World (UNIW). Spread across 65 countries with 340 organisations. Its satellite organisations- Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD) has close ties with Falah-i-Insaniyat, the charitable arm of LeT and Kashmir Action Council (KAC) has been the force in internationalising the J&K issue. Motivated by a religious zeal and fanatical determination to establish an Islamic Caliphate, the global Islamic network is adopting both overt and covert approaches to destabilise India. While the NGOs take care of the narrative aspect and the soft jihad, the intelligence agencies are providing the logistics to carry out terror attacks.

Operation Sindoor exposed the Islamic coalition of Pakistan-Turkey- Azerbaijan, activating both its military channels and ideological ecosystem that waged a systematic narrative war. The Red Fort blast has precisely exposed both fronts of this jihadi alliance. After the blast, the 0.5 domestic front swung into action. First, they accused the government of soft pedalling on terrorism (undoubtedly, there have been glaring security lapses). Then, shifting gears, the apologists sanitised terrorism to the extent of justifying Umar’s video on suicide attacks as a martyrdom operation, known in Islam.

Ongoing investigations have revealed shocking details of this intricate jihadi network led by the doctors. Perennially playing the victim card, the over 200 million-strong minority community, who enjoy special constitutional privileges, relentlessly accuses the Indian establishment of marginalisation. Entitlements should always be accompanied by moral duties.

By justifying the acts of terrorism as being ordained on the followers of the faith by the book and its teachings to achieve the goal of establishing a Caliphate, the entire community is condoning the heinous acts against humanity. The community, instead of saying “not in my name,” is crying foul when confronted with irrefutable evidence as “Islamophobia”. For centuries, the followers of the faith have mercilessly spilt blood and wiped out civilisations to establish Dar-al-Islam (Abode of Islam). It is time to reject the disingenuous apology of the followers of the ideology that justifies all acts of violence as ‘divine right’.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Strategic Reality of Trump’s G2 Reset

 With his trademark social post, “The G2 will be convening shortly”, Trump drew global attention to the anticipated trade talks between the US and China at Busan in South Korea. Beijing long sought parity with Washington. By calling the meeting ‘G2’, Trump has fulfilled the CCP’s long-cherished Chinese Dream. By placing China in the same league, Trump lent legitimacy to China’s superpower ambitions. The acknowledgement of duopoly by Trump is an emphatic victory for Xi, struggling with economic slowdown, high unemployment crises, deflationary pressures and oversupply.

The recently concluded fourth plenum of the CCP, held ahead of the Trump-Xi meeting, silently set the strategic tone. Though the focus remained on domestic affairs, with many simply dismissing the plenum communiques as political propaganda, they often chart China’s long-term plans.  For instance, prior to the 13^th five-year plan in 2015, the CCP plenum released a decade-long industrial blueprint for development that culminated in the launch of ‘Make in China 2025’ in response to Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy. A decade hence, the Make in China has been extremely effective in thwarting Washington’s containment as Beijing achieved technological dominance in emerging technologies.

Evolving the framework for the 15^th five-year plan, the October plenum doubled down on achieving ‘self-sufficiency’ in ‘advanced manufacturing’. Taking note of the “complex and severe” international environment, the plenum has preferred a dialogue with the US rather than “decoupling and confrontation” with the underlying motive being “within crises lie opportunities, and crises can be transformed into opportunities”.

Days after the plenum, the fifth round of trade talks between the US and China in Kuala Lumpur agreed to an extension of the trade truce beyond November 10^th. Interestingly, the readout of the Xi-Trump meeting issued by the Chinese side noted, “Xi stressed that dialogue is better than confrontation”. China’s calibrated and measured response is at odds with the unmissable Trump’s exuberance, who boasted of a massive success in trade talks.

But beneath the veneer of Trump’s proclaimed success of the US-China trade deal lies an inexorable truth of the temporary suspension of implementation of the rare earth export control measures announced on October 9 for one year. This implies that the earlier announcement on rare-earth curbs in April by China would still be in vogue. Trump reduced Fentanyl tariffs to 10% and suspended the implementation of the 50% penetration rule, 301 investigative measures for one year. In turn, China has also agreed to suspend the implementation of non-tariff countermeasures against the US for one year. Countries reached a consensus on anti-drug cooperation on fentanyl, and leaders agreed to work together for global economic stability. In all, Trump has trimmed the trade tariffs to 47% from 57%, lower than India's.

