The Bomb in the Basement and the Hypocrite at the Podium

 Some men lie with such regularity that you almost begin to wonder if they ever drew breath without first scrutinising themselves in a mirror.  Benjamin Netanyahu is, without a shade of doubt, one such man - an actor par excellence on the grand stage of world affairs, perpetually delivering the same tired lines from a tattered script first penned somewhere in the mid-1990s.

Since 1995 (or was it earlier? Can’t really recall, but it hardly matters), Netanyahu has stood before parliaments, think tanks, and television cameras with all the gravitas of a weatherman warning of an eternal storm, and wantonly claimed that “Iran is mere weeks away from acquiring a nuclear bomb.”  And yet, somehow, like Godot or the Second Coming, the bomb never arrives.  But his warnings do, like seasonal allergies, and with more applause every time from Capitol Hill.

It does take a special brand of chutzpah (a word I seldom use now, given its growing use as a euphemism for criminal gall) to preside over a state that refuses to sign the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), one that boasts a clandestine nuclear arsenal the size of a medium-sized apocalypse, and then lecture others on the existential dangers of nuclear weapons.  Israel’s policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” much like its prime minister’s moral compass, is less ambiguous than it is incandescent in its hypocrisy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, that weary bureaucratic janitor of the global nuclear order, is granted sweeping rights to inspect Iranian facilities down to the last centrifuge gasket. But when it comes to Israel? Silence. A policy of “don’t ask, don’t inspect.”  And Netanyahu, flagrantly standing atop this radioactive elephant in the room, has the audacity to brandish cartoon bombs at the United Nations like a villain with a terrible PowerPoint addiction from some James Bond movie!

Of course, Netanyahu’s nuclear alarmism is only the first act in the whole drama.  The encore is always a call for regime change, in Iran, in Syria, in Libya; and, who knows, perhaps even in North Korea if the day’s mood demands it.  He never advocates diplomacy; in fact, he sneers at it.  And whispers of peace are anathema to him; he prefers shouts for purification by fire.  To put it plainly, he is much less of a statesman than a regional arsonist, forever fumbling for matches while blaming others for the smoke.

And yet, for all his globe-trotting, Netanyahu might do well to examine the festering rot beneath his own polished shoes. At home, he faces corruption charges that read like the rap sheet of a South American dictator - bribery, fraud, breach of trust.  His family’s involvement is so deep that it makes one wonder if Likud’s official logo shouldn’t just be a courtroom sketch.  His support among his own people, once so slavish that his name alone could summon votes from even the comatose, is now dwindling, as even loyalists grow weary of a man who treats democracy as a speed bump on the road to perpetual power.

And let us not forget his spiritual twin across the Atlantic, the peroxide-plated patron saint of populism.  Donald Trump, a man who once recommended injecting bleach to fight Covid and who thinks nuclear policy is something you outsource to your son-in-law, and who arbitrarily withdrew from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, remains Netanyahu’s greatest enabler.  Together, they form a grotesque pas de deux of demagoguery - one under indictment for corruption, the other a convicted felon.  Neither can spell “restraint,” but both claim to defend civilisation!

Israel’s so-called “nuclear opacity” is now less a policy than a farce; it’s a diplomatic fig leaf so shrivelled and see-through that only Washington pretends not to notice.  And yet it is Iran, not Israel, that is flogged, sanctioned, and threatened, despite not possessing a single nuclear weapon.  It is like jailing someone for alleged intent while handing the actual thief a Nobel Prize for Peace in the next room.

It is perhaps the cruellest joke of our geopolitical age: that those with the most bombs and the least accountability are the ones preaching the loudest sermons on security.  And Netanyahu - armed with his selective morality, his apocalyptic PowerPoints, and his unwavering belief that rules are for other people - has made himself the high priest of that hypocrisy.

The only real deterrent the world needs is from men like him.

Has Israel Bitten Off More Than It Can Chew?

Mathrubhumi English - June 17, 2025

Israel, that ivory tower of martial confidence, now finds itself precariously perched on a crumbling edifice. What seemingly began as a determined mission to neutralise Hamas has metastasised into an incipient regional conflagration. And on surveying the apparent wreckage of policy, doctrine, and international credibility, one cannot help but ask: has Israel indeed overreached?

Israel currently finds itself entrenched on at least four fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran. Its Iron Dome-led collage of defences is visibly straining under not just rockets but full-blown missile barrages. Iran’s audacious spring strikes of over 200 drones and missiles represent a doctrinal shift in proxy warfare, forcing Israel to confront nation-state aggression directly.

