2026 Assembly Elections: The Great Political Reset

 India seems to be in perpetual election mode. With the proposal “One Nation One Election”, to simultaneously hold Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, stifled by the “obstructionist politics” of the opposition, perennial elections have become the unwritten norm of Indian democracy. In the recently concluded elections in four states- Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Assam and the Union territory of Puducherry- nearly 150 million people exercised their franchise, making it a mini referendum.  The enormity of the election outcomes is no less than a watershed moment for India’s political landscape.

Three sitting Chief Ministers have lost the elections and been voted out of power- Pinarayi Vijayan of Kerala, Stalin of Tamil Nadu and Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal faced bitter defeats. In all three states, incumbents were ousted. For the first time since India’s independence, coinciding with the ‘naxal-free’ India objective, not a single state has a Communist Party in power. The elimination of Left Wing Extremism or Naxalism and the concomitant loss of political mileage of Leftist political parties marks a transformative shift in India’s internal security. Developmental chokeholds placed by this ideology caused stagnation. The declining stranglehold of this utopian philosophy and its rejection can help integrate these regions into India’s growth engine.

Over several decades, exclusivism, language and regional chauvinism of the Dravidian ideology have bred the North-South divide, threatening India’s unity. Fuelling secessionist tendencies and invoking a sub-nationalist pride, ‘Indian First’ identity was effectively trampled with illusory “Aryan-Dravidian” perspectives. The strong regional identity fostered by the Dravidian movement weakened the national fabric. It effectively roiled the Centre-State relationship as mandated by Article 1 of the Indian Constitution (a quasi-federal structure) and put them on a collision course. Rejection of the Dravidian Parties will mark a significant shift from the 60-year duopoly of these parties over Tamil Nadu. The unexpected stellar victory of a two-year-old political startup, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led by actor turned politician Joseph Vijay, dismantled the entrenched regional powers. Absent prior political experience, the state of Tamil Nadu, led by Joseph Vijay, will charter new waters.

TVK’s tsunami-like performance, now a case study for psephologists given his contrarian style of politics, is being hailed as a Gen Z revolution.  Analysts note that the fatigued and disillusioned young Tamil voters chose to transform the leadership through the ballot box rather than violent protests to overhaul the political architecture of the state. Their pragmatic choice underscores their faith in the Indian election process and transparency. However, political observers are cautious of the state’s trajectory under the stewardship of an inexperienced politician. Tamil Nadu, long known for its decisive mandate, faces a hung assembly kind of scenario -ushering in a bitter-sweet political journey for the state. Beyond the promise of change, Vijay’s foremost and daunting challenge lies in fulfilling the election pledges, which would entail a staggering financial burden of ₹1.7 lakh crore on the state exchequer, reeling under debt. His first decision to seek Congress party support, an ally of DMK whose misgovernance and corruption Vijay constantly attacked, is already raising eyebrows.

Puducherry voted the incumbent back to power, strengthening continuity and confidence in the leadership.

Securing people’s mandate with an increased majority for the record third time, the BJP has entrenched itself as the most popular party in the state. The landslide victory is a testimony to the overwhelming acceptance of the BJP’s style of governance. With focus on infrastructure development, connectivity and attracting investments, the BJP over the past decade has laid a firm foundation for the long-term development of the state. The thumping victory would strengthen its resolve to free the state from the menace of illegal migrants and protect the indigenous land and cultural identity from the demographic invasion. Assam is the vital connecting link to India’s north-eastern states of Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.

Illegal infiltration from Myanmar and Bangladesh into the North-Eastern states through the porous border is now a major security and socio-political threat to India. Massive influxes, besides altering demography, are a strain on Indian resources, as administrative and governance machinery have to be stretched to curtail the drug trafficking and regrouping of insurgency groups. Though illegals have been regularly pushed back, they are reentering through the porous borders, presenting a massive security challenge. With some of them permanently gaining ground in West Bengal, run by a complacent and obtrusive government, posing formidable threats to India’s security.

The constant riff-raff with the Central government and brazen indifference towards security threats by the illegals is turning West Bengal into a chink in the country’s security shield. An intransigent and non-cooperative approach, even towards issues like border fencing, has turned the State into a weak link both in terms of security and development. With the entire state machinery and administration collectively tasked with appeasing one community for an assured political term, development has taken a back seat. At the time of independence, the frontier state of West Bengal had been the crown jewel of the country, with a thriving industrial, business and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Political violence, a harrowing law and order situation, has forced industries and businesses to flee the state.

Further, a stubborn reluctance to implement government schemes and prioritise the developmental agenda has pushed the state into economic stagnation. Economic decline has not been sudden; decades of leftist rule and fifteen years of TMC rule have turned the third-largest economy of the country into one of the bottom four. The crushing defeat of TMC and the landslide victory of BJP offer a fresh hope of revival for the state. For BJP, toppling the bastions of development-agnostic TMC is not mere political expediency but a strategic imperative dictated by pressing security threats.

West Bengal serves as the gateway to India’s North East, making its industrial growth and logistical efficiency pivotal for the region’s economic integration and connectivity. The absence of a coherent development vision from the Bengal government is not just stalling the state’s progress- it is impeding the progress of the entire North East. To reduce regional growth disparities, the government is setting up growth corridors and “anchor cities”. However, growth in Eastern India still lags due to the long-term decline of Kolkata as an industrial hub. The roadblocks for growth must be removed to reduce regional disparities and reach the goal of a $7 trillion economy. The Vision of Viksit Bharat 2047 is intrinsically linked to the economic and social transformation of Bengal.

Intense geopolitical conflicts, especially in the Middle East have caused acute energy security vulnerabilities. To remain buoyant amid these uncertainties, nations must be economically resilient. Building a stable economy with consistent growth is no longer a choice, but an undeniable necessity.

The resurgence of Bharat as a developed nation is incomplete without cultural revival. Thirty-four years of Leftist rule that considers “religion is the opium of the masses” and fifteen years of heightened minority appeasement and oppression of Sanatanis have sapped out the cultural vibrancy of the land, which has been an epitome of Indian culture and spirituality. To raise culturally empowered citizenry, it is important to create conditions for cultural revival. This can’t be possible when the indigenous population is treated as second-class citizens for cultivating vote banks.

The unceremonious ouster of Sheikh Hasina and her exodus to India have revealed the larger international agenda at play. The pursuit of a “Christian State” along the Indo-Bangladesh border is not a wild allegation. Conflicts in Manipur since 2023, foreign mercenaries' operations along the Indo-Myanmar border and the surging presence of Islamic fundamentalists abutting West Bengal border areas in Bangladesh are not sporadic events. It is part of a grand plan of Indian adversaries to destabilise and economically weaken India and gain entry to the Bay of Bengal.

Indeed, the cryptic link to this entire master plan becomes more revealing with the Leader of the Opposition’s visit to Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the thick of Bengal elections. While political parties are at loggerheads in the electoral battle, Rahul Gandhi raises objections to the “Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project”, terming it as the “gravest crime against nature”. Geostrategically, India stands to expand its maritime influence and fortify its economic and national security with this project. It would be a game-changer.

India is at a multi-front war from both within and outside. To secure the country from both domestic and foreign threats, stable, sturdy and nationalistic governments must be at the helm. BJP’s aggressive electoral fight is not a mere political contest but a means to realise the lofty national ambition. Mission Bengal is not a political agenda but an economic, social, cultural and national security inevitability.  With the power of the vote, Indians are building the nation by entrusting governance with prudence. Ushering in a silent renaissance democratically, Indians have once again rewritten their own developmental script.

Iconically, what was once branded a slogan of defiance and suppressed under threat of legal action, the unapologetic chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ now reverberate across Bengal, symbolising freedom. Beneath the exuberant bursts of Joy of election ecstasy in the City of Joy, lay buried the long-silenced stories of repression.