China pledged to purchase 12 million metric tonnes (MMT) of soybeans this year and an additional 25 MMT for the next three years to stabilise ties. Beijing has also agreed to terminate investigations targeting US companies and resume trade from Nexperia facilities in China. Beijing’s blockade of Nexperia chip shipments sent shock waves across the European automotive sector. China released its press note on October 30, hours after the summit, White House’s Fact Sheet was out on November 1^st. This gave upbeat Trump to revel in self-promotion as he effusively rated his meeting with Xi as “12 on the scale of 10”.

By averting immediate escalation, both leaders secured a temporary reprieve from the retaliatory countermeasures. Yet, Trump’s climbdown reflected America’s waning economic leverage. He unleashed the tariff trade war to target China. But, given America’s reliance on China for critical minerals, he was compelled to take a restrained approach.

By deferring the rare earth controls by one year, Xi avoided a serious trade escalation and demonstrated to the World who holds the cards. A tight leash on rare-earth exports can potentially choke the US economy. Back in 1992, on his tour to Baotou rare earth facilities, in Inner Mongolia, Deng Xiaoping stated, “The Middle East has its oil; China has rare earths”. Planning ahead of time, understanding the importance of rare earths, China’s industrial policy strategically prioritised them. While Beijing invested all its forces to dominate crucial mineral mining, refining and processing, General Motors of the US began divesting from rare earths.

Countries should have paid heed to the said and unsaid words of Chinese leaders who were preparing to weaponise these crucial minerals. But the US, smitten by an industrial strategy paralysis, allowed the sale of GM’s Magnequench in Indiana to a consortium which had two sons-in-law of Deng on the board. The unit closed by the mid-2000s. Around the same time, the rare-earth reserve in Mountain Pass Mine, located in the Mojave Desert, which catered to 60 to 70% of global supplies, was ordered to shut down by the Environmental Protection Agency due to wastewater leakages. It was the world’s second-largest mine.

While the US lagged, through export subsidies and asymmetric VAT systems, China favoured its domestic manufacturers. By the late 2000s, when the US stopped producing rare earths, China took the lead. Though Molycorp tried to revive the Mountain Pass in 2008, Chinese export quotas turned the market tide. By lifting curbs on exports after the diplomatic row with Japan in 2010, China exported rare earths at low profit margins. Backed by government subsidies, Chinese companies flooded the global markets, making the business unsustainable for others.

After decades of policy paralysis, the US is making efforts to secure the rare earth supply chain through “Operation Warp Speed”. Treasury Secretary confidently remarked that European and Asian countries would join the US in developing reliable supply chains. Trump has alienated friends and allies with tariffs, fostering reluctance among countries to join Washington’s initiative. Even if the US aggressively pushes for self-reliance now, its efforts might at least take 5-7 years to yield tangible results. Having squandered decades of strategic opportunity, Washington finds itself playing catch-up to match an ascendant China.

Endowed with substantial reserves of critical minerals, China has astutely mastered the technology to mine and process rare earths for decades. Controlling more than 69% of rare earth reserves and 90% of processing capacity, Beijing has also systematically acquired rare-earth mining rights from various countries to strengthen its dominance. Risking significant environmental dangers over many years, China has monopolised rare earth processing. Imposing tight controls on rare-earth exports, China not only signalled its willingness to wield economic coercion but also unintentionally exposed the United States’ strategic vulnerabilities and unpreparedness.

US dependence on rare-earth far exceeds China’s requirement of US soybeans. With zero US soybean imports this harvest season, Beijing showed who held the cards in these trade negotiations. China trumped the US at its own game of economic warfare. By blocking rare earth exports and rerouting agricultural imports from Latin America, Xi has shown the world who is the boss. With few cards against Beijing, Trump wasn’t into hard bargaining with Xi. Instead, he was courting Xi to defer the tight regulations on critical mineral exports. For all the brouhaha, countries, at best, reached a status quo. A comprehensive trade deal remains elusive as of now, with no major breakthrough on the horizon.

Trump is on a weak wicket, and the Republican containment policy of China hardly resonates with the American public. The 2025 Chicago Council Survey shows that 53% Americans favour friendly cooperation and engagement with China and only 50% perceive China as a threat to the US, down from 58% in 2023. Negative perceptions about China have rebounded, with Democrats holding the most favourable view of Beijing.

As per the survey, Americans see the US and China as the top two global powers. 53% believe that America is strong militarily, while the verdict is narrowly split about the economic power- 34% see the US as a major economic power, and 33% perceive China as economically stronger.  Given the rising inflation, Americans are rejecting high tariffs against China.

