Bharat Business Economy Geopolitics International Policy Politics Trade United States USA War World

Pragmatism Over Ambition

BRICS currency may not be shelved all together. Non-dollar settlements, digital currencies, regional payment gateways to take precedence. N. C. Bipindra A common BRICS currency is an idea that once symbolised the grouping’s ambitious challenge to dominance of US Dollar. The common BRICS currency was proposed to reshape the global financial order apart from geo-political realignments. But the geopolitical climate is rapidly going downhill, what with the West Asian conflict engaging global attention over last two-and-a-half months now. The diverging national interests of BRICS nations are compounding the challenge. This divergence is exposing deep structural limits of the group’s common currency proposal. Instead of accelerating toward a unified currency for the 11-nation grouping, BRICS members are increasingly moving more toward a fragmented but practical financial system built around national digital currencies and local-currency trade settlements. BRICS originally with just four members in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, has grown to include South Africa (and hence became BRICS from BRIC). The BRICS now includes world’s major energy producers and regional powers, essentially positioning itself as a counterbalance to the G7, which is unwilling to accommodate other major economies within its architecture. The expanded BRICS has repeatedly discussed reducing dependence on US Dollar in trade settlements. Yet, despite the strong rhetoric from nations like Russia and China, a consensus among the member states is elusive. There is no real agreement on creating a single BRICS currency notwithstanding the Delhi declaration that had the currency as a big selling point for the group. The latest instability in West Asia, a major energy-producing region, has only complicated the situation. The conflict-driven volatility in oil markets, sanctions risks, supply chain disruptions and currency instability have all highlighted a basic geopolitical reality. BRICS economies are too diverse in structure, political orientation, and monetary priorities to surrender sovereignty over currency policy. Unlike the Eurozone, BRICS lacks integrated fiscal systems, coordinated central banks or a unified political architecture for it to move towards a common currency. Without these foundational similarities, a common currency would risk becoming economically unsustainable. The changing geopolitical environment is especially significant for Bharat. New Delhi has historically and consistently supported multi-polarity in geopolitical order. India has also emphasised greater use of local currencies in trade, particularly in energy transactions, such as with Russia and Iran. However, India has remained cautious about any arrangement that could disproportionately strengthen China’s financial influence within BRICS. With tensions across West Asia and Europe intensifying and global markets becoming more unpredictable, India may increasingly rethink the feasibility of a BRICS currency altogether. India’s concerns with a single BRICS currency are not just political. Adapting to a unified BRICS currency would require India to significantly align its monetary policy, exchange-rate management, and reserve coordination. India’s economy operates under vastly different conditions than those of China, Russia, Brazil, or South Africa. India’s inflation management, capital controls, banking regulation, and trade priorities differ sharply from those of the other BRICS nations. In times of geopolitical crisis or a pandemic situation like COVID-19, nations typically prefer stronger control over domestic monetary tools rather than less. This explains why an alternative model, such as digital national currencies for intra-bloc settlements, is gaining traction inside BRICS. Instead of replacing sovereign currencies with a single BRICS unit, member states are increasingly exploring Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and bilateral payment systems that bypass the Dollar without requiring full monetary union. China’s digital Yuan initiative remains the most advanced example of the CBDC. Russia has accelerated the development of digital payment systems after Western sanctions. India, meanwhile, has actively tested its own digital Rupee infrastructure through the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). These developments in CBDCs suggest that future of BRICS financial integration may be technological rather than monetary. Under this evolving framework, BRICS nations could settle trade in their own currencies using interoperable digital platforms. For example, energy exports could be priced in Yuan, Rupee, Rubble, or other local currencies, depending on bilateral arrangements. Such a system would gradually reduce exposure to US Dollar, while avoiding the political and economic complications of a shared currency within BRICS. This approach offers several advantages to BRICS nations. One, it preserves monetary sovereignty for all its member states. Two, it lowers transaction costs and reduces vulnerability to sanctions. Three, it allows nations to deepen financial cooperation incrementally rather than through a risky “big bang” currency union. President Donald J Trump had been fuming on the very idea of BRICS currency and threatened to slap huge imposts on member countries in case they moved ahead. Though US dollar continues to be the major preferred currency to settle transactions, it’s slowly losing sheen. President Trump expects that a strong alternative BRICS currency would dampen the US dollar’s primacy as the major international paper. Till now, US Dollar remained the most deeply embedded in global financial system due to scale of the American economy, liquidity of US financial markets, and institutional trust surrounding Dollar-denominated assets. Even nations critical of American financial influence continue to rely heavily on US Dollar reserves and US Dollar-based trade mechanisms. Therefore, future of BRICS currency project depends less on political declarations and more on whether the grouping can build a credible financial infrastructure capable of rivaling the existing US Dollar system. At present, BRICS lacks the institutional cohesion needed for such a transformation. Moreover, internal contradictions within BRICS remain substantial. China and India continue to compete strategically and militarily in Asia. Russia’s economy faces sanctions-driven isolation. Newer BRICS members have differing alignments with the West and varying levels of dependence on US Dollar-based trade. These realities weaken possibility of a unified BRICS currency. Current West Asian conflict-induced instability may further reinforce caution among BRICS members. In periods of geopolitical uncertainty, investors and governments typically gravitate toward stable and liquid reserve currencies. And, the US dollar still dominates that space. Even today, oil exporters exploring non-Dollar trade continue to benchmark much of global energy commerce in US Dollars, because of market familiarity and financial stability. But this doesn’t