 

Beyond Oil Quota: Decoding UAE’s Exit from OPEC

More than two months into the Iran-US war, the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked. Iran has tightened its grip on this strategic asset. Handling over 20% of global energy supplies, restrictions on the Strait have deepened the global economic crisis. Mediation attempts have come to an abrupt halt. The writing on the wall, as per columnists, is NACHO- ‘Not A Chance Hormuz Opens’. Fully aware of the looming squeeze on oil exports, Gulf nations are steadily ratcheting up plans to mitigate the fallout of Hormuz closure.

At a time when Arab countries met in Riyadh to discuss the repercussions of Iran's war, the UAE announced its exit from OPEC on April 28, effective from May 1^st. This decision comes at a time when the world is facing a severe oil crunch. The timing of the announcement hasn’t come as a real shocker, given the UAE’s disappointment over a lack of solidarity and support from Gulf Countries.

Since Feb 28, Iran has launched over 6400 drone attacks targeting US bases and other critical assets in the region. However, the UAE faced disproportionate attacks from Iran compared to its primary adversary, Israel- 2800 drone and missile strikes as opposed to 930 attacks on Israel over a similar period.  Even among the Gulf countries, the UAE faced the highest number of strikes, followed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Needless to say, while the UAE and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords, the UAE has proactively strengthened ties with Israel since then.

UAE’s announcement to exit OPEC has turned out to be the endgame for its simmering differences with Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia and the UAE added more heft to the oil cartel, given their spare production capacity. The UAE is the third-largest oil producer in OPEC with a capacity of 4.85 million barrels per day. But its quota is capped at 3.2 million barrels. For long, the UAE faced losses from the underutilisation of vast production capacity. Disassociating from OPEC, the UAE can increase production at will. OPEC operates on quotas to regulate oil production and, concomitantly, global oil prices. President Trump has often accused OPEC of manipulating the global oil prices by pegging the production levels for a profitable production margin.

Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC, seeking higher prices, to fuel its Vision 2030, enforced voluntary production cuts through quotas.  By withdrawing from OPEC, the UAE will be free to increase its production. With the lowest production costs globally, the UAE can capitalise on its capacities to significantly scale up the output.  Freed from the OPEC+ quota system, the UAE can advance its ambitious economic diversification agenda. Harnessing oil revenues, the UAE can accelerate its transition to green energy and renewables and realise the long-term goal of moving away from an oil-dependent economy status.

Using oil revenues, the UAE has built world-class maritime infrastructure, established a premier financial services hub and positioned itself as an economic powerhouse of the region. Under the garb of attacking US bases, Iran targeted airports, energy facilities, data centres, banks and digital infrastructure, significantly impacting its economy. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has critically paralysed Abu Dhabi’s oil exports. As a result, the UAE could export ~1.5 million barrels from Port Fujairah through its Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP), far less than its capacity of 5 million barrels per day. The UAE was hardest hit by the Iran War.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s export volumes remained stable. Barring some interruptions, the oil trade remained uninterrupted as Saudi Arabia rerouted supplies through the East-West Pipeline, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. By April 12, Riyadh restored its full export capacity of 7 million barrels per day. With the fate of the Strait of Hormuz in limbo, the UAE initiated financial backstop talks with the US. Beyond the economic logjam, the Iran War has deepened fissures between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Both countries have been supporting the warring factions in Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. The dissonance on the Yemen front between Arab states became apparent after Saudi fighter jets struck Mukkalla seaport on the Red Sea, targeting the transfer of weapons from the UAE to the Southern Transition Council (STC), a dissident group. Saudi Arabia accused the UAE of arming the STC, which carried out military operations along its southern border.  Deeming 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 ordered withdrawal of forces within 24 hours.

UAE’s exit from OPEC has many facets; while an obvious weakening of the oil cartel is imminent, there are many layers to it. Over the past decade, the UAE has been slowly evolving an economic architecture to expand its influence. Punching above its weight, the UAE is expanding its presence in the Red Sea, Horn of Africa, Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. Actively strengthening its control over Red Sea maritime choke points, especially the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the UAE is quietly expanding its logistical empire. The Red Sea is a vital artery for the UAE’s oil exports. To protect its global trade flows and insulate supply chains from regional volatilities, the UAE is consistently diversifying its influence through economic investments in these regions. The UAE’s quiet presence in these strategically important maritime ports along the corridor has put it at odds with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

Extending its presence in the South Red Sea region, the UAE invested in the Port Berbera of Somaliland to connect it to Ethiopian trade routes and create a maritime corridor by integrating inland Africa with global shipping. Israel’s recognition of Somaliland eventually helped the UAE to access the airstrip of Port Berbera. This enabled the UAE to deepen its strategic depth in the Red Sea region, creating a Berbera axis, where the UAE-Israel-Ethiopia are pitted against Saudi Arabia-Egypt-Turkey-Somalia. Contesting Emirati influence in the Red Sea region, Saudi Arabia has entered Eritrea. Aligning with the US, Saudi Arabia is monitoring trade flows through the Red Sea region.

Alongside, the UAE is also building an Eastern Mediterranean corridor with Greece, Cyprus, Israel and India. This logistical corridor is a subset of the India Middle East Europe Maritime Economic Corridor (IMEC) steered by India. The IMEC, launched at the 2023 G20 Summit in New Delhi, suffered a hit after the October 7^th attacks.  While the overland routes passing through the Middle East are effectively frozen, India and France are actively pushing for IMEC’s maritime logistics.

As a part of its regional strategy of controlling Mediterranean route access, the UAE supports Khalifa Haftar’s forces. UAE’s patronage of Haftar has two purposes. Aside from pushing arms and weapons delivery through Haftar to RSF forces in Sudan, the UAE is gaining control in North Africa to establish a strategic logistics and military corridor. Saudi Arabia also engages with Haftar through Pakistan. To establish its leverage over Haftar, Saudi Arabia has recently facilitated a $4 billion arms deal between Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) and Pakistan. But the deal is jeopardised with Saudi Arabia reportedly “revisiting its strategy”.

Another region of Saudi-Emirati contestation has been Sudan. Saudi Arabia has been providing financial and logistical support to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) while the UAE backs the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The brutal conflict between SAF and RSF for the past three years has led to the worst humanitarian crisis. Amid the Iran War, Western countries have forced Saudi Arabia to stall the $1.5 billion arms sale through Pakistan. Officially claiming to support humanitarian efforts in Sudan, Riyadh is actively engaging with SAF through Pakistan. With Saudi Arabia pulling the plug on its $1.5 billion financial support under Western pressure, Pakistan has officially called off its defence deal with Sudan.

The rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia has been brewing for some time now. But the final straw on the camel’s back was Pakistan’s mediation of US-Iran talks. The UAE believed that Pakistan was unlikely to be neutral. Pakistan, which has been a pernicious defence logistics channel for Saudi, eventually became its strategic defence partner with the signing of Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) in September 2025. The UAE perceived a conflict of interest due to the SDMA pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. As relations between Saudi Arabia and the UAE began to fester, Abu Dhabi felt sidelined as Riyadh aligned with Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt as part of Iran-US war negotiations.

Historically a recipient of Emirati financial support, Pakistan’s role as the pernicious handmaiden of Saudi has riled it. In fact, Pakistan’s “meek response” to Iranian attacks, its less beholden approach to Abu Dhabi, sharp rhetoric against Israel and India might have influenced the UAE to call for urgent repayment of the $3.5 billion loan. Emirati’s strategic framework, anchored by the 2020 Abraham Accord, has been further strengthened by Israel’s deployment of cutting-edge defence systems during the Iran conflict.

