Bharat Business Economy Geopolitics International Policy Trade

Union Budget 2026–27: India’s Fiscal Moment in a Re-Shaped Europe Partnership

Arun Anand When the Union Finance Minister rises to present the Budget for 2026–27, the speech will be heard not merely as an annual fiscal statement but as a strategic signal of how India intends to position itself in a rapidly re-ordering global economy. This Budget arrives at a moment when trade, geopolitics, and industrial policy are converging in unprecedented ways. At the heart of this convergence lies the India–European Union trade agreement, a long-negotiated pact that has moved from aspiration to actionable reality. For India, the European Union is not just another trading partner. It represents one of the world’s largest consumer markets, a hub of advanced manufacturing, a leader in sustainability standards, and a regulatory superpower. The conclusion of the trade agreement has altered the context in which fiscal choices will now be read. Budget 2026–27 is thus expected to go beyond accounting for revenues and expenditures; it must articulate how India plans to convert enhanced market access into competitiveness, jobs, and long-term economic resilience. The global environment in which this Budget is framed is anything but stable. Growth in major economies remains uneven, trade protectionism has not fully receded, and supply chains continue to be reshaped by geopolitical considerations. In this setting, India’s engagement with the EU reflects a strategic bet on rules-based trade, diversification away from over-concentrated markets, and integration into high-value global supply chains. The Budget, therefore, will be scrutinised for how well it aligns domestic policy instruments with this external opportunity. One of the most immediate expectations from Budget 2026–27 is a clear fiscal roadmap to support export-oriented sectors that stand to benefit from the EU agreement. Labour-intensive industries such as textiles, leather, footwear, gems and jewellery, and processed foods are likely to gain preferential access to European markets. However, access alone does not guarantee competitiveness. Indian firms must meet stringent standards relating to quality, safety, traceability, and sustainability. The Budget is expected to acknowledge this reality by prioritising investments in testing infrastructure, certification ecosystems, and compliance facilitation, particularly for small and medium enterprises. MSMEs, in fact, sit at the centre of the India–EU trade opportunity and the Budget challenge alike. While large corporations may have the scale and resources to adapt quickly to European regulatory norms, smaller firms often struggle with the costs of compliance and technology upgradation. Budget 2026–27 will be watched closely for targeted tax incentives, credit support, and technology adoption schemes that can help MSMEs integrate into EU-facing value chains rather than be crowded out by larger players. Another critical dimension is logistics and trade facilitation. Reduced tariffs can only translate into real gains if transaction costs within India are brought down. Delays at ports, fragmented logistics networks, and inconsistent state-level regulations erode export competitiveness. The Budget is expected to reinforce capital expenditure on ports, multimodal logistics parks, and digital trade infrastructure, ensuring that physical and procedural bottlenecks do not undermine the advantages secured through diplomacy. Beyond goods, the India–EU trade agreement also opens new possibilities in services, digital trade, and professional mobility. Europe remains a key destination for Indian IT services, engineering expertise, and skilled professionals. Budget 2026–27 may therefore carry signals on skilling initiatives, digital public infrastructure, and regulatory reforms that enable Indian service providers to scale up their presence in Europe while attracting European investment into India’s knowledge economy. Sustainability is another axis along which the Budget’s EU alignment will be assessed. European trade policy increasingly embeds climate and environmental considerations, and Indian exporters will face rising expectations related to carbon intensity, circular economy practices and responsible sourcing. Rather than viewing this as a constraint, Budget 2026–27 has the opportunity to frame sustainability as a competitiveness lever by supporting green manufacturing, renewable energy adoption in industry, and low-carbon logistics. Fiscal incentives in these areas would signal that India intends to meet global standards on its own terms, without compromising growth. Investment flows form the other side of the trade equation. The EU remains one of the largest sources of foreign direct investment into India, particularly in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy, and advanced technologies. The Budget’s approach to taxation stability, dispute resolution, and ease of doing business will therefore be read as a message to European investors. Any steps toward simplifying compliance, ensuring policy predictability, and strengthening contract enforcement would reinforce India’s credibility as a long-term investment destination. At a broader level, Budget 2026–27 will reflect how India sees its role in the emerging global economic architecture. The India–EU agreement is not merely commercial; it is also strategic, reinforcing India’s positioning as a trusted economic partner amid shifting power balances. Fiscal choices that support domestic manufacturing, innovation, and human capital development will be interpreted as India preparing itself not just to trade with Europe, but to co-shape global norms in areas such as digital governance, supply-chain resilience, and sustainable growth. There is also a domestic political economy dimension. Trade agreements often create both winners and adjustment pressures. The Budget will need to demonstrate sensitivity toward sectors and regions that may face increased competition, while ensuring that adjustment costs are managed through skilling, social protection, and targeted support. How effectively this balance is struck will determine whether the EU trade agreement is seen as a national opportunity or a sector-specific gain. Ultimately, Union Budget 2026–27 stands at the intersection of diplomacy and development. It has the potential to serve as India’s first full-fledged “trade-aligned Budget,” one that translates international commitments into domestic capacity. Markets, industries and global partners will look beyond headline numbers to discern the deeper story: whether India is ready to move from negotiating access to delivering outcomes. As Europe looks for reliable partners and India looks to scale its growth ambitions, this Budget could well define how the partnership evolves in practice. The fiscal choices made on this February morning may determine whether the India–EU trade agreement becomes a transformative economic chapter or remains an unrealised promise in the fine print of diplomacy. (Author is a senior journalist & columnist. He has authored more than