However, a whopping 82% of Americans refuse the idea of granting China the sphere of influence of Asia. The survey may not be a true reflection of American society, riven by partisan affiliations playing a role in shifting attitudes. However, by and large, the underlying message of diminishing dominance of the US is clear. The age of American unipolarity is nearing an end.  Trump started the trade war to bully China, got bullied in turn. Forced to dial down, pandering to Beijing, he hasn’t raised the issue of Taiwan or Chinese purchases of Russian oil during his meeting with Xi. Though the US still leads in innovation, design and advanced technologies, a retreating Washington is now focused on bolstering its hemispheric dominance.

For the first time since the Cold War, America has grudgingly ceded ground to China, accepting its global rise. Bargaining from a position of weakness, Trump preferred to woo Xi to avert a plausible collapse of strategic industries due to the lack of rare-earth minerals. Trump’s unpredictability and transactionalism have eroded mutual trust even in alliance partnerships.

Paradoxically, just as many Americans remain reluctant to decouple with China, Southeast Asian and European nations—despite territorial disputes and concerns over Beijing’s mercantilist practices—are choosing to manage their relationships with China rather than confront it. At the same time, they continue to maintain strong ties with the United States.

While President Trump hastily framed the meeting as a “G2,” hinting at a global duopoly, the geopolitical reality today defies such binary divisions. The world can no longer be neatly delineated into spheres of influence or rigid blocs. Recognising their deep interdependencies, countries are increasingly prioritising strategic interests—engaging with major powers while retaining their strategic autonomy. The logic of G2 is misplaced in the contemporary geopolitical arena with multiple players and many poles. The rise of Middle Powers like India, Russia, Germany, Turkey and GCC nations and their growing relevance in the new global order hints at a new reset.

However, as the great power competition between the US and China intensifies, the world will witness a restructuring of supply chains and a strategic realignment of countries to safeguard their national interests. Clearly, the archaic framework of G2 capable of imposing its decisions on the rest of the World is a relic of the Cold War era.  Though Trump’s G2 offhand reference of G2 is the strategic reality of their mutual interdependencies, an impulsive compartmentalisation of spheres of influence undermines global stability.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Dollar Diplomacy: Trump Dangles Economic Aid to Sway Argentina

 With his tariff ‘magic bullet’, Trump has irked both friend and foe alike. Fearing American wrath, traditional American allies- Japan and South Korea, the EU and export-oriented economies- sealed trade deals pledging investments for lower tariffs. China, the largest trade partner of the US, with a huge trade surplus in its favour, had dug in its heels. The US-China trade war can be traced back to Trump’s first term, when the US levied retaliatory tariffs citing unfair trade practices and intellectual theft. China retaliated with its own tariffs. Following the escalations in 2019, countries signed the Phase 1 trade deal in 2020, and those tariffs remained in place until Trump’s second inauguration in 2025.

In addition to the sweeping tariffs on all trading partners, Trump announced ‘fentanyl’ tariffs on China in the second term. After an initial phase of escalation, intransigence, tariff readjustments and Trump’s TACOs, countries agreed for a three-month period, which is set to expire on November 9. Since Trump’s first term, China’s economic heft, influence, and global presence have increased manifold. Trump Liberation Day tariffs announced on April 2 stated, “protecting sovereignty and strengthening economic and national security” as the rationale and declared, “foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency”. While the blanket tariffs on countries are an attempt to leverage trade, the primary target of Trump was China.

Gearing up for a coercive trade war, Beijing bolstered its trade levers in the past seven years. Strategically working on weaknesses, Beijing has readied itself to beat the US at its own game. Besides building scientific and technological prowess, China began dissuading third countries from siding with the US. Pushing the envelope further, China has deepened its influence in America’s strategic backyard, Latin America and the Caribbean. Although Trump has escalated the trade war, he is critically aware that coercive tariffs alone are too insignificant to challenge the growing Beijing economic and geopolitical heft.

With zero imports of US soybeans, citing high tariffs for the first time in seven years, in a show of power and confidence, China hit back at the US.  Last year, China purchased nearly half of the entire soybean exports worth $12.5 billion or 27 million metric tonnes. The total soybean exports of the US are worth $24.5 billion. This year, China dumped the US farmers and imported soybeans from Argentina and Brazil. This left US stunned. Soybean imports from Brazil rose 29.9% and those from Argentina jumped 91.5%.

China’s tit for tat move underscored its ability to inflict serious damage to the US economy. With one move, Beijing turned American farmers against Trump and demonstrated its ability to strategically source agricultural imports from third parties at will.