The ongoing war has positioned Israel as the strategic defence partner of the UAE. This new strategic realignment signalled Emirati prioritisation of the UAE-Israel-India axis to bolster its economic influence and maritime presence in the region and beyond. Aggressively pursuing “We the UAE 2031”, a 10-year roadmap launched in 2022, the UAE is signing Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPA)s to build a knowledge-based economy. In 2022, the UAE joined India, Israel and the United States in the I2U2 group and the IMEC initiative that resonated with its core goals of increasing non-oil exports, entering the top 10 league of countries in human development, health, education and safety.  To realise its vision, the UAE needs an uninterrupted flow of oil revenues.

Stifling Saudi Arabia’s institutional control of OPEC, Hormuz blockade has curtailed its oil exports and dwindled the UAE’s dollar reserves. Exercising its sovereign right, the UAE has left OPEC. Even in the past, showcasing disagreements- Angola, Qatar, Indonesia and Ecuador exited OPEC. Gabon exited in 1995 and rejoined in 2016. The UAE has followed the same precedent. Headquartered in Geneva initially and later shifted to Vienna, OPEC was founded by 12 nations in 1960 in Baghdad.  Comprising Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Venezuela, OPEC emerged as a major bloc in 1973 when its Arab members imposed an oil embargo against nations supporting Israel. 

Around that period, OPEC controlled nearly half of the world’s oil. But its influence began to wane after the US and others started producing oil. Joining hands with ten non-OPEC members- Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Oman, Mexico, Russia, South Sudan and Sudan to stabilise global oil supply, OPEC formed OPEC+ in 2016. Figuratively, OPEC+ controlled nearly 59% of global oil production. But its heft began to gradually erode due to competition from other countries, defections, green energy transitions and internal dissent. The USA and Guyana, two major oil-producing countries, operate outside this alliance.

While the Strait of Hormuz blockade has marginalised OPEC’s leverage, the UAE’s exit would severely reduce its market influence. Unlike the exit of other countries, the UAE’s departure brought to the fore dissensions and faultlines among Gulf Countries. OPEC symbolised Gulf cohesiveness and its consensus decision-making helped it to weaponise oil.

The OPEC+ formed in 2016 in response to America’s shale production, helped Russia to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions and provided stable trade channels. In his first term, Trump had been highly critical of OPEC+ and accused it of artificially inflating prices. UAE’s withdrawal will weaken the group and its monopoly. Now the collective consensus will be overpowered by differences over Iran and Yemen within the group. The UAE has been the safety valve of the group. Abu Dhabi’s move is a major foreign policy victory for Trump.

The UAE plans to establish Murban crude as the global benchmark to compete with WTI and Brent and has invested $122 billion to raise production capacity. Now, it wants to freely trade oil and allow market forces to determine production volume. By exiting OPEC, the UAE is now staking its strategic autonomy to position itself as the major regional maritime power. The ongoing Iran War has revealed deeper rifts in the Middle East region for maritime influence between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

UAE’s exit from OPEC will augur well for India’s efforts to tame the impact of rising oil prices on domestic inflation. The geographical proximity will reduce the shipping expenses and time. With premiums on ships transiting Hormuz surging, oil shipments from the UAE’s Port Fujairah can directly reach India. A weaker OPEC can cause global oil price volatility. The world must brace for cycles of unstable oil prices. OPEC traditionally trades in dollars. Given the UAE’s willingness to diversify from dollars, its strategic move could weaken the petrodollar system. India and China, the major oil consumers, can now settle oil trade in national currencies. India-UAE ties reached a new high with the CEPA and a steady increase in trading volumes. UAE’s move to maximise the oil output will bode well for India’s energy security.

Unrelenting geopolitical turbulences are reshaping the world order, compelling nations to prioritise national interests. The Hormuz blockade has pivotally underscored the centrality of maritime influence for economic clout. Nations are increasingly embracing “Port Diplomacy”- building an extensive logistics network to control maritime chokepoints that serve both as leverage and investments to enhance economic heft. UAE’s OPEC exit has revealed its strategic vision to expand its influence beyond borders and emerge as a regional maritime power.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Why Pakistan for US-Iran ceasefire talks?

The much-awaited US-Iran peace talks in Islamabad failed to accomplish a ceasefire. Touted to play the role of mediation, the process was roiled in controversies and elicited sharp rebuke even before the negotiations could begin in Pakistan. The conditional ceasefire, which was announced on April 8^th, showed signs of tottering just a couple of hours later as Gulf countries- Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE reported strikes. Soon, it was confirmed that Iran launched retaliatory strikes on Gulf countries in response to an attack on the Lavan Island refinery. Before these escalations could simmer down, Israel launched one of the largest attacks on Lebanon, killing 240 people.

An enraged Tehran warned of a ceasefire collapse over Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Israel defended its action, stating that Lebanon is beyond the ambit of the ceasefire. Washington backed Israel’s position. The confusion over Lebanon soon put Islamabad in a spot. Though PM Shahbaz Sharif sought the refuge of his tweet as an alibi, indicating the ceasefire applied to EVERYTHING, soon parties accused Islamabad of sharing different versions of ceasefire agreements. The ‘double game’ and accusations complicated the diplomatic process.

Even before accusations could subside, revelling in the new global role, Pakistan Defence Minister Khwaja Sharif called on Muslim countries to unite against enemies- India and Israel. In a chest-thumping exuberance, Khwaja Sharif tweeted, “Innocent citizens are being killed by Israel, first Gaza, then Iran and now Lebanon, bloodletting continues unabated. I hope and pray that the people who created this cancerous state on Palestinian land, to get rid of (sic) European Jews burn in hell”. This triggered an immediate backlash from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Casting serious doubts on Pakistan’s role as mediator, the Israeli envoy to India emphasised that it could be a mere facilitator. Pakistan officially doesn’t recognise Israel, a major stakeholder in the US-Iran peace talks. Ironically, the US delegation, comprising Jews, travelled to Islamabad, whose “annihilation” the Pakistani defence minister has called for. Pakistan is anything but a neutral arbiter.

Trump’s choice of Pakistan for reaching out to Iran has resonated with his penchant for tinpot despots like Field Marshal Asim Marshal. Pakistan has always been a useful vassal for the United States. Customarily, Nordic countries have been preferred mediators for their neutral and objective stand. Strategic talks and mediation warrant subtle diplomacy and exchange of notes beyond the prying eyes of the media. Mediation is a craft. Tempered with secrecy, neutrality and commitment, talks yield the outcomes when it is low profile. On the contrary, Pakistan turned this into an event to brandish its global image. The Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and sections of the media even requested a Nobel Peace Prize for PM Sharif and Field Marshal Munir.

Given Trump’s fraught relations with European countries and with transatlantic relations teetering on the edge, Washington relied on Middle East allies for the job. Initially, Washington coopted regional allies-Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to push for de-escalation. But Pakistan emerged as the primary mediator.

Pakistan shares a 900 km-long border with Iran, has close ties with China, and a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia. China, seemingly neutral, is calling the shots. China has been the largest customer of Iran’s discounted oil. The Strait of Hormuz blockade has severely impacted its energy supplies. China is Iran's most important political partner. The signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) runs through the Iranian territory.

Over the years, China has invested significant effort in building strategic ties with GCC countries as well. Hence, any direct involvement in talks would jeopardise its partnership with the region. China’s trade with the UAE and Saudi Arabia is $100 billion, against $41 billion with Iran. On March 31^st, China and Pakistan proposed the five-point initiative to restore stability in West Asia. Around the same time Beijing facilitated talks between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban. China has been silently making its moves. Wielding decisive influence, without being at the table, China has propped up Pakistan’s mediation role.  China remains the largest buyer of Iranian oil while continuing its trade with the Gulf countries. China is also supplying sodium percholate for Iranian missiles.