As retired IDF Major-General Giora Eiland had warned months ago, engaging Hezbollah across multiple fronts was a mistake.  He had said, Israel “would not be able to defeat Hezbollah”,  That warning went unheeded, and, now, Israel’s embattled north faces daily bombardments, while its Gaza campaign drags on almost interminably.  Add to this, Israel’s bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities has escalated tensions to a dangerously elevated plateau.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s provocations in Iran, like raids on Natanz and drone murders of officials, have, in reality, shattered Israel’s self-imposed limits. Operation "Rising Lion," which was heralded as a tactical success, has seen Israel strike Iran deeply for the first time in decades.  Netanyahu, in a video released by his administration, appealed to Iranians to “rise up against theocratic rule,” claiming that Israel was “clearing the path” for them. Many experts caution that this may signal a dangerous overreach.  In the New Yorker article, analysts note that Israel’s scope extends beyond nipping Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and that it flirts with regime change, a perilous and naïve ambition as many experts believe. In his column on foreign affairs in The Washington Post, David Ignatius warned, “A campaign of bombing of the kind Tehran is experiencing makes people hunker down, turn inward and often fight harder. Strategic bombing didn’t break the will of the British, German or Japanese people during World War II. It hasn’t yet destroyed Hamas in Gaza, either, for that matter.”  The simpler regime-change strategy would risk triggering a more fanatical IRGC regime or, even worse, a nuclear surge – quite a textbook case of "opium of unintended consequences!"

As its ambition collides with reality, we find that Israel’s traditional allies are uneasy. In Europe and the Global South, sovereignty and proportionality counts do matter. The Guardian warns that Israel’s reputation (which it has managed to tarnish with its continued violent persecution of Palestinians in Gaza) may be irreparably damaged.  Meanwhile, US senior leadership is splitting; President Trump warned of a broader war, urging evacuation in Tehran.  Top Pentagon officials are split over the scope and scale of U.S. military support for Israel.  G7 leaders have called for de-escalation even as they reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself.

As she ends her column in The Guardian, Nesrine Malik says that Israel’s campaigns (both propaganda and on the ground) regard “the Middle East as a theatre for domestic politics, reputation management and experimentation in bringing about “safety” on yet-to-be-defined terms. But the region is not just Israel’s backyard. It is other people’s homes and they have their own politics, histories, populations, and security needs that, increasingly, are subject to a country that has decided that only its own agenda matters.“  In response, Gulf mediators are growing wary, their patience fraying by the day. Russia and China seem poised to exploit Western disarray, recalibrating the global strategic order.

One cannot deny Israel’s military prowess: F‑35s, sophisticated missiles, and an AI-enhanced targeting pipeline. But have they opened too many fronts with this offensive? That is the question. Iran is a master of proxy warfare.  Israel could be fighting not just against Iran, but also the Hezbollah from Lebanon, the Houthis from Yemen, and Hamas from Gaza, all at once.  Atlantic Council’s Jonathan Panikoff warns that once you attack national infrastructure or leaders, you risk compelling Hezbollah and Iran to respond, raising the stakes into a regional war (atlanticcouncil.org). While the Hezbollah has restrained itself thus far, you cannot expect exhaustion in Iran and Lebanon to last forever .

Israel’s strategy teeters on a knife’s edge. Missile waves from Iran could overwhelm Israel’s missile defenses, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems under strain.  Again, should Iranian proxies be drawn back into coordinated strikes, Israel faces the risk of grinding warfare on the North.  With growing global condemnation and an increasingly iffy U.S. support, Israel's manoeuvrability has taken a hit.  And the political and ethical divides, and civil unrest in the West Bank and among Israeli Arab citizens, not only add fuel, but threaten unity within Israel.

While Israel has played the proud and defiant angle, it now risks imperial overreach, and, it would seem,  its best hope lies in recalibrating momentum, dialling back aggression toward Iran, and avoiding fissures with America and returning focus to Gaza and Lebanon.

If Netanyahu continues to chase grand designs, regime change and regional dominance, the result may not be Iron Dome victories, but a terrible region-wide quagmire. He is left with a very simple choice: defend the house within sight, or chase mirages that may end up burning it down.  Let’s hope that he de-escalates, regains focus, and defines a realistic horizon… before what was bite becomes choke!

(The author is an independent political analyst and can be reached at hari@healthcombine.com) 

Sleeping with the Enemy: Congress's Complacency and the Rise of Modi's India

 If the Indian National Congress were a business, its shareholders would have long since sold their stock and taken their losses.  It has evolved backwards and has become a marvel of entropy, a relic that stumbles forward without conviction, ideas, or even the faintest sense of urgency.  The party that once commanded the loyalty of an entire subcontinent now specialises in one thing, losing. Its electoral debacles have become so frequent and humiliating that they have ceased to be news.  The Congress does not fight elections as much as participate in them, like a particularly hapless sporting team that shows up, goes through the motions, and then shakes hands with its victorious opponents before returning home to plan its next failure.

The real tragedy here is not just the self-immolation of the Congress, but more importantly, it is the vacuum that this creates - something that has been expertly exploited by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or more precisely, by its two most formidable figures, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah.  The BJP has, in effect, turned the Congress into its greatest asset!  With such an incompetent, uninspiring, and strategically inept opposition, Modi and Shah do not have to worry about the routine mechanisms of democratic accountability.  They can focus instead on securing their long-term ideological project - the slow, methodical dismantling of the secular, pluralistic vision of India that its founding fathers once envisioned.