In early 2023, Argentina was invited to join BRICS along with five other countries- Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. However, Javier Milei, who stormed into power in the 2023 Presidential election, declined to join the BRICS, reflecting a pro-Western foreign policy shift. During his election campaign, Milei dismissed any “business with communists” and maintained that he wouldn’t maintain diplomatic ties with China. Months into power, with economic realism dawning, Milei accepted the renewal of the currency swap with China in 2024 to repay $5billion debt. In November 2024, Milei met President Xi at the Brazil G20 summit and held talks with him.

Taking over the presidency, Milei, a libertarian economist, faced the insurmountable challenge of taming the bloating inflation and rescuing the sinking economy. Milei's austerity measures proved effective. The economy showed signs of recovery inflation came down to 100% as of December 2024 from 300%. However, by February 2025, a financial scandal unfolded after eight crypto wallets withdrew $99 million from the liquidity pool of the $LIBRA token promoted by Milei, undermining his credibility. Meanwhile, his austerity measures triggered protests. The initial temporary shocks of the devaluation of the Peso and the ‘crawling peg’ strategy of controlling inflation temporarily stabilised the economy. In the absence of comprehensive structural reforms, this failed to translate into sustainable growth. Consequently, to replenish depleting forex reserves, Milei sought $ 20 billion IMF bailout.

Since 1958, Argentina has received 22 IMF bailouts, mostly to repay the IMF itself. Argentina owes $44 billion to the IMF, and the institution, though wary, has finally approved a bailout thanks to the potential claims of “Milei Miracle” in April. Argentina is the largest borrower of IMF bailouts. However, two months ahead of the legislative elections on October 26, the Peso has collapsed, posing a serious threat to Milei’s regime. Milei, who aligns closely with MAGA, has rushed to Washington. Trump more obligingly authorised $20 billion aid package, proposing to double it if Milei wins the legislative elections, warning, “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.”

Milei swept the mid-term election, and the US will now extend a $40 billion aid package ($20 billion currency swap plus $20 billion aid from sovereign wealth funds and private banks). Amid uproar from both aisles—betrayed American farmers, who deemed the financial aid to a competitor as awkwardly contradictory to “America First Agenda,” and Democrats attempted to unanimously pass “No Argentina Bailout Act,” Trump approved the bailout plan. Notwithstanding the backlash from the Republican MAGA camp and political opponents, Trump announced plans to import Argentinian beef as well.

Stating aid to Argentina “is not election-specific, it is policy-specific”, while presenting the Atlantic Council’s Global Citizen Award to President Javier Milei, Bessent let the cat out of the bag. He insisted that the package is part of the “economic Monroe Doctrine” of asserting the United States’ domination in the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s strategic intervention in Argentina stems from burgeoning Chinese influence in its backyard.

Argentina and China signed a Belt and Road Initiative cooperation plan in 2023 with a focus on infrastructure, energy and industrial development. With the acquisition of 80% stakes in Standard Bank of Argentina, China steadily increased its footprint in the country through subnational agreements. Given the strong federal character of Argentina, where provinces have direct control over resources, by passing the national government, Beijing is directly signing agreements with provincial governments- copper mining (Catamarca province),  Potassium mining (Buenos Aires, Salta provinces), coal mining (La Pampa Province), Lithium (Jujay, Catamarca, Salta provinces), gold and silver mining (San Juan province). China is also actively engaged in constructing hydroelectric power plants, solar parks, a fourth nuclear power plant, Atucha III, aerospace base in Neuquen in Argentina. The telecommunications network in Argentina is now dominated by Huawei, banned by Western countries over national security issues.

China is also the top destination of Argentinian beef, which makes up over 50 per cent of the country’s exports. In September, availing Argentina’s suspended export tax window increased soybean imports from Argentina, stirring a domestic storm in America. China has emerged as a vital partner for Argentina on an equal footing with the US. 

Countries first signed a currency swap agreement in 2009. Over the years, it was extended to $18.3 billion (130 billion yuan), including the latest renewal agreement of $5 billion in April 2025. Bessent travelled to Argentina to stall the renewal and threatened to withhold $20 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF), an arrangement with the US since 1958. Later, Trump’s Latin America envoy said that the US wants Argentina to end its currency swap with China at a conference. In response, China shot back, saying China’s currency swap contributes to “Argentina’s economic and financial stability and is welcomed by the Argentine government”. The currency swap enabled Argentina to convert yuan into dollars to repay debts.

The Currency swap served twin purposes for China in terms of deepening its involvement in the Argentinian economy and promoting international use of the yuan, elevating its global stature and chipping countries away from dollar dominance.