Pakistan has been flexing its muscles ever since President Trump pronounced it as a communication channel with Iran. Trump’s choice of Pakistan hardly raised any flak despite its unvarnished history as a state sponsor of terror. It wasn’t surprising given a marked upswing in the US-Pakistan relations in Trump’s second term. Needless to say, the point of interest has been commercial. Trump’s family and Witkoff’s offspring sealed a crypto investment agreement with Pakistan in April 2025.

Subsequently, Trump announced a critical mineral exploration deal with Pakistan. Islamabad has also offered to the United States to use the Pasni harbour. A sequence of events has critically changed the trajectory of US-Pakistan ties, which has suffered a blowback over Washington’s involvement in the ouster of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.  President Trump’s nagging rant and incoherent claims of India losing jets during Operation Sindoor, and his claims of trade leverage in halting India’s offensive to favour Pakistan, have irked India. Pandering to Trump, Pakistan has recommended the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump for his non-existent “decisive diplomatic intervention”. Later, Trump invited the Field Marshal for a luncheon at White House. This unusual privilege, usually reserved for civilian leadership, drew sharp reactions.

Warming up to Trump, despite domestic backlash, Pakistan accepted the invitation to join the Board of Peace for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction. At the inauguration, PM Sharif offered glowing praise to Trump. Trump’s unprecedented overtures and the sudden momentum in U.S.–Pakistan ties are rooted in Islamabad’s aggressive lobbying.  Reportedly, Pakistan hired 13 lobbying firms to secure direct access to Trump’s office. Prominent lobbying firms included Javelin Advisors, co-founded by Trump’s former bodyguard, Keith Schiller, and ex-Trump Organisation executive George Sorial, and Seiden Law LLP. Pakistan has shelled out $5 million in 2025 to lobby the current administration. The returns on investment for Pakistan have been rather quick. Brushing aside India’s fierce objections, the IMF approved a $1 billion loan to Pakistan at the height of Operation Sindoor.

Coinciding with the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, the US government signed an agreement to renovate and redevelop the Hotel Roosevelt in New York, owned by Pakistan’s flagship carrier, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), in February 2026. In December 2025, under pressure from the IMF, cash-trapped Pakistan was forced to privatise the airlines. To retain the prime property in New York frequented by Pakistani leaders, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff negotiated a deal between Pakistan and the US General Services Administration (GSA). Steve Witkoff’s son, Zachary Witkoff, is a partner in the cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial (WLF). The other key partners of the WLF deal signed in April 2025: Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Zachary Folkman.

Amenable to both Washington and Beijing, Pakistan has positioned itself as the most convenient pawn for two powers with direct stakes in West Asia. Given its subservience to its masters, Pakistan can at best be a courier. What is striking, however, is the glaring hypocrisy of Washington, which justifies its attacks on Iran while embracing Islamabad. Pakistan embodies nearly every trait the U.S. condemns in Tehran: both are designated state sponsors of terrorism, pursue destabilising nuclear programs (in fact, Pakistan is a Muslim-nuclear power), empower non-state actors, and crack down on domestic subjects. Tehran has the vilest form of surveillance, the enforcement of hijab and an iron-fisted crackdown on dissent. Islamabad embodies one of the most intolerant strains of religious fanaticism, where religious minorities- Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and even some sects of Muslims, like Ahmadiyas and Shias, face persecution.

Diplomatic values have sunk to rock bottom under the present US dispensation. Entrusting the task of de-escalating the war that has disrupted global supply chains to a state synonymous with terrorism is nothing short of diplomatic bankruptcy. Pakistan’s neutrality is already under scrutiny. Islamabad has activated the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SDMA) by deploying 13,000 troops and fighter jets to Riyadh. Additionally, Islamabad has its own axes to grind with Iran on the Balochistan insurgency issue. The 21-hour-long trilateral talks in Islamabad have failed, and both delegations left Pakistan immediately. While JD Vance announced that talks have stalled, Iran noted, “diplomacy never comes to an end”. As of now, no date, location, or format for talks has been set.

The choice of mediator matters. If nations are serious about resolving this conflict in the long term, prudence must guide the selection of facilitators. History offers a sobering reminder: the 1993 Islamabad Agreement, brokered by Pakistan, barely lasted for a few weeks. Signed on March 9, bombardment resumed on May 15.

 

 @ Copyrights reserved.

 

 

Great Power Games: From Western Decline to Eastern Ascent

 In the present age and time, information is not a scarce resource. However, the ability to knowledgeably interpret is. Drawing from his years of experience, Spymaster Sri Vikram Sood, in his latest work, “Great Power Games: From Western Decline to Eastern Ascent”, has effortlessly deconstructed the ambitious power play of Superpowers. Connecting the dots incisively, the book seamlessly unravels a panoramic view of global geopolitics.

This fitting trilogy, preceded by The Unending Game (on the intricacies of espionage) and The Ultimate Goal (on narratives), offers fascinating insights into the United States' relentless quest for domination. The pursuit of dominance and the unyielding effort to reassert control have never been benevolent. The structure of the Great Powers' policy has always relied on the pillars of Control and Dominance. The unmatched power accumulated by Superpowers grants them the freedom to walk away from agreements, revoke treaties at will, and violate the rules-based order with impunity. They can abandon allies, disown friends, and hold a free and unchecked reign to push the world into uncertainty. The only certainty about superpowers is their promising ability to plunge the world into instability and global disorder. The slew of executive orders signed hours into President Trump's inauguration, heightening global uncertainty, is proof of absolute power wielded by superpowers.

Control and Dominance rooted in the aspirations for a global title would turn any country into a hegemon. Supercharged with global ambitions and greed, great powers cease to be a Benevolent Global Hegemon. Indeed, a benevolent hegemon is an oxymoron, as the very oxygen for global supremacy is chaos. Any existential threat, or a war in any part of the globe, benefited the military-industrial complex of great powers, as they controlled all the essential resources. War has been a profitable enterprise through which great powers bolstered their dominance.  While any country’s power is defined by its economy and military might, with a strangulating grip over the global tech, pharma, agriculture, health, financial system and currency, the United States has steadily positioned itself as a mighty power. War has become an opportunity to consolidate their military, tech and financial dominance and influence. Turbulence anywhere in the globe accrued cumulative benefits to collective capitalist guilds in the United States.

From the Gilded Age, a coalition of capitalists has incrementally monopolised industries, banking systems, energy and the investment ecosystem and reshaped the country's policies to fit their commercial interests. These exclusivist capitalist clubs, elite networks fostering the cohesion of economic and political forces, constituted the “Establishment”, which laid the foundations for the American empire in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The “Establishment”, which is the “Deep State” of countries operating under the convenient narrative of democracy, is a complex working together of “military-industrial-pharma-technology-media-philanthropy-intelligence” (p4). This brilliant dissection of the “Deep State”, which wields immense and disproportionate influence in controlling the world, is at the core of the United States power calculus.

The book meticulously dissects the veritable arms of the deep state to help readers understand the “ultimate goal” of domination of Superpowers. The introductory chapters of the book delve into the different cogs of the imperialist Deep State axis and unpack this well-oiled machine that rides roughshod over other countries to retain global control. In the process, the author conclusively and unabashedly exposes the new order philanthropy. Dubbed as “good club”, a team of self-preserving elites backed (perhaps) by the Deep State, aligned with the US foreign policy goals, is creating markets for Western products and colonising the Third World. The early trendsetters of Philanthrocapitalism- Rockefeller and Carnegie established Foundations to keep the hegemony of Western interests intact. The contemporary subscribers to the so-called “Giving Pledge” include the representatives of Big Tech, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Ag and Big Media Behemoths. With direct accessibility to the leaders of the countries, these powerful voices, dressed as superheroes to save the world from doom, in reality are the predatory offshoots of the Capitalist World.