The Opposition as the BJP’s Strongest Ally

A healthy democracy requires a strong opposition.  This is an elementary fact, as fundamental to political life as oxygen is to breathing.  But today’s Congress, and by extension the wider opposition, is not merely weak - it is an embarrassment, a decaying artefact kept on life support by nostalgia and inertia.  It is not just failing to challenge the BJP, but is actively making the ruling party stronger by presenting itself as such an unthreatening alternative.

Modi and Shah understand this dynamic perfectly. They do not fear the Congress.  They do not even need to suppress it. They are content to let it stagger along, leaderless, rudderless, and visionless, because its continued existence serves as proof that India still has a “democracy,” however hollow that claim may be.  Since 2018, India’s electoral democracy has witnessed a sharp decline in quality. The V-Dem Institute, which monitors democratic freedoms worldwide, now classifies India as an "electoral autocracy" - a system where elections continue to be held regularly, but the government operates with increasingly autocratic tendencies.

The BJP, for all its authoritarian instincts, does not want to abolish elections; it wants to win them effortlessly.  And the Congress, with its genetically gifted leadership, its utter lack of ideological clarity, and its inability to adapt to the political realities of the 21st century, seems only more than happy to oblige.

Take, for instance, Rahul Gandhi, a man who seems perpetually on the verge of becoming a serious politician but never quite gets there. His periodic reinventions - each hailed as the moment he will finally emerge as the leader India needs – have sadly become a running joke.  The problem is not just that Rahul Gandhi lacks charisma, although he does; and it is not just that he lacks political cunning, although he does.  The problem is that he and his party, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the battle they are fighting.

The BJP is not merely a political party.  It is an ideological movement with a clear, ruthless, and long-term strategy. It is driven by a vision - one that is explicitly majoritarian, Hindu nationalist, and expansionist in its ambitions.  The Congress, on the other hand, has no vision at all. It speaks the language of secularism, but with all the conviction of a schoolchild reciting a lesson he does not understand.  It claims to stand for democracy, but proudly flaunts a leadership structure that is a feudal hierarchy.  It talks about fighting for India’s constitutional values, but it does so in press conferences and Twitter threads rather than on the ground, where the real battle is being fought.

Modi and Shah’s Long-Term Strategy

The BJP’s strategy is not limited to winning elections - it is about shaping India for decades to come.  Modi and Shah are not merely interested in securing the next term in office; instead, they are playing a generational game.  They are changing the fundamental nature of India’s institutions, bending them to their will, ensuring that even if they were to lose an election in the future, the ideological shift they have engineered will endure.  They have systematically co-opted the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the media, and even the military, ensuring that no meaningful resistance to their project can emerge from within the state.  They have built an ecosystem of think tanks, social media warriors, and ideological enforcers who can manufacture consent with ruthless efficiency.  They have mastered the art of controlling the narrative, using a combination of propaganda, fear, and cultural symbolism to create an unbreakable bond with their base.

The Congress, meanwhile, cannot even manage its own internal affairs without descending into chaos. It is torn between nostalgia for its past and sheer cluelessness about its future.  It still operates as if the Nehruvian consensus is intact, failing to recognise that the ideological landscape of India has changed beyond recognition.  It still believes that the mere invocation of “secularism” will be enough to counter Hindutva, failing to understand that this is no longer an argument that moves the masses.

The Death Knell of Nehru’s India

And so, we arrive at the real tragedy; the slow, inexorable demise of the idea of India that was forged in 1947.  An India that was meant to be secular, pluralistic, democratic - not just in form but in substance.  Modi and Shah are not just winning elections, they are reshaping the very meaning of Indian nationhood.  Their project is not merely about consolidating power, but about ensuring that their ideological vision becomes the default setting of Indian politics.

This is how great republics die - not with a sudden coup or dramatic collapse, but with a slow, steady erosion of their foundational principles; not with a bang, but with a whimper.  And the Congress, in its pathetic impotence, is not merely a bystander to this process, but it is complicit in it. Its failure to mount a credible opposition is not just a political failure, it is indeed a moral one.

If the Congress cannot reinvent itself - if it cannot develop a coherent ideology, a competent leadership, and a genuine connection with the people - it will not just fade into irrelevance, it will become a cautionary tale, a case study on how a once-great party, through sheer complacency and arrogance, enabled the very forces it once opposed.  And by the time it finally realises what has happened, it will be too late - not just for the Congress, but for India itself.

 

The Art of the Deal… or the Death of Diplomacy?

By Harikrishnan S.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/columns/trump-zelenskyy-death-of-diplomacy-1.10391338

In the annals of diplomatic theatre, seldom has there been a spectacle as unseemly as the recent Oval Office confrontation involving President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  What was ostensibly a meeting to solidify a minerals agreement and discuss the ongoing conflict with Russia devolved into a public spectacle of recrimination and diplomatic malpractice.