Unambiguously admitting Washington’s concerns over China’s deepening economic engagement with Argentina, Bessent stated that the US didn’t want Latin American countries to confer mining rights of rare earths for financial aid, as it has happened in Africa. Latin American countries are sitting on a huge pile of critical minerals.

Having monopolised the global supply of critical minerals, tightly regulating their exports, Beijing leveraged them against the US in this ongoing tariff war. Indispensable for chips, EVs, automobiles and renewable energy, a critical shortfall can paralyse the US defence and other allied sectors. To reduce reliance on China, Trump has frantically inked critical mineral framework agreements with Australia, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Japan. Trump even wooed Pakistan for mineral exploration and mining projects.

Contending with a declining American hegemony, the Trump administration is focused on building domestic stability and reasserting the US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. China’s growing economic power, with ambitions of reshaping the World order, poses an imminent challenge to US unipolarity. Beijing is now an economic and geopolitical risk for the United States. Trump’s economic package for Argentina is an attempt to win an ally in the region and wean it away from the Chinese orbit. The huge rare-earth stockpile is a huge bonus which Trump refuses to let go of, even at the cost of angering its MAGA camp.

Trump’s geopolitical manoeuvring signals a renewed U.S. push to reclaim influence in Latin America. Washington appears to be deploying every tool at its disposal to reassert dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, Trump has ramped up pressure on Venezuela, while simultaneously signalling a willingness to revisit tariffs on Brazil—even as the Senate moves to block them. Though whispers of a neocolonial plan remain speculative, Trump’s aggressive interventions in the region make such concerns hard to dismiss.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India at the Helm: A New Chapter in UK-India Relations

 Describing his first-ever visit to India as a ‘two-parter’, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer who was accompanied by the largest ever delegation of 126 members, landed in Mumbai for a two-day visit on October 8. Accorded a grand welcome at Mumbai airport by Maharashtra governor Acharya Devvrat, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and two deputy CMs, Starmer’s choice of the destination, the financial and economic capital of India, has set the context of the visit. Starmer’s follow-up visit, barely two and a half months after PM Modi’s quick trip to the UK to sign the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), was all about facilitating investments and revitalising trade.

Hitting the ground with the clear aim of revitalising economic ties, after a brief series of meetings with business leaders in India, Starmer visited Yash Raj Films, where agreements were signed to produce three Indian films in the UK. He then attended a football-related event organised by the UK Premier League. Though Starmer’s trip was framed in July, currently, his political survival is hanging by a thread. Heading a Labour party government that has pulled off a landslide victory in recent times, Starmer is increasingly finding himself in a political quicksand of plummeting popularity, desertions, domestic weariness over immigration and a stubbornly stagnant economy.

Starmer has successfully managed to win back the Jewish community after his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn’s outlandish anti-semitic remarks. However, a terrorist attack on a synagogue in Manchester on the holiest Yom Kippur Day (October 2), leading to the death of two men, has sparked fears of rising hate crimes against Jews.

Earlier in September, Starmer appointed Pakistan-origin Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary following the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner over tax evasion in a house purchase. Her elevation to the post has raised concerns among the British Indian Diaspora, given her strong anti-India bias, a history of participation in protests outside the Indian High Commission and controversial statements on the abrogation of Article 370. In fact, alongside the Cabinet reshuffle, Starmer had to dismiss the UK ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, due to his links with Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer faces a multi-faceted loss of confidence from various communities, along with domestic issues such as the soaring housing crisis and protests against government plans for digital ID cards.

Politically, he is encountering challenges to his leadership from rival Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Additionally, the defection of a Labour Councillor to Reform UK in mid-September has left Starmer on a precarious political footing. His delicate balancing act on immigration—trying to avoid alienating the far-left with a tough stance while enabling the mobility of skilled workers—has not been successful. Indeed, Starmer’s failure to manage the immigration crisis has resulted in far-right protests led by Tommy Robinson.

The UK is sitting on the tinderbox of the immigration issue. Voters are growing increasingly weary of the ghettoisation of communities, and every politician worth his salt is now carefully weighing their stance on the same.

Mobility plays a vital role in trade negotiations. However, Starmer’s clear statement that visas for Indians “isn’t part of the plan” shows his subtle separation of trade from migration issues. Wary of the immigration controversy and its effect on electoral strategy, Starmer purposely avoided discussing visas before the bilateral talks. In fact, countries have agreed on talent movement in 35 sectors within CETA for two years. Furthermore, the trade deal features a layered tax exemption for Indians working temporarily in the UK for three years under the Double Contribution Convention (DCC).