The opening three chapters of the book are nothing short of a revelation. With masterful clarity, they lay bare the big picture before plunging into the notion of “American Exceptionalism”, a subset of the broader idea of “American Empire” rooted in imperialistic tendencies. As the author observes, “Empires do not rise or die overnight, or even in a decade. Sometimes it takes generations. The American Empire has been the cleverest of all its predecessors. It ran its empire by remote control.”(p 123)

This trajectory of manifest destiny, traced back to the Renaissance and popularised by American thinkers and philosophers, finds expression in voices like Thomas Paine, who declared, “We have it within our power to begin the World over again”-  to Hillary Clinton’s assertion, “ We are called upon to use this power” (p 91). For generations, Americans held to the belief that the rest of the world wanted to be like them but lacked the means. They assumed - “It was, therefore, America’s noble task to create American clones, which would then ensure peace”.

This self-adulation reached its zenith post-Soviet Union collapse. In its unipolar arrogance, the US recklessly used force against countries, ruthlessly ousting regimes and pushing countries into disarray, stating, “Realism demanded that America always be ready to fight wars with the greatest lethality as a way to maintain American exceptionalism” (p 92). Preparing to target Saddam Hussein, in 1998, Madeleine Albright remarked, “But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are an indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further than other countries into the future”. (p 92). America’s wars were “about American Exceptionalism, American Invincibility and American Righteousness” (p 93).

So, the theme of “America First”, which has become doubly popular since Trump’s second term, stretches back to the 19^th century and is politically deployed at challenging times to revive nationalist sentiments. To put this into perspective, the author recalls, the presidential debate remarks of John F Kennedy on 1^st October 1960-  “I think we have to demonstrate to the people of the world that we’re determined in this free country of ours to be first- not first if, and not first but, and not first when- but first. And when we are strong and when we are first, then freedom gains, then the prospects for peace increase; then the prospects for our society gain” (P93). America First, which bred American Triumphalism and hubris, especially since its 21st-century wars on the Global War on Terror, culminating in needless imbroglio, set the United States on a decline. The Forever Wars and the rising costs of war have dented its global domination.  A decline, though not precipitous, is imminent from the rise of new power centres or poles.

The United States has stretched to its limits. With military bases across 36 countries, the estimated maintenance cost per year is $900 billion or 5 per cent of GDP, together with the overt and covert regime change operations, which took a huge toll on the country. Over the last 100 years (1898-1994), the US has successfully led 41 coups in Latin America or an average of a leadership ouster every 28 years. The costly and futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further exacerbated the economic uncertainties. Regardless of power and wealth, what mattered the most are- “Credibility, dependability and intention”. Once these perceptions plunge, a return journey (rise) is difficult.

The 2008 Financial Crisis, the Arab Spring, the COVID pandemic and the 2022 Ukraine war, which the US ended up provoking its old rival, augmented a New World Order. Alongside, the meteoric economic rise of an authoritarian China with its Middle Kingdom ambitions has changed the dynamics of the existing global order. The world is now staring at a second edition of the Cold War, with China steadily expanding its presence and influence, especially among the Global South Countries. Unlike the post–World War II Cold War era, when the US relentlessly stymied the Soviet Union without reprieve, it has adopted a restrained stance toward China despite the evident challenge to its global supremacy. Though China is weakening the American influence in Latin America and Africa, Washington is reluctant to take Beijing head-on due to the deeply integrated American corporate interests in China.

Smashing American illusions of a rising China becoming a liberal country is becoming more centralised and increasingly authoritarian. The multidimensional challenges posed by China are disregarded as Corporate America still thinks of it as a source of inexpensive products and not as an entity that threatens the American way of life. By controlling the global supply chains, China has positioned itself as a challenger to America.

Another important aspect often overlooked by strategic analysts is the Clash of Civilisations. The book offers a deeper insight into the pivotal role played by religion in terms of shaping the Empires. Western Civilisation is synonymous with the Christian civilisation, and Arab Civilisation became synonymous with Muslim Civilisation. Unapologetic about their allegiance towards their faith, all the Abrahamic religions and the respective civilisations proudly flaunt their identity. American Presidents openly flaunting their Christianity have promised faith-based education, healing and law enforcement. The American system is reconfigured on the Graeco-Roman framework. Now Europe is on the brink of being Islamised. The clash of civilisations, as envisaged by Samuel Huntington, is inevitable as both grapple for domination. India, with the second-largest Muslim population, is bound to face the impact of such a clash.

India is on the verge of an economic boom, and its rise is unsettling global players. Amid the shifting power dynamics, India is positioning itself as a key ‘actor’ alongside China and Russia, reinforcing the eastward shift of the global power centre. India’s growing international profile is no longer ignored. However, India’s future faces obstacles—“India has the most irritating problem with Pakistan, the most vexing with China and the most complicated with the US. Then, there is an enemy within” (p 267). While optimistic about India’s progress, the book warns of a dominant Western narrative that deliberately overlooks India’s achievements and blatantly undermines its democratic and pluralistic credentials. By penetrating civil society, co-opting dissenters, through a vast network of NGOs and think-tanks supported by the CIA, all the global indices are creating a negative perception about India. This unhinged propaganda is an unvarnished attempt to install an amenable “friendly regime” that safeguards Western interests in the region. “The idea now is to shift the narrative away from China and target India. The reason being that China is far too powerful now, and there are too many deep Western financial and trade entanglements with China, so any harsh action against it could rebound on Western corporate interests”. (p 276)

Overtly, India and the US have a comfortable relationship anchored in shared values. But the self-proclaimed friends of India are working against India’s interests. National interests rather than shared values should be the guiding principle for India. “A superpower has only its interests in sight; no one else’s interests matter” (p302).  Living next door to a hegemonic neighbour that expects nothing short of subservience, India has to tackle the Dragon across the mountains. It is also worth recalling that Empires may have allies but no friends and prefer vassal states. Laying bare the dynamics of the power calculus in an unobtrusive way, Sri Vikram Sood ingeniously sets the reader to analyse, think and prudently assess the ruthless foreign policies of the Great Powers determined to retain their global supremacy.

Prudence lies in identifying obstacles and insidious narratives widely amplified by the Big Media Behemoths and being prepared for them. He states, “It is never a bad idea to try and turn an enemy into a friend, but whatever action a strategist must take, a country should not become a naïve victim. It must be armed with prudence, the ability to detect the enemy within and never ever lower one’s guard, not even for friends” (p8).

Structured into ten chapters, the book provides a comprehensive perspective of international affairs. Enriched with real-world insights into covert operations, proxy wars, the “Deep State,” and its entrenched, clandestine networks, the book serves as a definitive guide to understanding Great Powers’ pursuit of dominance. The perspectives in the volume built on the solid foundation of years of working on national security must be internalised. Beyond urging strategists and the dispensation to recognise the importance of developing indigenous social media platforms to present our viewpoint to the world, the book underscores the critical integration of military, economic and civilisational foundations as essential for building a strong and self-reliant nation.

Sri Vikram Sood’s latest work is an indispensable treatise to ruminate on for strategist analysts, policy makers, foreign policy experts, scholars on international relations and citizens who closely monitor geopolitics.

 

Blueprint of a Hindu Rashtra

 

With the rise and advent of the Westphalian ‘Nation States’ framework in international relations, geographical or territorial identity began to supersede indigenous or civilisational identity. The nation-state concept, applied to a relatively homogenous population, has inadvertently inculcated loyalty towards geographical boundaries. For a country with an illustrious antiquity and spanning a vast geographical expanse, colloquially referred to as a sub-continent and with an ocean named after it, the narrow definition of the Nation State has seriously constrained its identity and fostered a sense of nationalism centred on sovereignty. The nationalism of the 18th century is largely an insular concept.