Bharat Education Hindus International Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

245

RSS at 100: A Civilisational Dialogue

In April 2026, in the centenary year of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). RSS Sarkaryavah, Dattatreya Hosabale, undertook a sequence of engagements across the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. During his engagements, he addressed Chatham House in London, the inaugural THRIVE 2026 summit at the Stanford Faculty Club, the Hudson Institute in Washington, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Berlin, alongside Nobel laureates, legislators, academic communities, business leaders, community leaders and members of the Indian diaspora in all three countries. Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies has released RSS at 100: A Civilisational Dialogue, a structured account of these engagements and of the philosophical foundations on which the world’s largest socio-cultural movement now offers a hundred years of reflection and experience to humanity at large for global good. Download & Read Full Brief:

Bharat Disinformation Hindus Khalistan Pakistan Security Terrorism World

219

Referendum Farce: Story Written in Karachi, Staged in New York

Rohan Giri On April 29, 2026, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun announced a Khalistan Referendum voter registration drive from the Karachi Press Club. He was speaking via video link from New York. He was targeting Sikhs who live inside Bharat. The venue, the man and the medium together tell a story that his words never could. There is a particular kind of political performance that is designed not to succeed, but to persist, not to achieve a goal, but to manufacture the appearance of. On April 29, 2026, Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) chief Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a man proscribed under Bharat’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act along with his organisation, delivered precisely such a presentation from the Karachi Press Club. Speaking via video link from New York, he announced that SFJ would launch a phased voter registration drive for the purported Khalistan Referendum targeting Sikhs residing across all Bharatiiya states. Beginning in Delhi, moving to Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and ending the registrations in Punjab itself. The sequencing was revealing. A movement that claims Punjab as its spiritual and political homeland does not begin its campaign there. It begins in Delhi, because it knows Punjab will not listen. Bharatiya officials did not miss the significance of the venue. Pakistan’s establishment was openly offering its platform to an organisation that has called for violent attacks inside Bharat and the assassination of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The SFJ has glorified terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and treated perpetrators of the Air India Kanishka bombing in which 329 people were killed, as heroes. That Pakistan now provides this group a podium at one of Karachi’s most visible press institutions is not coincidence. Pakistan is playing this game out in the open and is not even bothering to conceal its backing to a terrorist organisation. The brazenness is itself the message, a message directed not at Sikhs in Bharat, but at the ISI’s own operatives, diaspora handlers and global media amplifiers, telling them that the Khalistan project retains state-level patronage. One has to look at trail of its failures in order to comprehend why Karachi has now again emerged as this campaign’s operational hub. In order to undermine and divert Indian government, the ISI started protracted proxy war by aiding the Khalistan movement in Punjab, as this timeline already makes clear. Since 1980s, this tactic has never been formally discontinued. What has changed is the terrain. Operations for SFJ have become significantly harder in Canada and United Kingdom where governments have come under growing domestic and diplomatic pressure to scrutinise separatist activities more carefully. With Western soil getting increasingly inhospitable, Rawalpindi has fallen back on what it controls directly. Offering Karachi Press Club to Pannun is a desperate move to rake up the movement in Bharat after multiple attempts have failed, as officials have assessed. Timing of April 29 announcement was again not coincidental. That same week, Punjab Police dealt another significant blow to ISI – Khalistan terror network recovering a cache that included a rocket-propelled grenade, two packs of RDX, a metallic improvised explosive device, hand grenades, detonators, high-end pistols, wireless sets and timer switches which meant to be used in massive attacks across the state. Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav confirmed the recovery was linked to an ongoing investigation into the Shambhu railway track IED blast case, as well as grenade attack on the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) office in Moga in 2025. This was not an isolated seizure. In prior weeks, Punjab Police had busted two separate ISI-backed Babbar Khalsa International terror modules recovering RPG launchers, additional IEDs, RDX and a fleet of vehicles with accused persons linked to Pakistan-based handler Harvinder Singh Rinda. The farce of referendum announcement and arms consignments are not parallel stories. They are part of same story, one being propaganda arm and the other as operational arm of the same ISI-directed network. Pannun’s remarks at Karachi press conference stripped away whatever pretence of a civic movement SFJ has had claimed till date. He also claimed that 1.8 million people had participated in the referendum worldwide (a figure that Intelligence Bureau officials dismissed as fabricated, noting that the SFJ has consistently fudged numbers in the past, putting out exaggerated figures to give the impression of traction for a movement that demonstrably lacks it). He pledged to back Pakistan to the fullest in the event of any future tensions with Bharat. He heaped praise on Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir, the same officer who, after Bharat’s Operation Sindoor in May 2025, was promoted to Field Marshal by the Pakistani government for his role in the conflict. A designated terrorist, operating out of New York, cheering a Pakistani general from a Karachi press club, Pannun promised to stand with an adversarial state against Bharat. One must ask: who precisely is Pannun speaking for? The answer is not the Sikh community. The referendum in itself carries no significance whatsoever. SFJ held the first phase of its unofficial and non-binding referendum exercise in London in October 2021. Since then, it has conducted similar theatrics in Canada, Switzerland and Australia, each time claiming record numbers that no independent body has verified. Not one government has moved a single step towards recognising outcome. The reason is structural given that international law’s right to self-determination applies to peoples under colonial domination or foreign military occupation. Bharat’s Sikhs meet neither criterion. They are full citizens of the world’s largest democracy, represented at every level of Bharatiya state from Parliament to judiciary, armed forces to highest office on the land. The legal and philosophical scaffolding for the farcical Khalistan referendum does not exist anywhere in serious jurisprudence. What SFJ produces instead is theatre, elaborate, expensive and entirely hollow. Punjab’s own ballot boxes deliver most decisive verdict. The 2022 Punjab Assembly elections saw Aam Aadmi Party win 92 of 117 seats, majority 79 per cent on an agenda of governance, farmers’ welfare, and electricity. The demand for a separate Sikh homeland did not feature in that mandate. The trauma of