The Unraveling of Diplomacy

The meeting began with a semblance of cordiality but quickly slumped into a contentious exchange that underscored deep-seated tensions.  President Trump, known for his unfiltered rhetoric, accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III," a statement that not only exaggerated the stakes, but revealed an almost pathetic lack of nuanced understanding of the geopolitical landscape.  Vice President Vance escalated the confrontation by accusing Zelenskyy of organising "publicity tours" and disrespecting the U.S. administration.  Not one to be outdone in the sycophancy sweepstakes and determined to prove his fealty, he then questioned Zelenskyy's commitment to peace, insinuating that the Ukrainian leader was more interested in media appearances than in genuine diplomatic efforts.  President Zelenskyy maintained his composure, with the patience of a man accustomed to explaining the obvious to the wilfully obtuse, and challenged Vance's understanding of diplomacy.  He highlighted Russia's history of violating ceasefire agreements, implicitly questioning the efficacy of the U.S. administration's approach to negotiations with Moscow.

The meeting culminated without any agreement, and a planned press conference was abruptly cancelled, leaving the international community in a state of bewilderment.  This public display of discord has raised concerns about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and the broader implications for global diplomatic efforts.

European Solidarity in the Face of American Abdication

In the aftermath of the Oval Office confrontation, European leaders have rallied in support of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscoring a collective commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and a burgeoning rift with the United States.  

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor
Olaf Scholz, among others, have reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression.  European Union leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa assured Zelenskyy that he was "never alone" in his fight for Ukraine's sovereignty.  In a significant display of solidarity, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Zelenskyy in London, offering a royal welcome that included an official audience with King Charles, a gesture not only reinforces the UK's support for Ukraine but also highlights the growing chasm between the United States and its traditional allies.  The conspicuous absence of American leadership in this context has raised alarms about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner in upholding the international order.  European leaders are now confronted with the challenge of potentially losing U.S. support and must evaluate if Europe can independently sustain aid to Ukraine.  The upcoming defence summit in London and subsequent EU meetings will be critical in determining Europe's strategy to support Ukraine amidst shifting alliances.  This collective European stance not only underscores the continent's commitment to democratic principles but it also signals a potential realignment in global power dynamics, where Europe seems poised to take a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values.

The Russian and Chinese Vantage Points

From the Kremlin's vantage point, the Oval Office debacle between President Trump and President Zelenskyy was nothing short of a geopolitical windfall. The public fracturing of U.S.-Ukraine relations served to embolden Russian ambitions, providing a propaganda coup that underscored the narrative of Western disarray. Russian officials and state media have seized the opportunity to delegitimise Ukrainian leadership further and sow discord among NATO allies. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council, gleefully remarked that the "insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office," expressing support for Trump's stance. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova echoed this sentiment, accusing Zelenskyy of "ugly and boorish behaviour."

China, ever the astute observer, likely views this episode as a confirmation of its strategic calculus regarding the decline of Western cohesion.

 

Beijing's ambitions on the global stage are undoubtedly bolstered by the evident fissures within the Western alliance, providing a broader avenue for expanding its influence in Eurasia and beyond. The erosion of U.S. diplomatic credibility offers China a pretext to advance its narrative of a multipolar world order, one where American hegemony is but a relic of the past.

In essence, the Oval Office confrontation has not only strained U.S.-Ukraine relations but also invigorated rival powers, challenging the stability of the current international order.

A Watershed Moment in Global Affairs

The Oval Office confrontation between President Trump and President Zelenskyy may well be remembered as a pivotal juncture in the reconfiguration of global power dynamics. The United States' retreat into a posture of isolationism and transactional diplomacy under the current administration has precipitated a vacuum that other powers are eager to fill. This shift has been characterised by a departure from traditional alliances and a focus on unilateral actions, reflecting a broader trend in U.S. foreign policy.

In response, Europe has begun to assume a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values, signalling a potential realignment wherein the European Union emerges as a principal actor on the world stage, independent of American tutelage, and underscoring the continent's commitment to democratic principles.  This collective European stance signifies a potential shift in global power dynamics.

As the U.S. recedes from its position of moral leadership, the mantle is passed, perhaps reluctantly, to those willing to uphold the tenets of international cooperation and human dignity. Whether this marks the inception of a new world order or a descent into geopolitical entropy remains to be seen. However, the events that transpired serve as a stark reminder that the edifice of global stability is only as strong as the principles upon which it is built.

(The author is an independent political analyst and can be contacted at hari@healthcombine.com)

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

As India's political landscape braces for the Delhi Assembly elections, the future of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) hangs in a delicate balance, emblematic of broader challenges to the nation's democratic ethos. Formed to challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party's commanding grip on national politics, the INDIA alliance is currently mired in internal discord, strategic missteps, and a lack of unified vision, which could have profound implications not just for electoral outcomes but for the very idea of India as a secular, pluralistic democracy.