Starmer’s fragile political position and growing public dissatisfaction are clearly shown by his falling popularity, as indicated by The Sunday Times MRP survey, which ranks Starmer as the most unpopular Prime Minister in 70 years. Elected on the campaign slogan of change, he has failed to deliver on immigration, economics, and employment, and has been embroiled in allegations of scandals. In a YouGov poll from mid-September, only 21% held a ‘favourable' view of Starmer, while 71% expressed a negative opinion, resulting in a net score of -50%.

The only bright spot amid the disarray was the UK’s trade deal with the US. However, it failed to substantially rejuvenate the manufacturing sector, with the economy falling to zero growth after a 0.4 per cent rise in June.

Ostensibly, the effective implementation of CETA, with a targeted doubling of bilateral trade to $112 billion, is expected to significantly boost employment and increase the GDPs of both countries. This notable economic revival through sectoral expansion, which aligns with the “Global Britain” foreign policy framework, could greatly enhance the sinking credibility of the Starmer government. An economic upswing combined with investment announcements may provide a much-needed boost for Labour, which has failed to deliver tangible economic benefits. Corbyn’s interventionist and confrontational stance towards India, along with alienating the Indian diaspora, damaged goodwill with India. Starmer’s current visit with a large entourage to date, appears to be a conscious attempt to gain some favourability.

The CETA trade deal is a ‘launch pad’ for the UK, aiming to weather the post-Brexit turmoil—through a credible economic recovery to restore its international prominence. Tipped to become the third-largest economy by 2028, India is economically a dominant force to reckon with. Besides, unwaveringly steering India amid Trump’s torrential tariff storm with aplomb, PM Modi has positioned India as an emerging global power. As countries scramble with erratic tariff levies, numerous agencies have projected a favourable economic landscape for India. As the fastest-growing large economy, India is seen as a green shoot for investments. The UK believes that India is the best bet against Trump’s uncertain trade policies.

Rebutting Trump’s derisive ‘dead economy’ jibe at India, Starmer stated, “Everything that I have seen since I have been here is absolute proof to me that you are on track to succeed”. This pushback against the US president’s rhetoric is a vindication of India’s growth story, which is attracting the attention of the EU and Germany as well. With its steady economic footing and compelling growth prospects, India has emerged as a formidable force on the global stage.

Apart from discussions on global and regional issues of mutual interest, leaders focused on Growth, Technology and Innovation, Defence and Security, Climate and Energy, and Education. Embracing the mantra of synergistic cooperation for mutual benefit through trade and technology, leaders addressed the Global Fintech Fest and the reconstituted India-UK trade forum.

Bolstering the Trade Security Initiative (TSI) launched in 2024, countries expanded its ambit with the inclusion of three new initiatives- India–UK Connectivity and Innovation Centre; India–UK Joint Centre for AI and UK India Critical Minerals Processing and Downstream Collaboration Guild. To unlock investment opportunities and integrate advanced technology, a new satellite campus will be established at IIT-ISM Dhanbad.

Coinciding with Starmer’s UK and Indian navies held a joint exercise KONKAN, and agreed to jointly set up the Regional Maritime Security Centre for Excellence (RMSCE) under the India-Pacific Ocean Initiative (IPOI). In a significant move, India offered to send qualified Indian Air Force Flying Instructors to train the UK’s RAF as part of military training cooperation. Under the complex weapons cooperation, the India and UK governments signed $468 million contract for the supply of Lightweight Multirole Missile Systems (LMM) and $335 million implementing agreement for collaboration on electric-propulsion systems for Indian Navy ships. LMMs, also known as Martlets, are manufactured by Thales Air Defence.

Reciprocating Starmer’s warm reception at Chequers with a lavish welcome in Mumbai, PM Modi conferred a foreign policy achievement on the Labour government to showcase. The trade deal—arguably the most economically significant agreement signed by the UK since Brexit is a shot in the arm for Starmer, who has been grappling with waning public approval.

Collaborating on zero-emission targets, countries announced the Climate Tech Start-Up Fund, established the Offshore Wind Taskforce and explored opportunities to work through the Global Clean Power Alliance (GCPA). In a landmark development, nine UK institutions are setting up campuses in India. The University of Southampton at Gurugram, with the approval from UGC, is commencing admissions. Through strategic partnerships in advanced biotechnology, centres of excellence in India and the UK are collaborating in Biomanufacturing, 3D Bioprinting and Genomics. The UK government signed an MoU with SBI to support innovative entrepreneurship in climate technology and AI. Countries launched the third phase of the Biomedical Research Career Program while the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the UK’s National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) signed a Letter of Intent (LoI) to deepen health research.