Bharat Business Economy Policy

333

Modi’s Mandate to Fuel Reforms

Big wins in state assembly polls especially in West Bengal would hasten pace of economic, governance reforms and spreading the growth story. Bharat continues to be brightest star. K.A. Badarinath West Asia conflict, Russia-Ukraine war notwithstanding, Bharat will continue to be the brightest spot globally on economic front. It will continue to be the fastest growing large economy next three years and bring tangible prosperity to Indians and contribute a large chunk to global communities. Thanks to a stable government headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP heading 80 per cent states, union territories, this economic consolidation and expansion will continue into 2029, beyond. A big show of expanding political strength in five states legislative assembly elections would only bolster pace of economic reforms in the country. There’s virtually no stopping despite global uncertainties throwing intermittent challenges to Bharat’s sweepstakes as an economic behemoth. A recent Morgan Stanley report has projected Bharat’s economy to expand beyond US$ 5.7 billion in two years from now. The report released a week ago also talks about continued foreign investment flows during next five years. A whopping US$ 800 billion is expected to be invested in Indian projects, markets and paper by foreign companies spread over 5 years. If we go by the report, at a time when key stakeholders were complaining of uncertainties bogging down the market sentiment, Bharat seems to be the only big exception. What’s more likely is that while domestic demand in India continues its upward swing, export markets may contribute an additional US$ two trillion. Energy, infrastructure, data centres and rural economy will be the biggest drivers of this new growth cycle even as Bharat tests its ‘strategic autonomy’ framework for its global engagement. Till date this framework has delivered handsomely as Bharat continues to carve out its own space internationally without getting bogged down in cliques. For instance, doing energy business with US, Europe, Russia, Iran and engaging both Israel and Palestine have been hallmark of this policy framework. Getting access to energy in gallons of hydrocarbons, Bharat has played its cards deftly to keep its business communication open. Balancing competing forces, holding on its aces and pro-actively pursuing its goals is something Bharat has done amazingly well. It’s not energy front alone. Concluding a raft of free trade and investment agreements with over a countries or unions proves Bharat’s dogged perseverance. From European Union, United Kingdom to signing these agreements with Oman and New Zealand, free trade, investment and economy pacts have demonstrated Bharat’s widest arc of economic engagement. In 2025-26 alone, nine such agreements were concluded while such arrangements are in place with 38 countries. Initial apprehension on such agreements seems to have been set aside while Bharat’s leadership confidently moves forward. Differences notwithstanding, Bharat continues to engage two largest economies internationally, United States and China. Geo-political, border issues, security and perspective continue to be limiting factors. But, that has not stopped Bharat from doing business with these powers that be. Only a couple of days back, companies like Sun Pharma, JSW Steel, Sterlite group and nine others have committed to invest over US$ 20.5 billion in pharmaceuticals, steel, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and infrastructure. At the Select US Invest summit the investments flummoxed markets as it demonstrates the resilience and confidence with which Bharat goes ahead doing business. One would not have imagined targeting US$ 500 billion worth economic engagement between US and Bharat notwithstanding the quixotic Republican White House led by President Donald J Trump. Today, these are the kind of figures being discussed as part of on-going trade talks. Definitely, China is a tricky customer on business front and a difficult northern neighbour from strategic point of view. But, the two uneasy neighbours have been doing business while China has emerged as the largest trading partner for Bharat with bilateral trade of over US$ 151 billion in financial year ending April 1, 2026. There’s no denying the fact that this trade engagement is completely lopsided and in favour of China by many times over. While New Delhi works hard to balance out the trade, go up the value chain and enhance exports to China, the two continue to talk, invest and do business. It does not mean that border disputes with China can be wished away. Out of the US$ 863 billion, services account for about half at US$ 421.32 billion during financial year ending April 1, 2026. Also, the massive trade surplus from services has been making up for huge deficit on merchandise trade. While this anomaly gets corrected, US$ two trillion services exports are something that Bharat is working towards. While there are no shortcuts, artificial intelligence is bound to impact the IT services exports in particular. As the rejig in strategy happens with short term adverse impact staring in the face, Bharat’s biggest bet may be to expand merchandise exports market, go for high value products while retaining the small ticket items. Strengthening agriculture and farm-based rural economy, expanding the allied agricultural services is yet another area that Bharat has been working for long term. Given that economic expansion has shifted to sub-urban, semi-urban and rural areas, the government in Bharat seems to have changed track to capitalize on the opportunities. When the Narendra Modi government announced US$ 26.5 billion credit guarantee fund for micro, small and medium enterprises, it was one way of addressing the West Asia impact on both businesses and jobs. Political stability with the massive mandate that Prime Minister Modi and his party got in West Bengal, Assam, Puducherry, things could not have been better for India. Analysts expect economic reforms apart from politically nuanced policy issues like delimitation of constituencies and bringing in more women into governance would gain pace. While that happens, Bharat continues its economic expansion and prosperity spread drive. (Author is veteran journalist, Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism War