 

The INDIA alliance, comprising parties like the Congress, the AAP, the TMC, the SP, and the Shiv Sena (UBT), was heralded as a beacon of hope for those advocating for a diverse, inclusive India. The BJP’s consolidation of power has coincided with an erosion of these values, with the normalisation of communal divisions, the centralisation of authority, and the weakening of democratic institutions as signs of a deeper malaise afflicting Indian democracy. While it was envisioned as a bulwark against these trends, the INDIA alliance's unity is visibly fracturing, particularly evident in the Delhi elections where the Congress's reluctance to fully back AAP showcases a prioritisation of local rivalries over national objectives. Parties like the TMC and the SP, which do not have direct stakes in Delhi, have extended their support to AAP as part of a calculated effort to consolidate anti-BJP votes. This discord is not merely tactical; it symbolizes the deeper challenges of aligning diverse regional interests under a single banner to counter the BJP's monolithic narrative centred around Narendra Modi's leadership.  Moreover, Congress's leadership has been criticized for lacking strategic vision and organisational cohesion. Internal factionalism, combined with the absence of a clear, charismatic leader, has left the party struggling to assert itself as the anchor of the INDIA alliance. This has led to perceptions of the coalition as a disjointed group of regional parties rather than a credible national alternative to the BJP juggernaut.

 

The BJP's Dominance and Strategic Foresight

What enables the BJP's confidence in long-term dominance, as articulated by leaders like Amit Shah, is not just institutional manipulation but a nuanced understanding of political strategy. The BJP has effectively reshaped India's political discourse through relentless narrative control; ironically, using every critique from the opposition as an opportunity to further its own agenda. The party's ability to anticipate, absorb, and re-purpose opposition narratives (as seen with the appropriation of the Constitution protection narrative) showcases a political agility that the INDIA alliance currently lacks. It has used polarisation tactics and micro-targeted campaigns to create divisions among opposition supporters. By co-opting narratives and appropriating key issues, the BJP has managed to stay ahead of its rivals. While, by projecting every election as a referendum on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, they have managed to draw focus on the opposition’s inability to present a united and stable alternative, thereby reinforcing the Modi-versus-who narrative - a psychological framing that the BJP has exploited with remarkable success. Their strategy extends beyond mere electoral victories; it's about redefining what it means to be Indian, often sidelining the multicultural, secular fabric in favour of a more homogeneous cultural narrative. This strategy has been bolstered by their long-term planning, including not just strategically managing opposition through both confrontation and co-optation, but potentially even gerrymandering through constituency delimitation - this is evident from the re-districting and changes made to the number of assembly seats in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of the region. The Delimitation Commission increased the number of assembly seats in the Jammu region (which has a Hindu-majority population) and reduced them in the Kashmir Valley (which has a Muslim-majority population).   

 

The Opposition's Reactive Stance

 

The INDIA alliance has been largely reactive without a coherent, long-term strategy to challenge the BJP's vision. Despite occasional successes like the Congress's campaign on protecting the Constitution during the 2024 elections, the opposition struggles to present a vision that resonates nationally. While valid, the INDIA alliance's criticism of BJP's policies often lacks the depth or breadth to form an alternative social vision that could genuinely contest the BJP's layered approach to different state dynamics. For them to remain relevant, they have several pressing concerns that need to be addressed:

 

·       The alliance must transcend local rivalries; the Delhi scenario is a stark reminder that without unity, the fight against BJP's centralisation becomes futile, and therefore internal reconciliation is key.  

·       The opposition needs to go beyond reactive politics. They must articulate a vision for India that not just questions but also constructs, offering policies on employment, social justice, and communal harmony that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.

·       Learning from the BJP's playbook, they must anticipate political moves rather than merely responding to them. This includes understanding the micro-dynamics of caste, religion, and regionalism that the BJP so adeptly navigates.

·       The BJP's success is partly due to its robust organizational structure. The INDIA alliance needs to bolster its grassroots presence and leverage technology and data as effectively as its adversary.

 

The trajectory of the INDIA alliance is more than just a political contest; it's a battle for India's soul. The BJP's dominance risks entrenching a majoritarian governance model, potentially eroding the secular, democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. The opposition's failure to unite and offer a viable alternative could lead to a further normalisation of communal division, weakening the democratic institutions that have historically upheld India's pluralistic identity.

 

The Delhi elections serve as a crucial test for the INDIA alliance. A failure to present a united front might not only result in an electoral loss but could also signify a deeper capitulation to a singular national narrative over the diverse, inclusive one that has defined India. As the nation stands at this crossroads, the opposition’s capacity to regroup, strategize, and inspire with a new vision for India will determine whether the country can reaffirm its commitment to democracy, diversity, and secularism or drift further towards a centralised, majoritarian state. The future of the INDIA alliance, thus, is inexorably linked to the future of India itself, where the stakes are nothing less than the preservation of its democratic fabric.

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

By Harikrishnan S.

 As Donald Trump prepares to take office for his second term on January 20th, the trajectory of India-U.S. relations stands at a crossroads of continuity and transformation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has framed this bilateral relationship through the lens of friendship and strategic partnership, fostering a sense of optimism within India. Yet, beneath this positive rhetoric lies a multifaceted interplay of economic, security, and geopolitical interests that shape the true nature of these ties.

Trade

Trump’s first term was characterized by significant trade tensions, driven by the administration’s focus on reducing trade deficits and demanding greater reciprocity in trade relations. India found itself at the receiving end of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium and was stripped of its preferential trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). And, in all likelihood, as Trump embarks on his second term, a similar transactional approach to trade is likely to continue. However, there could be room for a strategic recalibration. India may respond by lowering certain tariffs to attract more investment from the United States, particularly in the manufacturing sector, as it ostensibly seeks to position itself as a viable alternative to China in global supply chains. Nevertheless, persistent disagreements over tariffs and market access could remain quite a stumbling block and could potentially hamper efforts at expanding bilateral trade. Finding a balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering a more cooperative trade partnership with the United States, therefore, will be challenging.