Unfortunately, the dominant Western narrative has positioned Nation as an equivalent to the Indic version of Rashtra, which is all-inclusive and has deep cultural and spiritual significance. It refers to a ‘political entity or a country formed by a community with a shared identity, culture and history’. It is basically a socio-cultural construct where people’s approach towards life, relationship with nature and the universe and outlook towards history and tradition align. Rashtra, the Sanskrit term, has been in vogue since the Vedic times, referring to a spiritual entity and is based on memory and shared heritage.

This set of geo-cultural values has been at the heart of Bharateeya civilisation. Centuries of foreign invasions, marauding and assault on its identity and cultural roots have weakened this concept. Sadly, the all-inclusive concept of Rashtra is now conveniently replaced by the 18th-century nationalism ideology. Rashtra is lazily equated to the term Nation, which takes race, language and geographical limits as its basis. Consequently, any reference to Hindu Rashtra is first met with scepticism, which is rather unfortunate.

Rashtra embodies the collective will of a community to live together in pursuit of a common goal. Confronting widespread misconceptions about Rashtra- often born of ignorance, the book- “Blueprint of a Hindu Rashtra” makes a passionate appeal to Hindus to reflect on their civilisational identity. Written under the pen name of ‘Dhananjaya’, the book mourns the erosion of the ‘Kshatra attribute’ among Hindus and seeks to awaken them from the civilisational amnesia.

Challenging prevalent misapprehensions about Hindu Rashtra, the author unequivocally asserts the need for a Hindu Rashtra. The identity of this civilisation is inalienable from Hinduism. To restore its civilisational identity, Bharat has to become a Hindu Rashtra. Hindus are a global minority facing imminent threats to their survival from the proselytising religions. The author puts forth a compelling case for Hindus to unite and work towards realising the goal of Hindu Rashtra. The slow and steady decline of the geographical spread of Hindus within the geographical precincts of India should serve as a wake-up call for Hindus to build a civilisational Hindu Rashtra. 

Laid out in three major parts, twenty chapters including a conclusion and two appendices, the book delves into the Why, What and How of Hindu Rashtra.  Busting myths about Hindu Rashtra, the author clearly spells out, “the purpose of a Hindu Rashtra is to give Hindus breathing space, without taking anything away from the others. It is aimed to make Hindus self-aware and organised, and allow them to respond effectively to the h realities of the present times. A Hindu Rashtra means creating boundaries and walls around Dharma for self-protection, and for keeping out and removing the existential threats that the Dharma is facing” (p59).

Outlining the framework for Hindu Rashtra, the author enlists the need for legislative, judicial and constitutional amendments. He sets forth the need to set up the Ministry of Dharma, to free the temples and tirthas from government control, to institutionalise the Dharma Mahasabha, to reform the education system, and to protect and revive culture. The grand vision of Hindu Rashtra, though seemingly ambitious, is the most plausible solution to preserve ancient Hindu civilisation.

Relentless vilification of Hindu practices, derogatory remarks against their Devi Devatas, along with raising anti-Hindu hate, are a constant reminder of Hindus being under threat abroad and within India. Hindus are being systematically pushed to accommodate and adjust. They are expected to tolerate self-harm under the guise of secularism in India.

The book reflects on the ever-shrinking space for Sanatana Dharma in India. Packing the harsh realities together, the author urges Hindus to shed complacency. Brevity has turned out to be a double-edged sword for the book. While it can be read in a single sitting as the message is neatly presented as power capsules, the glaring absence of specific details fails to lend the book a scholarly gravitas. Timely, relevant and unapologetic, the book is an important read for every practising Sanatani.

 

No of Pages: 158, Price: ₹ 299

Publishers: Garuda Books

 

From Rift to Renewal: PM Carney’s Quiet Reset

Canada’s swift foreign policy recalibration amid Trump’s incessant tariff and sovereignty threats hasn’t escaped global attention. In his scintillating remarks on the ongoing powershift and dwindling multilateralism, at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Jan 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has outlined the role of Middle Powers like Canada to build a new order – “build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states”.  Earlier in Nov 2025, he elucidated Canada’s “Variable Geometry”- a concept in an opEd titled “The Americas in 2026” for The Economist. The concept implied pursuing “different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests”.  

Challenges

Assuming the charge as Premier at a time when Trump repeatedly threatened Canada to turn it into the 51^st state, Carney resisted the bullying and adopted a ‘pragmatic’ approach. Trump’s rhetoric on trade and sovereignty had jolted Canadian politics, which has been inherently libertarian. Ottawa’s left-leaning approach towards free speech, facile interpretations of the Khalistan ideology, and pandering to the minority vote bank had been at the heart of the diplomatic breakdown with New Delhi. Justin Trudeau’s reckless snapping of diplomatic ties with the largest democracy on “credible allegations” had been a travesty of statecraft seeped in liberalism. The relationship barely hung by a thread after countries expelled High Commissioners in October 2024 and reduced diplomatic presence to a minimal level.

Silent Stabilisation of Ties

In the wake of Trump’s ad hoc policies and constant threats, Carney, elected into power in March 2025, adopted a ‘pragmatic’ and ‘centrist’ foreign policy.  Hosting the 51^st G7 Summit, he swiftly engaged with World leaders. Signalling a thaw, Carney extended an invitation to Prime Minister Modi, an honour New Delhi coveted for over a decade. In June 2025, along the margins of the G7 Summit at Kananaskis, Alberta, leaders of India and Canada held forward-looking discussions “to take calibrated and constructive steps to restore stability in the relationship”.

 By September, High Commissioners of both countries returned. Rebuilding trust and expanding cooperation, NSAs held the first round of talks. In October 2025, Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand, on her visit, renewed the roadmap for bilateral engagement. Injecting new momentum into the bilateral partnership, leaders met along the sidelines of the Johannesburg G20 Summit in November 2025. They reviewed the ties and launched negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) to reach USD 50 billion by 2030. This engagement at the highest levels revived Ministerial and Official-level mechanisms. Subsequently, Foreign Office Consultations, security dialogues and sector-specific working groups were back on track.

Critically, the second round of NSA’s meeting in Feb 2026, ahead of PM Carney’s scheduled State visit, streamlined issues of major concern like law enforcement issues, extraditions, illegal drug flows, immigration fraud, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, transnational criminal networks and set the stage for leadership talks. PM Carney arrived in Mumbai on Feb 28 for a four-day bilateral visit. After extensive business engagements and an investment push in Mumbai, the actual bilateral talks commenced in Delhi on Mar 2. The visit at the invitation of PM Modi is PM Carney’s first visit to India as the Prime Minister. The last Canadian bilateral visit to India was in 2018.

The Pivot

In a generational shift, PM Carney, leveraging “the Middle Power moment”, is expanding defence, security and economic ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific region and Looking South. This steady shift is evident in PM Carney accelerating defence cooperation with the Philippines, Japan and South Korea. In November 2025, Canada signed the Status of Visiting Forces agreement with the Philippines. In January 2026, delicately balancing ties, Carney, on his Beijing visit, carved a “new strategic partnership” and inked a preliminary trade agreement with China to ease tariffs. In the same month, Canada sealed a defence collaboration Equipment and Technology Transfer Agreement (ETTA) agreement with Japan. The two strategic rivals.

Expanding its Indo-Pacific strategy, Canada is finalising an FTA with Indonesia, elevating its partnership with Vietnam and ASEAN and seeking to increase military presence through Operation Horizon. As the resident power of Indo-Pacific with fourth largest economy, Canada now significantly understands the significance of building pragmatic ties with India. For long, the India-Canada relations have been a victim of misreading of contrasting narratives. However, under mounting Trumpian economic and diplomatic pressure, Canada has embraced strategic diversification and multi-alignment.