215

Vermilion and the War Cry: What Operation Sindoor Was Really About

Every analyst who measured Operation Sindoor in airbases missed the war. Operation Sindoor was not just a reply to an attack. It was a reply to a narrative. Rahul PAWA | x- @iamrahulpawa To understand Operation Sindoor, begin not in 2025 but in the ideological soil from which Pakistan itself was carved, a two-nation theory that turned faith into geography. Its first armed expression on Jammu and Kashmir came in October 1947, when Pakistan launched Operation Gulmarg, an invasion by the Pakistan Army alongside tribal raiders rallied under the cry that “Islam is in Danger.” Behind it sat a second inherited fallacy, the colonial martial race theory, which had convinced Pakistan’s officer class that they were born soldiers and Hindus were not. That sentence was not a slogan of the moment. It became the operating system of every campaign Pakistan would run on Jammu and Kashmir for the next eight decades. By the 1990s, the cry had gone international. Regional terrorists merged with foreign fighters drifting east from the Soviet-Afghan war. Between 1991 and 1999, Indian forces neutralised roughly 1,379 foreign terrorist fighters and arrested 142, men from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Chechnya, operating through outfits such as Harkat-ul-Ansar and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The invasion was no longer regional. It was a franchise. The narrative that justified it abroad was a fiction. Kashmir Valley takes its name from the Hindu rishi Kashyapa, after whose Kashyapa-mira, the valley was settled. Thousands of years of Hindu heritage still stand in plain sight, from the Naranag temples to the ruins of the Martand Sun Temple, from the caves of rishis once revered by Hindus and Muslims alike to folklore still shared in valley villages. Yet through the late 1980s and 1990s, more than four hundred thousand Kashmiri Hindus were driven out of their homes in an internal displacement campaign that successive governments preferred not to name. In August 2019, India amended Article 370 of its own constitution. For Pakistan’s terror economy this was a structural blow: funding networks frayed, separatist leaders faced courts, and the long-cultivated story of an essentially Islamic valley began to lose its global gloss. Two months later, in October 2019, The Resistance Front was launched, a new face on an old body, an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba which Indian agencies traced without difficulty. Since its founding, TRF has been at the centre of a campaign of targeted killings whose names are on record. Makhan Lal Bindro, a Kashmiri Hindu chemist, was shot dead in his Srinagar shop on October 5, 2021. Two days later, Supinder Kaur, a Sikh school principal, and Deepak Chand, a Hindu teacher, were lined up and killed inside their school in Srinagar. In 2022, Kashmiri Hindus Sunil Kumar Nath and Puran Krishan Bhat were gunned down in Shopian, both among the few who had stayed in the valley. On New Year’s Day 2023, seven villagers, including two children, were massacred at Dhangri in Rajouri. In June 2024, nine Hindu pilgrims were killed when a TRF attack sent their bus off a gorge in Reasi. Through all of it, migrant workers from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, daily-wage labourers and street vendors who had come from across India to make a living, were shot at point blank. The principle was always the same, what TRF itself called the “outsider-insider” line. Domicile certificates issued to resident and returning Kashmiri Hindus, were reframed in their literature as demographic invasion. The script was adapted, with little edit, from the Hamas playbook. In February 2025, Hamas’s Iran-based representative Khalid Al-Qadoumi shared a stage at Rawalakot in Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed commanders at a conference titled “Kashmir Solidarity Day and Al-Aqsa Flood.” Two months later a Hamas delegation visited JeM’s Bahawalpur headquarters. The ideological alignment had a name: Ghazwa-e-Hind, the Islamist project of conquest in India. The same vocabulary had by then surfaced inside India’s elected politics. In January 2025, Srinagar MP Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi of the National Conference described tourists visiting Jammu and Kashmir as a “cultural invasion,” warning in a separate interview that the 1990s-style exodus of Kashmiri Pandits “could be repeated.” Former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, leader of the Peoples Democratic Party, has for years framed domicile certificates and resettlement policy as engineered “demographic change,” most recently in February 2026 describing a forty-township plan as a “demography plan for Hindu settlement.” Her daughter Iltija Mufti has spoken of the Centre’s “rush to appropriate our land.” By July 2025, Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha said the quiet part aloud: those claiming “cultural invasion” and “demographic invasion,” he warned, were echoing “the same narrative as the terror outfit TRF.” Three months later, on April 16 and 17, 2025, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir spoke at an Overseas Pakistanis Convention in Islamabad. He reasserted the two-nation theory, declaring Muslims “different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life,” “better and more civilised,” with “nothing common” between the two. He revived the old line that Kashmir is Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” and instructed parents to raise children who would never “forget the story of the creation of Pakistan.” Indian security officials and the Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan have since identified that speech as the catalyst for what came next. What came next was Baisaran. On April 22, 2025, terrorists at the Pahalgam meadow separated Hindu men from their wives and shot them at point blank, sparing the women so they could carry the message home. This is the detail most international coverage missed. Sindoor, the vermilion a Hindu wife wears, marks the life of her husband. Wiping it off was the message. The message that Kashmir is not theirs. TRF claimed the attack on Telegram, citing “demographic changes” and residency permits to “outsiders,” repeated the claim with photographs the next day, and on April 26 retracted it, blaming a “cyber intrusion”, a retraction widely read as an attempt to dodge scrutiny once gravity of Indian response was clear. On May