Investment

Both countries recognize the mutual benefits of increased investment, and with Trump clearly prioritising job creation within the U.S., his administration may encourage American companies to expand their operations in India, to leverage its cost-effective labour market and growing consumer base. Indian businesses seeking to invest in the United States could potentially benefit from reduced regulatory barriers, fostering a more favourable environment for cross-border investment. This two-way flow of investments would have the potential to strengthen economic ties between the two nations, creating jobs, boosting trade, and enhancing shared prosperity. Addressing structural challenges and streamlining policies could ensure that both countries can capitalize on these opportunities and thereby deepen their economic partnership.

 

Defence

In Trump’s first term, we did see India and the United States make notable progress in defence cooperation, highlighted by the signing of key agreements like the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), which significantly improved military interoperability between the two nations. India’s growing strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly as a potential counterbalance to China’s expanding influence, is likely to sustain and even strengthen this momentum. As both nations share common security interests in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific, further collaboration in defence technology, joint military exercises, and intelligence sharing could become the feature of their partnership under Trump’s second term. A continued focus on defence ties would underscore the pivotal role of security in shaping a broader India-U.S. relationship.

Counter-terrorism

Shared concerns about terrorism, especially from South Asia, will remain the mainstay of India-U.S. cooperation. Trump’s idea of “peace through strength,” which emphasizes a firm stance on security threats, aligns closely with India’s objectives of combating terrorism, especially in pressuring Pakistan into taking concrete action against terror networks operating from within its borders. This convergence of priorities creates a strong foundation for further collaborative efforts, including intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism strategies, and coordinated diplomatic pressure on nations harbouring terrorist groups. Working together to address these threats would bolster regional stability and enhance mutual security interests for both countries.

Quad and Regional Stability

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia, experienced a significant revival during Trump’s first term, engendering a renewed focus on regional security and strategic cooperation. The Quad did emerge as a cornerstone of efforts to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. And, under a second Trump administration, it is expected to maintain its strategic importance, with a continued emphasis on advancing a robust Indo-Pacific strategy.

This could involve deeper collaboration on defence, maritime security, and infrastructure development to promote a free, open, and rules-based order in the region. The Quad’s role in addressing shared challenges such as supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, and regional stability would also likely expand, and solidify its position as a critical element of the United States’ foreign policy in Asia.

H1B Visas

Trump’s first term saw his administration’s restrictive policies on H-1B visas that posed challenges for Indian IT professionals, who constitute a significant portion of these visa holders. These measures, aimed at prioritising American workers, did create tensions in India-U.S. relations, given the vital role of Indian talent in the U.S. technology sector. A further tightening of H-1B policies during this second term could exacerbate these strains. However, the broader economic partnership between the two nations, particularly in areas like manufacturing, defence, and investments, might help offset the friction caused by visa restrictions. Striking a balance between domestic priorities and the mutual benefits of skilled workforce mobility would be key to ensuring that this issue does not snowball into overshadowing the overall strategic relationship.

 

The Indian-American community is a growing and politically influential group in the United States, and it could play a pivotal role in shaping policies that strengthen ties between the two nations. Trump’s evident rapport with Prime Minister Modi, demonstrated through events like “Howdy Modi” and “Namaste Trump,” may further contribute to fostering favourable policies, particularly in areas like trade and immigration. While contentious issues like H-1B visa restrictions remain, the advocacy of the Indian-American community could influence a more balanced and mutually beneficial approach, enhancing cooperation across sectors.

Geopolitical and Strategic Significance

India’s role in international forums like the G20 could gain greater prominence with strong backing from the United States, especially if Trump’s administration continues its efforts to counter China’s growing global influence. With U.S. support, India could advocate for reforms in global institutions, push for equitable economic policies, and strengthen its leadership on issues like climate change, digital economy, and sustainable development.

India's strategic location and its own border tensions with China position it as a vital ally for the U.S. in maintaining a balance of power in Asia. A second Trump administration would likely seek to deepen this partnership, leveraging India’s role to strategically counter China’s influence in the region. However, India’s participation in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) adds a layer of complexity to its relationship with the U.S. Within BRICS, India shares a platform with China and Russia, two nations often at odds with American interests. While BRICS primarily aims to challenge Western dominance in global affairs, India has been careful to distance itself from any overtly anti-U.S. sentiment that occasionally emerges from within the group. India’s cautious stance on BRICS expansion and its resistance to China-led initiatives like a BRICS currency reflects this nuanced approach.  While BRICS provides India with economic benefits, and opportunities for trade, investment, and cooperation that complement its broader foreign policy goals, moves within BRICS that challenge U.S. dominance, such as efforts toward de-dollarization led by China, could raise strategic concerns in Washington. The Indian approach aligns with its goal of maintaining strategic autonomy, avoiding rigid alignment with any bloc. However, this difficult balancing act can occasionally create friction with the U.S., especially on issues like the Ukraine conflict or global governance reforms. Balancing these dynamics will be critical for India as it seeks to sustain its relationships with both the U.S. and its BRICS partners.