Ambitiously working to build the political trust, in the run-up to PM Carney’s visit, Federal officials indicated that India is no longer linked to violent criminal activities in Canada and moved to revoke the citizenship of Tahawwur Rana, accused in 26/11 for alleged misrepresentation in his citizenship application. By easing the tensions, Canada has set the stage for pragmatic cooperation.

The Reset

Having established diplomatic relations for 79 years, both countries structured a roadmap aligning with New Delhi’s Viksit Bharat and Ottawa’s Build Canada Strong Agenda. Addressing the Canada-India Growth Forum, PM Carney described his visit as “the beginning of a renewed Canada-India partnership”. In an interaction, recognising India’s rising global influence, PM Carney said, “I wouldn’t call India a ‘middle power’. I’m happy for Canada to be called a middle power. But India’s trajectory and ambition is totally different”. This strategic shift in the Canadian approach is firmly mirrored in his intent to decisively take forward the partnership from normalisation of ties to a structured expansion.

The diplomatic row over Nijjar has ruptured the partnership. To rebuild the strategic trust, leaders have structured a vision for the partnership anchored in the guiding principles of ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’ (One World One Family One Future), providing a framework for political, economic, technological and strategic engagement.

Outcomes

The wide-ranging bilateral talks yielded several concrete outcomes. Notable among them are signing of Terms of Reference (ToR) for CEPA. India is Canada’s seventh-largest goods and services trading partner, with bilateral trade at USD 8.66 billion. Setting a target of USD 50 billion in bilateral trade by 2030, the countries plan to conclude the trade agreement by the end of 2026.

 

Countries signed MoUs in Critical Minerals Cooperation, Renewable Energy, Global Research, Cultural cooperation and declaration of Intent to establish the Joint Pulse Protein Centre of Excellence at the National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship (NIFTE) at Kundli. Canada announced fully-funded internships for up to 300 eligible Indian students annually for three years.

Nearly 24 MoUs/partnerships have been signed between universities/institutions in areas such as Artificial Intelligence, healthcare, agriculture, and innovation. The scale and diversity of the commercial agreements signalled normalisation of ties.

Along the sidelines of the G20 Summit, Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and India launched the Australia-Canada-India Technology and Innovation (ACITI) Partnership, leveraging the complementary strengths of Australia’s critical minerals, Canada’s AI expertise and India’s digital talent with an emphasis on green energy innovation, building resilient supply chains, including for critical minerals. Taking it forward, all three countries held meetings during the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, and now the Sides have inked an MoU on cooperation in Technology and Innovation.

Resetting ties, India and Canada reached a landmark agreement for the sale of $1.9 billion of uranium (10,000 tonnes) to India for its civil nuclear programme over 10 years. This will facilitate India’s clean energy transition and help reach the goal of 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047. Canada is second largest producer of Uranium. One of the foundational pillars of the India-Canada partnership has been nuclear collaboration on CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium Technology) reactor design. Soon, India developed its own Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) based on Canadian technology. India’s second nuclear reactor, CIRUS (Canada India Reactor Utility Service) and Rajasthan Atomic Power Station were built with Canadian assistance. Nuclear cooperation stalled post-1974 and 1998 tests. Sanctions were imposed on the sale of Uranium. The US-India nuclear deal of 2008 restored trust. In 2015, Canada agreed to sell Uranium. However, marred by misgivings and shifting relations, nuclear cooperation took a hit.

Renewing Relationship

Advancing India-Canada strategic energy partnership, the countries relaunched the Ministerial Energy Dialogue to finalise a joint plan of action to promote collaboration in clean energy, conventional energy and renewable energy. To broaden energy cooperation, Canada is joining the Global Biofuels Alliance and the International Solar Alliance. Given the Gulf crisis and concerns about the security of maritime trade routes, India is keen to source energy supplies through alternative routes. For stable energy security, India intends to buy LNG from Canada along with heavy oil. India is simultaneously working towards concluding a long-term LPG supply agreement with Canada.

Countries are elevating the 30-year space cooperation agreement between the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), signed in 1996. India has supported Canada joining the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) as a Dialogue Partner.

Countries are relaunching and elevating the existing mechanisms, joint working groups to the ministerial level, to institutionalise cooperation and strengthen the relationship. To structure student mobility, an important domain of the bilateral ties, countries launched a new Canada-India Joint Talent and Innovation Strategy. 400,000 Indian students study in Canada, twice the number in the US and four times the number in the UK. Owing to Canada’s stricter immigration norms amid housing crises, PM Modi welcomed reputed Canadian Universities to set up their campuses in India. India has also proposed twinning degree programmes.

Trump’s ‘America First Agenda’, has critically weakened the institutionalised defence and security mechanisms. To align with NATO’s new targets, Canada is increasing defence expenditure and plans to spend about $500 billion over the next decade. Diversifying defence partnerships, Canada is now reviewing the F-35 acquisition, reversing the decision to purchase 88 of them. Carney is diversifying defence partnerships with Japan, South Korea, the EU and Indo-Pacific countries and identifying partners for defence collaboration. This can open up ample opportunities for Indian defence companies for co-development and coproduction. Given the convergence on Indo-Pacific, Canada, seeking to expand military cooperation with India, is institutionalising the India-Canada Defence Dialogue.  

The post-World War II institutional architecture is on the brink of collapse. New regional and global security arrangements are shaping up. As a middle power, positioning the partnership toward long-term expansion, Canada is seeking to widen cooperation. Committing to ironing out the structural differences stemming from the misinterpretation of liberal values, Canada is now valuing Indian partnership. PM Carney described the partnerships in the famous words of Swami Vivekananda- “arise, awake, and stop not till the goal is reached”.

Canada wants to work with India for its own reasons. India is cognisant of its conciliatory approach and appreciative of PM Carney’s attempt to anchor the relationship in “mutual respect, sovereignty, and democratic values”.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Reimagining Israeli Relations Through a Civilisational Lens

 PM Modi embarked on a two-day state visit to Israel on February 25^th at the invitation of Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, amid the US’s massive deployment of forces in the region.  The visit comes nine years after PM Modi set a precedent of becoming the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel in 2017. This was followed by a four-day visit of PM Netanyahu to India in February 2018. The High-level back-to-back visits and sustained engagement have energised the relationships and fostered genuine respect between Indians and Israelis to a new high.

The marked upswing in ties was accompanied by an upbeat economic engagement, with bilateral trade reaching a new high of $10.77 billion (excluding defence) in 2022-23, fell to $3.62 billion in 2024-25 due to regional security issues and trade route disruptions. The dastardly October 7 Hamas attacks have fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of the Middle East, ending the illusion of stability. Countries which stood with Israel immediately after the attack started recalibrating their position. As the conflict in Gaza continued, Israel faced partial economic sanctions, an arms embargo and even diplomatic isolation. But Indian engagement with Israel hardly changed. On the contrary, it has intensified and stabilised. India’s long-term defence cooperation remained stable as it continued to import defence supplies from Israel.

As per Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India is the largest defence importer of Israeli defence equipment, accounting for 34% of sales from 2000-2024, worth $20.5 billion. By 2024, the tactical defence purchases transitioned into a partnership with Israeli companies setting up subsidiaries and joint ventures in India, in tune with the ‘Make in India’. By opening production units in India, Israel seeks to anchor New Delhi as its gateway to Asia and penetrate newer markets. Promoting this mutually beneficial cooperation, countries shifted toward co-production, co-development, and transfer of technology, which is the core of the long-term MoU defence cooperation signed in November 2025. It provided a policy framework for defence industrial cooperation, Science & Technology, AI and cybersecurity.  