Bharat Disinformation Hindus Misinformation Security

214

Dismantling Hindutva: Unfinished Balkanisation of Bharat!

Vinod Kumar Shukla Push to break up Hindus is not a standalone debate; it reflects a broader, coordinated effort to reshape the civilisational identity of Bharat. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, proponent of two-nation theory started Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh in 1875 that evolved to Aligarh Muslim University in 1920. It took just 66 years for the university to turn into an arsenal of Muslims and students as its best soldiers. This is what Mohammad Ali Jinnah told students of the university in March 1941. Under Jinnah’s tutelage, a committee of writers from All India Muslim League was constituted with Jamil Uddin Ahmed, a teacher at AMU as its convener to bring out ‘Pakistan Literature Series’ to push for a separate homeland for Muslims. The importance that Muslim League gave to AMU students can be discerned from the fact that ‘Muslim University Muslim League’ was given the status of a separate unit. The target was obviously Hindus and the project was to seek a separate land for Muslims. In this backdrop, AMU or any other institution seeking to ‘Dismantle Hindutva’ or hold campaigns or seminars on hateful discourse like ‘Annihilate Hinduism’ should not come as a surprise. It’s part of a larger design. Through these campaigns, unfinished Balkanisation project of India seem to be pursued rampantly. Under the guise of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ and hiding behind hyperbolic academic jargons, a section of people not only target multi- millennia old ‘way of life’ Hindutva but dog-whistle against the faith they practice. There seems to be a systemic onslaught from outside Bharat and within through corporate funding mechanisms. Exploiting faultlines within Hindu society seem to be the way to go. Several educational institutions like AMU have become a tool to propagate anti-Hindu narrative and now technology has come handy to amplify these messages across platforms. A sari-clad man with beautiful ear pieces on a poster with ‘Annihilate Hinduism’ in the background at Azim Premji University went viral on social media last week. Some claim that the poster was old. But that is irrelevant as such campaigns surface periodically with new plans. Otherwise how does one explain Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association’s ‘Sanatana Abolition Conference’ on September 2, 2023. The event was graced by then minister in Tamil Nadu government Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of M K Stalin. Udayanidhi equated Sanatana Dharma to “dengue” and “malaria”, calling for its complete ‘eradication’. This extreme Hindumisia is institutionalized and such events happen routinely at institutions like Ashoka University, O P Jindal Global University, a few IITs and even some central universities. There is another set of institutions like AMU, Jamia Millia Islamia, Osmania University and Jadavpur University where ‘a reform agenda’ to ‘Sanatan dharma’ is articulated. Can such reforms be pursued say with Muslims or Christians? Palestinian [Hamas] terrorists were glorified in November 2023 at IIT Bombay during an online talk delivered by radical Leftists. Ashoka University witnessed anti-Hindu hate speech when students demanding caste census and reservation raised slogans like “Brahmin – Baniyawaad Murdabad”. In February 2024, a programme, “Ram Mandir: A Farcical Project of Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism” was held at O P Jindal University. A group which goes by Revolutionary Students League claimed that Pran Pratishtha Ceremony at Ayodhya Ram Temple on January 22, 2024, exposed “the inherent violence and anti-people nature of the Brahmanical Hindutva fascist state”. Global push on “Dismantling Global Hindutva” (DGH) is equally strong and gets a big pat from their friends in India and vice versa. The DGH campaign was a three-day online academic conference in September 2021 seeking to mobilize scholars from dozens of US and other universities. These self-styled scholars were to examine Hindutva as a political ideology. Hindu advocacy groups labelled the campaign as Hinduphobic which was backed by assorted forums in universities including Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Columbia. Employees at Tata Consultancy Service (TCS) were allegedly found to be involved in ‘Love Jihad’ and conversion activities was the unstated agenda of ‘Ghazwa e Hind’. Azim Premji University, whose parent company is Wipro, ran a campaign to annihilate Hinduism. But, the university claimed that it did not host any event titled ‘Annihilate Hinduism,’ explaining that offending images came from a talk on ‘Politics of Emotions’ and were taken out of context. Employees of IT behemoths, whether shouting slogans to Annihilate Hindutva or involving in conversion by deceit and management turning a blind eye on the cases of targeting Hindus, smacks of conspiracy at certain level. It’s also clear that conversion by any means is part of ‘Annihilate Sanatan’ agenda. ‘Smash Brahmanical [Hindutva] Patriarchy is universal woke symbol of modernity and liberation as former CEO of X (the then Twitter) Jack Dorsey posed with a group of journalists, activists and writers during his 2019 visit to Bharat. These activists held placards that read “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy”. Institutionalizing dismantling of Hindutva is getting bigger with institutes like Azim Premji University, AMU, Ashoka, TCS, Accenture and Tech Mahindra besides many foreign institutions becoming the hotspots. Universities like JNU celebrate demons like Mahishasura just to mock at Hindu deities like Goddess Durga. In several institutions students pursuing social sciences get roped in for anti-Hindu propaganda. These incidents revolve around insults heaped on Hindu deities, portraying Hindu traditions negatively and academic discussions that are blatantly biased. IIT Bombay students staged a play titled “Raahovan” in 2024 that was derogatory and portraying characters in the Ramayana vulgarly. In a PhD entrance exam question paper of 2024, IIT Bombay asked students to discuss if “Hindutva is hegemonic or counter-hegemonic.” A faculty member in humanities department of IIT Delhi told a foreign media outlet in 2023 that future of India would be without Hinduism. A conference at IIT Delhi faced intense backlash for promoting one-sided, anti-Hindu narratives and western critical race theory. IIT Gandhinagar has been in news for its disproportionate focus on Islam-related topics while holding anti-Hindu viewpoints. A campaign initiated by a pseudonymized user alleged that a project named “DeepFaith,” described as an AI-powered Islamic research initiative