Starmer’s outreach to the Indian business community accrued $1.3 billion projects from 64 investments, translating into 7000 jobs spanning electric bikes, agriculture technology, semiconductors, AI and education sectors in the UK. The British Chip Designer Graphcore revealed plans to invest $1.3 billion towards building research infrastructure in India.

“Turbocharging” bilateral trade amid an unpredictable and uncertain geopolitical environment, PM Modi and PM Starmer infused a new momentum into an old relationship. Expressing their commitment to robust security of the Indo-Pacific region, countries also discussed the abuse of freedoms by extremist and radical elements. Apparently, PM Modi has raised the issue of anti-Indian Khalistani elements and the extradition of economic fugitives sheltered in the UK.

As burgeoning protectionist policies upend the global economic order, India stands out by leveraging the power of three Ds- Democracy, Demographic Dividend and Demand. This unique interplay has bestowed India with a strategic advantage. In contrast to the post-Brexit UK’s sputtering economy, India’s consistent upward trajectory signals a coming of age. With PM Modi at the helm, New Delhi is redefining the India-UK ‘win-win’ partnership.

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

1.    

 

 

 

 

Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: An English Commentary

Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: An English Commentary

British Indologist William Jones selected the Manusmriti as the authoritative text for framing the Hindu Law Code, making it one of the earliest Sanskrit texts to be translated into English. Replete with colonial distortions, the text has soon become one of the most maligned treatises. Castigated as being inherently oppressive and discriminatory, abuse of this text has become a common practice. Rarely read and routinely maligned, researchers hardly ventured to explore the great text in exacting detail.

Ironically, the colonial intellectualism that failed to find a near-equivalent word for Dharma or to appreciate its vast scope, having translated the Dharmasastras, amplified their distorted version to criticise the Sanatanis. Sadly, the discourse dripped in warped colonial interpretation has served as a staple to generations of Indians. Criticised, condemned and judged, the real import of the Dharmasastra has been nearly lost. Demonstrating a rare conviction and driven by intense passion for the Dharmic knowledge corpus, Nithin Sridhar, an engineer turned Dharmic scholar, who has earned laurels for his detailed commentary on Isopanishad, has authored a book titled “Chatuh Shloki Manusmriti: An English Commentary” to unravel the code of conduct laid down by rsis.

Manusmriti or Manava Dharmasastra was taught by Brahma to Svayambhuva Manu, the originator of the text. Through the guru-sishya Parampara transmission, the subject matter was taught by Manu to Bhrigu and nine other sages and the current text is attributed to Sumati Bhargava, a descendant of the Bhrigu lineage (Lineage of Bhrigu is Bhargava). The extant text with 2,684 verses has 12 chapters. Delineating the origination as opposed to composition, the author has admirably introduced the paurusheya and apaurusheya concepts, central to the Pramana Philosophical tradition of Indian learning.

Adhering to the Hindu pedagogical convention of focusing on the opening verses of the Hindu texts, like the Chatuh Shloki Bhagavatam (of Bhagavata Purana) the present text, upholding the traditional approach, carries a detailed commentary on the first four shlokas of the Manusmriti. Laid out in two distinct sections along with three Appendices, the first section comprises three chapters -Origination, Transmission and Authorship of Manusmriti.

Manusmriti is centred on four major themes- cosmogony, source of dharma, duties of the four varnas and concept of karma, rebirth and liberation. Inherently holistic and inclusive, the sophisticated discourse of the Dharmasastras, commencing with cosmogony, enunciates the concept of Brahma, reinforcing its basis for Dharma. The expositions on creation, levitating from a linear anthropocentric view while inculcating a cosmological perspective, elucidate human duties and the place of human beings in the larger scheme of the Universe.

To initiate the reader into the basics of the Dharmasastras, the author begins with an explicit definition of dharma. Dharma as per Vaisesika Sutra, 1.1.2, is an action which yields abhyudaya (material wellbeing or prosperity) and nihsreyasa of all (spiritual emancipation)  …..all actions which leads one to overall well being is dharma and those that lead to fall, bondage, and sorrow of individual is adharma….. the purpose of sastra is to create order and systematically present different aspects of a particular field of knowledge”. (p31). As a natural progression, the book then steadily drifts towards the Hindu epistemology, the author steadily touches upon the six darsanas (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa and Vedanta), six sources of knowledge or pramanas (pratyaksa, anumana, upamana, arthapatti, anupalabdhi and sabda), which validate the authoritativeness and trustworthiness of Sruti (Vedas) and Smriti (which includes Upanishads, Dharmasastras).