Despite all these challenges, the India-U.S. relationship does look likely to remain pragmatic and interest-driven. Both nations recognize the value of cooperation in areas such as defence, technology, and regional stability, while, at the same time, working to address tensions arising from differing economic and geopolitical priorities. As India seeks to maintain its strategic autonomy and the U.S. focuses on countering China, their partnership will continue to evolve, marked by collaboration in key areas and careful navigation of inherent complexities.

The Constrained Genius

 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/manmohan-singh-the-constrained-genius/3701578/

Manmohan Singh – The Constrained Genius

Born on September 26, 1932, Singh's journey from an academic economist to becoming India's Prime Minister was marked by significant achievements, and some notable controversies too.

As Dr Manmohan Singh, went gently into the good night at the age of 92, he leaves behind a complex legacy as both an economist and a statesman who played pivotal roles in shaping India’s economic landscape. Born on September 26, 1932, Singh’s journey from an academic economist to becoming India’s Prime Minister was marked by significant achievements, and some notable controversies too.

Manmohan Singh’s most celebrated contribution to India was his role in the 1991 economic liberalisation. As Finance Minister under Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, he was the chief architect behind the reforms that ended what was known as the ‘license raj’, brought down import tariffs, and opened the Indian economy to global markets, setting the stage for India’s economic growth spurt in the subsequent decades. His policies were not merely about economic deregulation but they were also aimed at integrating India into the global economy, which he did with a blend of brilliance and humility, often described as speaking less and achieving more.  During his tenure as Prime Minister for a decade from 2004, Singh’s government continued this legacy. His administration introduced landmark social welfare initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which aimed at alleviating rural poverty by ensuring 100 days of employment per year to rural households, and the Right to Education Act, which made education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14. His government also navigated the 2008 global financial crisis with relatively little damage to the Indian economy, showcasing his capability to manage crises with stability.

He championed the Right to Information Act, a landmark initiative aimed at fostering transparency and empowering citizens. Ironically, this commitment to openness also unveiled several corruption allegations that his government had to face during its second term, highlighting the complex interplay between accountability and political challenges. 

Singh’s foreign policy, particularly the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, was a significant diplomatic achievement.  It marked a new era in India’s foreign relations and opened up avenues for civilian nuclear cooperation. His diplomatic finesse was often praised for maintaining India’s strategic autonomy while forging stronger international relations.

In spite of these significant accomplishments, Manmohan Singh’s tenure was, in a way, marred by perceptions of his being a “puppet” of the Nehru-Gandhi family, particularly due to Sonia Gandhi’s role within the Congress party as its president. Many of his critics argued that her office worked as a dual power centre that diluted his authority, leading to policy paralysis, as was especially evident during the second term of the United Progressive Alliance. This perception was buttressed by books from former aides like Sanjaya Baru, who highlighted the constraints under which the Prime Minister operated.  In his book, “The Accidental Prime Minister – The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh, Mr Baru quotes Singh as explaining to him that, “There cannot be two centres of power. That creates confusion. I have to accept that the party president is the centre of power. The government is answerable to the party.”  This dynamic, he claims, did severely limit Singh’s autonomy in decision-making.

A series of scams, including the 2G spectrum scandal, Commonwealth Games corruption, and coal block allocations, further dented his image, giving fuel to a narrative of corruption and ineptitude under his watch. The opposition, headed by the BJP, managed to effectively leverage print, television, and social media to megaphone these allegations, bolstered by till-then-unheard-of fantastic figures churned out by the then Comptroller and Auditor General, Vinod Rai. Notably, Rai, who rose to prominence during this turbulent period, later enjoyed multiple high-profile positions during the NDA’s rule following the ouster of Singh’s government in the 2014 general elections.

Since Manmohan’s departure from power, the narrative around the Indian economy and its health has shifted. Under subsequent NDA rule, the economy has seen periods of high volatility, often driven by anomalous headline-grabbing policy decisions rather than the steady, reform-driven approach that Singh embodied. His era was characterized by robust GDP growth, averaging around 8.5% for most of his tenure (notably, without any allegations of data suppression or manipulation), but post-Singh, India has faced criticisms for economic policy decisions that seem more reactive to political cycles than to long-term economic strategy. The Indian Rupee has depreciated significantly, reaching an all-time low, which has sparked debates on economic management, inflation control, and export competitiveness. This shift from a time of economic reform and stability to one where the economy is often discussed in terms of immediate political gains or losses reflects a departure from the disciplined economic governance Manmohan Singh was known for. The economic policies under subsequent governments have faced criticism for lacking the depth and foresight that characterised Singh’s approach, leading to, what has become, a less predictable economic landscape.

Manmohan Singh’s legacy will remain one of profound economic transformation juxtaposed with political controversies. His tenure saw India emerge as a significant player in global economics, yet it ended with criticisms over governance and autonomy. His death marks the end of an era where economic policy was driven by a statesman known for his intellect and integrity, and a somewhat silent yet impactful leadership style. His contributions to the Indian economy can never be undermined and will be long remembered, even as the country navigates new economic realities in his absence.