Bharat Pakistan Policy Security Terrorism

209

Indus Treaty in Abeyance: India, Pakistan, and International Law

Pakistan’s resort to the UNSC on the Indus Waters Treaty collapses on contact with the law of treaties, the law of state responsibility, and the Charter regime on the use of force. Rahul Pawa | x: @imrahulpawa On 22 April 2025, in the Baisaran meadow above Pahalgam, terrorists separated tourists by faith and shot twenty-five of them and one local. The Resistance Front, a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed the attack. The following day, India announced that the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 would be held in abeyance until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abandoned its support for cross-border terrorism. On 7 May 2025, Indian forces struck terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. A cessation of firing followed on 10 May 2025. The abeyance remained. From the start, Pakistan’s response was rhetorical. The abeyance was cast as an act of war, branded “water weaponisation,” and equated with terrorism. A year on, on the first anniversary of the Baisaran massacre, Pakistan has carried that posture to the United Nations Security Council, demanding that India “restore full implementation” of the Treaty and warning of “grave humanitarian consequences.” The recourse asks the Council to examine India’s abeyance in isolation from the conduct that produced it. The framing has a certain neatness. Tested against the law of treaties, the law of state responsibility, and the Charter regime on the use of force, it does not survive contact. The Security Council, under Article 24 of the Charter, holds primary responsibility for international peace and security. It is not a treaty-interpretation body, nor a tribunal over the performance of a 1960 bilateral instrument. The Treaty supplies its own graded dispute mechanism under Article IX: Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert, Court of Arbitration. Article XII(3) requires that any modification proceed by duly ratified treaty. India invoked that provision twice, on 25 January 2023 and 30 August 2024, seeking review of the Treaty in light of changed circumstances and Pakistan’s obstruction of permissible Indian projects on the Western Rivers. Pakistan declined to engage. Its decision to bypass this architecture and approach the Council is itself an admission that the bilateral machinery cannot deliver the political outcome Islamabad seeks. “Grave humanitarian consequences” is rhetoric in search of jurisdiction, not jurisdiction itself. The Treaty is not a static allocation of water. Its Preamble grounds the instrument in “goodwill, friendship and cooperation.” Article VIII establishes a Permanent Indus Commission that presupposes ongoing good-faith engagement. Article IX presupposes a working bilateral relationship. Article XII(3) presupposes that modification proposals will receive serious response. A state that refuses to engage with lawful modification cannot credibly claim the high ground of treaty fidelity. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties binds parties to perform every treaty in force in good faith. Good-faith performance is not discharged by partial compliance with allocation rules while the foundational conditions of peaceful coexistence are torn up beneath them. India’s position, that sustained Pakistani sponsorship of cross-border terrorism, culminating in Baisaran, ruptured the premise on which cooperation rests, is not creative interpretation. It is the black-letter application of pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be performed in good faith). Two further VCLT doctrines support, though do not exhaust, India’s measure. Article 60 permits suspension for material breach, including violation of provisions essential to a treaty’s object and purpose. Where that object includes cooperative water-sharing premised on peace, state-supported terrorism is not collateral conduct; it breaches the animating premise. Article 62, on fundamental change of circumstances, supplies a narrower but reinforcing ground. The doctrinal home for abeyance lies in the law of countermeasures. Articles 22 and 49 to 54 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility require that countermeasures be non-forcible, proportionate, directed at the responsible state, taken to induce compliance, and, where possible, reversible. India’s measure meets each. It is non-forcible, targeted, proportionate to the breach it answers, and reversible: the Treaty stands, and the condition for restoration is on the public record. Pakistan must credibly and irrevocably abjure support for cross-border terrorism. It is also purposive, directed at the customary obligation, reinforced by Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), that every state prevent the use of its territory for terrorist acts against others. India’s strikes of 7 May 2025 rest on a separate footing. Article 51 of the Charter preserves the inherent right of self-defence. Post-2001 practice, anchored in Resolutions 1368 and 1373, accepts that armed attacks may emanate from non-state actors, and that defensive action may extend to the bases from which they are mounted where the territorial state is unwilling or unable to suppress them. The cessation of firing on 10 May 2025 left the abeyance untouched. The Treaty position is doctrinal, not transactional; it does not rise and fall with the tempo of military exchanges. Pakistan’s “weaponisation” claim conflates the Treaty’s cooperative scaffolding with its physical entitlements. India has not diverted, dammed, or interdicted Pakistani waters in violation of Articles II and III. What it has suspended is the cooperative apparatus: data exchange, Commission engagement, treaty-level dispute mechanisms. If Pakistan’s grievance were that India had unlawfully constructed or operated works, that would be a Treaty-internal dispute, amenable to Article IX. The choice of the Council rather than the Treaty’s own forum is not a performance dispute. It is a narrative posture. The legal contest is not between treaty sanctity and treaty derogation. It is between two readings of obligation. The first is integrated: good faith and reciprocity are constitutive of the duty to perform. The second is fragmented: a state may sponsor armed attacks against its neighbour while demanding uninterrupted strategic benefit. The first is the black-letter of international law. The second is a position no treaty regime has ever sustained. India’s stand is principled, conditional, proportionate, and reversible. It does not weaponise water; it withholds cooperation from a party that has weaponised territory. The path back to the Treaty is open. It runs through Pakistan’s credible, irrevocable, and verifiable abandonment of cross-border terrorism, through no other forum, and certainly not the Security Council. The