Dharmaśāstras encode the dharmic principles, which serve as a guide for the Hindu society regarding the duties and spiritual practices. Irrespective of the socio-political changes, some of these basic principles, like the result of a particular karma or action, that lead to sukha (happiness) or dukkha (sorrow), would remain the same. Especially, during challenging times, Dharmaśāstra provide a much-needed civilisational framework to address the socio-cultural matters like abortions, adultery, same-sex marriages, legal age of marriage, etc.

Foregrounding the need for reviving dharmaśāstra tradition, the author purportedly advocates the cultivation of hermeneutics of ‘sraddha’ to unravel and appreciate the depth of Hindu texts. Warranting a need for rejecting scepticism towards the non-emphirical subjects like śāstras, he encourages the contemplative process of śravana catustaya- śravana (listening), manana (intellectual reflection), nidhidhyāsana (contemplation) and sāksātkāra (actualisation of truth).

Popular notion makes contentious observations on the alleged interpolations, deeming the extant text dogmatic and outdated.  The first section disputes the misconceptions about the Manusmriti and thoroughly contests the distortions regarding its relevance.

Drawing extensively from various scriptures, commentaries and sastric texts, the second section of the book focuses on translation and commentary on the first four verses. Upholding the traditional convention, the author provides a word-by-word translation of the shlokas. The extensive commentary whets the appetite of a curious mind and holds out an Indic drishti for complex socio-cultural and ethical issues.

The sastric exegesis, though limited to the four shlokas in the current work, provides a perspective grounded in dharma. This was clearly reflected in the discussion on the second verse, where the Manusmriti factors in the human reality of no two persons are the same. Human beings are inherently diverse- with differing competencies, abilities, ethical dispositions and above all, inherited karmic burden. Hindu societies recognise these diversities, which are difficult to overcome.

Instead of a homogenised egalitarian approach and a prescriptive one-size-fits-all kind of solution for an envisioned utopian order, the Hindu philosophy embraces the differences. The text offers frameworks and recommends individuals to practice their svadharma and pursue purusharthas for individual and societal well-being. The deeper implication is that individuals, as per their svabhavas, can charter their own marga to attain material gains and spiritual emancipation.

Far from being a book of commandments, the Manusmriti is a book of wisdom with a meaningful framework for individuals. Without seeking to enforce these paradigms, it affirmatively speaks about the consequences of actions and the kind of karmaphala that can be accrued from their actions. Codifying nuggets of wisdom rooted in dharma, Manusmriti provides a glimpse of the Hindu worldview.

To summarise, in the words of Sri Jnananda Bharathi Swami, “The Sastras depend for their validity, not on the acceptance of the people professing to follow them nor upon the opinions of persons however sublimely evolved they may seem to be in the eyes of their followers, but solely upon their intrinsic truth which is in the power of nobody to disturb”. (p133)

Through intense contemplation, rsis have compiled the dharmasastras with an inlaid framework- an ethical compass for humans, resonating a unified vision. Centuries of colonisation deepened the disconnect with the Indic knowledge system. Contemporary discourse, dominated by the Western framework, has furthered a scepticism towards the indigenous corpus of knowledge. At a time when a mere mention of the Manusmriti sparks a lightning debate, the author pulled off the daunting task of reviving interest in sastric studies.

The orderly progression of introducing the concepts of the Hindu philosophy, epistemological tools in the first section, triggers any inquisitive mind to appreciate the depth of the Hindu sastric studies. Taking an introductory dive into the Manusmriti text, the second section brings to the fore the intellectual rigour of the author. Resisting the impulse to be defensive, the author unapologetically translates the verses into English to broaden their reach, all while preserving the integrity and authenticity of the original text. In parallel, he deftly transitions into a discussion on the verses to establish the contemporary relevance of the treatise.

Manusmriti is known for its detailed exposition on varnas. But the concept of varna is introduced in the later verses. Appendix I on ‘Hindu Conception of Varna: Exploring its multifaceted nature’, rightly fits into this scheme by eloquently expounding the spiritual and ritualistic significance of the Varna System.

Through an engaging and discursive style, the author makes a compelling case for the revival of Dharmasastra studies, successfully rekindling interest among deracinated yet intellectually inquisitive Santanis. Hopes this monograph serves will lay a foundation for revitalising the contemporary reclamation movement on Hindu Knowledge Systems. Without doubt, it stands as an essential primer for any Hindu intellectual seeking a foundational understanding of the Manusmriti.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.