As India seeks to create an ‘impregnable’ multilayered air defence to thwart Pakistani attacks, India’s appetite for Israeli systems and weapons has increased significantly. Israeli weapons- Harop loitering munitions, SkyStriker drones, Rampage air-to-surface missiles with their precision strikes- gave India an upper hand during Operation Sindoor. As per reports, India is seeking to make $8.6 billion in defence purchases from Israel in 2026. While defence has been the central pillar of the India-Israeli partnership, the strategic convergences are further bringing the nations closer. Both countries have been the worst victims of ideologically motivated terrorism.

Invited to address the special plenary of the Knesset, PM Modi, in a rare honour and a first ever for an Indian Prime Minister, opened his speech by offering deepest condolences of 1.4 billion Indians to the families shattered by the Oct 7 terror attack. Extending solidarity to Israel in the fight against terror, he said, “We feel your pain. We share your grief. India stands with Israel-firmly, with full conviction-in the moment and beyond”. Even as the opposition back in India continued to egg on PM Modi about the Israeli genocide, he reiterated, “No cause can justify the murder of civilians. Nothing can justify terrorism”, underscoring, “terror anywhere threatens peace everywhere”.

India adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism and has been at the forefront in global fight against terrorism. India and Israel have a longstanding cooperation on terrorism. With reports of Hamas joining hands with Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and sharing the stage with Jaish-e- Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) at a public conference in PoJK, both countries might intensify intelligence sharing and counter terrorism cooperation. Indeed, the 10^th meeting of the India-Israel Joint Working Group on Counterterrorism concluded on Feb 24^th, ahead of PM Modi’s visit.

Endorsing India’s commitment to fight terror and its support to Israel, PM Netanyahu, in his welcome remarks, stated, “Immediately after the terrible massacre of October 7- you stood clearly, morally firm with Israel.. You did not flinch. You did not waver. You did not give excuses. You stood next to Israel. You stood by Israel. You stood for Israel”.  India recognised Israel in 1950 but established diplomatic relations only in 1992. During this period, India actively championed the Palestinian cause but continued to receive Israeli weapons and intelligence support during wars. For the past seven decades, India has been reluctant to come out in the open assertively.  It changed with 2017 PM Modi’s visit.

PM Modi’s present visit, coming in the wake of the US-Iran nuclear negotiations of February 6, has turned the region into a powder keg. Unwavered by the regional tensions and the looming threats of military strikes, as a testimony of steady friendship, PM Modi travelled to Israel. Amid geopolitical turbulence, uncertainty and conflict, displaying a rare strategic confidence, PM Modi preferred to ground the partnership in the age-old traditional links. Echoing this in the Knesset speech, redefining his outreach, PM Modi presented himself as a “representative of an ancient civilisation”. Invoking the ancient ties between the Indus Valley and Jordan Valley, insulating the strategic ties from the underlying complex geopolitical tensions, he fostered civilisational alignment.

By reimaging the ties through a civilisational lens, PM Modi completely de-hypenated Indian ties with Israel and Palestine. Political compulsions and shackles of minority appeasement severely constrained India-Israeli relations. Placing the Israeli ties on a civilisation pedestal, Modi scripted a new chapter. This delineation of India-Israeli ties from New Delhi’s commitment to the Palestinian issue will allow the standalone relations to flourish to their full potential. Shattering decades-long ambiguity and reticence through civilisational decoupling, Modi infused a new momentum into the bilateral partnership to thrive on the strength of shared interests and values.

At a time when the West is doubling down on Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, PM Modi redefined and consolidated ties with Israel on the grounds of civilisational linkages. To this end, PM Modi deliberately avoided any reference to brewing tensions in the region but extended full support to “durable peace and regional stability”. Supportive of the Gaza Peace Initiative, India, which is yet to take a call on joining the Gaza Peace Board, attended the inaugural meeting as an “Observer” ahead of PM Modi’s visit to Israel.

The delineation of India-Israeli relations from the Palestinian cause was in vogue since the Modi government’s first term. With separate and standalone visits, the Prime Minister reoriented India’s policy back in 2017. Firming up this policy, PM Modi is propping up the partnership on the strength of the centuries-old civilisational connection and realism. Afflicted by grandstanding and moral posturing, India faltered for decades. Shunning ambiguity and hesitation, India is now openly courting Israel, whose timely help in crucial times remained underappreciated and unacknowledged.

Exuding clarity and pragmatic dynamism, countries elevated the ties to “A Strategic and Special Partnership for Peace, Innovation and Prosperity through technology and innovation”, setting the stage for a multi-dimensional partnership. With ‘Hugplomacy’ in full display, abounding with friendly gestures and symbolisms, the leaders have restructured the partnership that long deserved a high place.

Symbolism is perceived as tokenism. However, protocol-defying gestures like a warm welcome by the host Prime Minister at the tarmac and send off fortify ties and buffer them from domestic push and pull factors. In recognition of the exceptional contribution and leadership of PM Modi to strengthen bilateral ties, he was conferred the Medal of the Knesset, making him the first ever recipient.

Among the listed 17 outcomes of the visit are MoUs on Cooperation in AI, education, agricultural research, geophysical exploration, development of National Maritime Heritage Complex (NMHC) at Lothal, fisheries and aquaculture, commercial arbitration, financial cooperation and implementation of UPI. Countries signed a Letter of Intent on the establishment of the Indo-Israel Cyber Centre of Excellence in India and exchanged declaration of Intent in the field of Horizon scanning.

India and Israel have been knowledge-driven economies with complementary strengths. Israel is a global powerhouse of technology and innovation. India serves is hub of talent, manufacturing excellence and entrepreneurial energy. Through a synergistic integration, both nations can prosper and succeed. For a futuristic partnership defined by creativity, technology and talent, countries have affirmed collaboration in AI, cybersecurity, semiconductors, quantum computing, biotechnology, agriculture and water management, defence platforms, and space exploration.

Elevating the Joint Commission on Science and Technology to the Ministerial level, countries welcomed India–Israel Financial Dialogue and an initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies led by the NSAs (National Security Advisors). Having signed the Bilateral Investment Treaty in September 2025, countries signed Terms of Reference (ToR) to commence negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on February 24^th. Deepening the people-to-people connection, an additional 50,000 Indian workers would join Israeli sectors within the next five years.

Notorious as a conflict-ridden region, the Middle East is pivotal for global trade, energy security, maritime security and connectivity. Indian interests are closely intertwined with the region in terms of remittances and secured energy flows. Navigating the layered strategic alignments of the region is absolutely essential for India’s economic growth.

The Middle East, which is the centrepiece of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), now lies at the intersection of India, Israel, the UAE, the US (I2U2), and Mediterranean outreach. In his Knesset address, PM Netanyahu outlined a geopolitical vision to involve India in the “Iron Alliance” of like-minded countries. The envisioned broader “Hexagon Alliance”, a potential axis against extremism, will emerge as an interconnected corridor of trade, technology and maritime security. Putatively comprising India, Israel, Cyprus, Greece, the UAE and Morocco, this informal security network can be a potential alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Tipped to become the third-largest economy by 2030, India is ramping up engagement with diverse partners and exploring a multi-layered engagement with Middle East nations and beyond. Reimaging the ties through the civilisational lens and anchoring in shared historical and ideological affinities, PM Modi adeptly preserved Israeli ties from being consumed by geopolitical and domestic pressures. India has emerged as a new anchor for Israel in this geopolitical landscape. PM Modi’s visit has laid a framework for a forward-looking partnership between two ancient civilisations and modern nations- one that advances “national interests while contributing to global stability and prosperity”.

@ Copyrights reserved.