Bharat Hindus International Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United States USA

230

RSS Addresses US Forums on Technology, Innovation and Leadership: A Civilisational Vision for the Future of Humanity

Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS) is pleased to release its latest brief, RSS Addresses US Forums on Technology, Innovation and Leadership: A Civilisational Vision for the Future of Humanity, documenting the engagements of RSS Sarkaryavah Dattatreya Hosabale at THRIVE 2026, Stanford Faculty Club, and at the Hudson Institute, Washington D.C., in April 2026. Coinciding with the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), these engagements marked one of the most substantive transatlantic conversations on Indian civilisational thought in recent years. The brief brings together, in considered depth, the views articulated by RSS Sarkaryavah Dattatreya Hosabale across both forums: the philosophy of oneness rooted in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the coexistence of tradition and modernity, the three-fold lens of economy, ecology, and ethics for evaluating technology, the distinctive ethos of seva (service), the centenary vision of Panch Parivartan, and the role of the Indian diaspora as a natural bridge between two democracies.Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), these engagements marked one of the most substantive transatlantic conversations on Indian civilisational thought in recent years. The brief brings toge We invite scholars, policymakers, and engaged readers to download the full brief below. [Download the full brief here]

Bharat Geopolitics Kashmir Pakistan Policy Politics Security Terrorism

390

Indus Waters Treaty After Pahalgam

India’s post-Pahalgam position on the Indus Waters Treaty is not a water dispute. It is a sovereign response to Pakistan’s sustained use of cross-border terrorism while continuing to demand the full benefits of a cooperative treaty. The Treaty was premised on goodwill, peaceful conduct and reciprocal confidence. Pakistan’s conduct, culminating in the Baisaran, Pahalgam terrorist attack of 22 April 2025, shattered that premise. India’s decision to hold the Treaty in abeyance was therefore not an abandonment of legality, but a principled assertion that treaty cooperation cannot be insulated from state-sponsored terrorism. India’s response was deliberately cross-sectoral. It combined diplomatic downgrading, border and visa restrictions, suspension of treaty normalcy, and later, precise military action through Operation Sindoor against terrorist infrastructure. This sequencing matters. India did not begin with indiscriminate escalation. It first imposed sovereign, administrative and diplomatic costs, and only after Pakistan-backed terrorism crossed a grave threshold did it move to targeted counter-terror action. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s formulation, that “water and blood cannot flow together”, captures the Indian sentiment: Pakistan must choose between normal interstate cooperation and the continued use of terror as an instrument of state policy. Pakistan’s response has followed a familiar pattern: denial of culpability, reciprocal escalation, threats over water, and internationalisation through the United Nations and treaty forums. Yet none of this answers the central question. If Pakistan seeks the benefits of the Indus Waters Treaty, it must first restore the minimum conditions that make such a treaty workable. India’s stand is therefore principled, conditional and proportionate: the path back to treaty normalcy remains open, but only after Pakistan credibly, irrevocably and verifiably abandons support for cross-border terrorism.