 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/the-leadership-vacuum-in-congress-a-crisis-india-cannot-afford/3697226/

The Leadership Vacuum in Congress: A Crisis India Cannot Afford

Under Modi's rule, India faces a decline in economic, social, and democratic health, with BJP's dominance partly due to the Congress Party's leadership crisis and the weakening of opposition.

India finds itself at a critical juncture. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rule, the country has experienced a worrying decline across multiple parameters – economic, social, and geopolitical. The economy is often run on optics and newspaper headlines, masking deeper structural problems. Democratic institutions have been systematically undermined, eroding the nation’s foundational ethos as a vibrant democracy. Yet, the ruling BJP’s dominance is not just a reflection of its own strengths – it is equally a product of the glaring vacuum in the opposition, most notably the Congress Party’s leadership crisis.

A Toothless Opposition

For a democracy to thrive, a robust opposition is essential. The Congress Party, historically the backbone of India’s political system, is uniquely positioned to challenge the BJP, given its national footprint and legacy. However, its current leadership, headed by Rahul Gandhi, has repeatedly failed to inspire confidence or deliver results. Under his stewardship, the party has faced three consecutive general election defeats (by humongous margins) and numerous state-level setbacks. Constituencies and states once considered bastions of Congress have been lost, eroding the party’s credibility as a viable alternative.

The question of “if not Modi, then who?” gains traction largely because of Rahul Gandhi’s perceived incompetence. His inability to articulate a coherent vision for the nation, coupled with a lack of political acumen, has rendered him an easy target for the BJP’s relentless propaganda machine. To many, he symbolises everything that is wrong with the Congress – a party mired in complacency and nepotism, unable to adapt to the rapidly changing political landscape. 

In a democracy, a political leader is only as good as their ability to win elections. On that front, Rahul has been a failure of epic proportions – his trajectory has headed decisively south (pun intended), and he insists on dragging the party down with him!

A Hollow Spectacle!

Prime Minister Modi’s governance style has been characterised by grandstanding and populism, often devoid of substantive policy outcomes. His promises of economic transformation have largely failed to materialize, with key sectors like manufacturing and agriculture struggling. Foreign policy, once a strength for India, has been reduced to photo ops and performative diplomacy. Domestically, social cohesion has been undermined by divisive politics and democratic institutions have been hollowed out under the weight of centralised power.

Yet, Modi remains electorally invincible. This is not because of his achievements but because the opposition has failed to present a credible alternative. His “strongman” image thrives in the absence of a leader capable of challenging his narrative. The Congress leadership, particularly Rahul Gandhi, has inadvertently enabled this dominance by failing to connect with the voters, or craft a compelling narrative, or even organise a strong grassroots movement.

The Stakes for India

The consequences of this leadership vacuum are dire. The BJP’s unchecked power has led to a concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a few, pushing the nation closer to an oligarchy. Critical issues such as unemployment, inflation, and declining educational standards are swept under the carpet in favour of polarising debates that serve the ruling party’s agenda. In foreign relations, India’s standing has diminished, with neighbouring countries increasingly aligning with rival powers.

The Congress Party remains the only opposition force with the infrastructure and legacy to challenge the BJP on a national scale. Regional parties, while influential in their own domains, lack the reach and resources to take on the BJP’s electoral machinery.

However, the fact remains that for the Congress party to fulfil this role, it must first address the elephant in the room – its leadership crisis.

·        The Congress must recognise that Rahul Gandhi, regardless of any good intentions he may possess, has failed to resonate with the electorate.

·        A leadership change, prioritising merit over dynasty, is not just essential, it seems vital for the party’s very survival. The Congress party desperately needs a leader who can inspire confidence, build alliances, and connect with voters at the grassroots level.

·        The Congress must rebuild its organisational structure, empowering local leaders and decentralising decision-making. A strong, united front at the state level is critical to challenging the BJP’s dominance.

·        The party must articulate a clear, alternative vision for India – one that addresses economic disparities, restores democratic institutions, and promotes social harmony. Vague rhetoric will not suffice; what is  needed and what the electorate demands are specific, actionable plans.

·        Given the BJP’s electoral might, the Congress must work with regional parties to form a united opposition. Collaborative strategies, rather than internal rivalries, are key to countering the BJP juggernaut.

India’s current trajectory – marked by economic stagnation, social discord, and democratic backsliding – is unsustainable. While the BJP bears significant responsibility for this state of affairs, the Congress Party’s leadership crisis is equally to blame. In the absence of a strong opposition, the BJP has been allowed to consolidate power and steer the nation away from its democratic ideals.

For India’s sake, it is imperative that the Congress rises to the occasion. It must recognise the scale of the crisis and undertake bold reforms to reclaim its position as the principal opposition force. The stakes are not just political but existential, not only for them but for the nation’s future itself. Without a credible alternative to Modi’s BJP, India risks losing the essence of what once made it a thriving, pluralistic democracy.