Bharat Misinformation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) World

233

Perception Versus Philosophy: RSS Bridges the Gap

From addressing perceptions in Washington DC to articulating civilizational framework in Silicon Valley, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale’s US visit signals the organization’s evolving global engagement. Arun Anand As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) marks its centenary, its General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale used his April 2026 visit to the United States to engage not just the Indian diaspora, but also influential global policy circles. A key moment in this outreach came on April 24 at the Hudson Institute, where Hosabale participated in a fireside chat with Walter Russell Mead—an interaction that set the tone for the broader visit. In a candid exchange, Hosabale addressed long-standing perceptions about the RSS. He firmly rejected comparisons with organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan, calling them fundamentally flawed and rooted in misunderstanding. According to him, such narratives have historically portrayed the RSS as anti-minority, anti-Christian, anti-modern or supremacist labels he argued do not reflect its philosophy or practice. Citing thr organisation’s ideological foundation, he emphasised that Hindu thought is anchored in the principle of oneness rather than supremacy. He described RSS as a voluntary cultural organisation rooted in India’s civilizational ethos, where identity is understood in a civilizational, not narrowly religious, sense. Hosabale also highlighted the organisation’s grassroots work, from daily and weekly shakhas aimed at character-building and discipline to large-scale contributions in education, healthcare, rural development, environmental initiatives, and disaster relief. On the question of minority relations, he suggested that tensions often stem from political factors and historical interpretations rather than ideological hostility, advocating dialogue as the path forward. Significantly, he underscored that modernisation and cultural values are not contradictory. Instead, he argued, they can coexist and reinforce each other, a consistent through his engagements in the US. A Civilisational Dialogue in Silicon Valley One of the intellectual cornerstones of the visit was Hosabale’s address at Stanford University during the Thrive 2026 conference. Speaking to technologists, entrepreneurs, and the Indian diaspora, he argued that rapid technological advancement must be guided by deeper ethical and civilisational wisdom. Drawing from Indic traditions, he pointed out that Indian knowledge systems have historically integrated the spiritual and the scientific. Ancient texts such as the Upanishads, he noted, explore questions of consciousness and existence that remain relevant even in the age of artificial intelligence. This integrated worldview, he suggested, offers a necessary corrective in an era marked by ecological stress, social inequality, and unrestrained technological ambition. His call for a “holistic lifestyle” was not a rejection of modernity, but an attempt to anchor it within ethical boundaries. At the heart of this framework lies the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, presented as a practical principle for navigating global fragmentation. Science, Knowledge, and Civilisational Leadership Hosabale emphasised the need to revitalise Indic knowledge systems, many of which were marginalised during periods of historical disruption. He argued that contemporary India is witnessing a renewed effort to recover and systematise this intellectual heritage. In his view, science and spirituality are not opposing forces but complementary modes of inquiry. Historically, scholars often engaged both simultaneously, combining empirical observation with philosophical reflection. He proposed three touchstones for evaluating technological progress, economy, ecology, and ethics, warning that development divorced from these principles risks deepening inequality and environmental degradation. Equally, he stressed the importance of democratising knowledge globally, ensuring that insights from diverse civilisations contribute to a more balanced world order. Redefining the Role of the Diaspora Engaging with Indian-origin communities, Hosabale articulated a clear message: complete commitment to the host nation is essential. Contributing to the progress and well-being of their adopted country, he said, is a form of dharma. At the same time, he encouraged the diaspora to remain connected to India’s cultural roots. This dual identity, fully integrated yet culturally anchored, was presented as a strength. He also emphasised the importance of strengthening India-US relations through trust and people-to-people ties, while addressing persistent misconceptions about India by highlighting its role as a major economy and a global technology hub. The Path Ahead: Balance in an Age of Extremes A consistent theme across Hosabale’s engagements was the need for balance in an age of excess. He cautioned against an unrestrained race for technological dominance that overlooks sustainability and human well-being. Indian civilisational thought, with its emphasis on harmony, interconnectedness, and respect for nature, offers an alternative framework, one particularly relevant in addressing climate change and social fragmentation. The idea of “knowledge guided by wisdom” remained central: knowledge without ethical grounding can lead to exploitation, while guided by discernment, it can serve the collective good. Conclusion Dattatreya Hosabale’s US visit during the RSS centenary was both reflective and forward-looking. Through his engagement with a candid dialogue at the Hudson Institute and extending it to technological and diaspora platforms, he positioned the RSS within a broader global conversation. The emphasis on civilisational identity, ethical modernity, dialogue, and global cooperation reflects an evolving outreach, one that seeks to engage the world not defensively, but with a sense of intellectual confidence and cultural continuity.

Blog Post