EXPLAINER - India-EU Free Trade Agreement

Business Economy Geopolitics International Trade

150

EXPLAINER: India-EU Free Trade Agreement

After roughly 18 years of intermittent negotiations, the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement (FTA), also referred to as a Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA), was affirmed as concluded on January 27, 2026. Branded as the “mother of all trade deals,” the agreement seeks to increase investment, liberalise trade in goods and services and strengthen strategic and economic ties between India and the EU, one of India’s significant trading partners. Together, India and the EU account for a market of about 2 billion people, a third of global trade and roughly 25% of the world’s GDP. It unites India, which has a sizable consumer market and a rapidly expanding economy, with the EU, one of the biggest economic blocs in the world. The negotiations are settled, but the FTA still has to undergo formal legal scrubbing and ratification by the European Parliament and member states and the Indian government before it can come into force. The implementation is expected in late 2026 or 2027. The India-EU Free Trade Agreement aims to significantly reduce, and in many cases eliminate, tariffs over a broad range of goods and services, facilitating easier trade between two of the world’s largest economic blocs. The importance of the agreement is magnified by the fact that it took a long and arduous path to completion, with negotiations starting in 2007, breaking up in 2013 amidst differences and remaining dormant for almost a decade before being restarted in a different global trade context.

Business Economy Geopolitics International Policy

141

India-EU ‘Mother of All Deals’ Achieved Biggest Global Trade Shake-Up That Redefined Power

By N. C. Bipindra India and the European Union (EU), on January 27, 2026, signed what leaders are calling the “mother of all trade deals,” a sweeping Free Trade Agreement (FTA) two decades in the making. The pact, agreed during a summit in New Delhi, links two of the world’s largest democratic powers, India with its rapidly expanding economy and the EU with its integrated market of 27 countries, creating a massive economic zone spanning nearly 2 billion people and a quarter of global GDP. This is not just another trade deal. It is a geopolitical pivot point: one that strengthens India’s global economic role, accelerates Europe’s search for reliable partners amid fracturing US relations and reshapes the global trade architecture at a time when traditional trade alliances are under strain. What Is This FTA and Why Has It Been So Big? Negotiations began in 2007 but repeatedly stumbled over tariffs, market access, regulatory differences and standards. Only in recent years, especially amid growing global trade tensions, did talks gain momentum. The final pact aims to lower or eliminate tariffs on over 90% of goods for both sides, expand market access for services, reduce non-tariff barriers and boost investment flows. Key sectors from automobiles to textiles and pharmaceuticals are covered, although sensitive areas like agriculture remain largely excluded due to domestic political concerns. Leaders described it as not just a trade deal, but a strategic partnership, including cooperation in mobility, security and future industrial collaboration. Why This Deal Matters to India Indian exporters now gain preferential or zero-tariff access to the massive EU market, particularly in labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, gems and jewellery, leather goods, chemicals and marine products: historically areas where India has struggled to secure deep market entry. With India’s manufacturing push seeking global scale, easier access to European inputs, such as machinery, medical devices, high-quality components, means lower production costs and better global supply chain integration. This aligns with India’s broader strategy of becoming a global manufacturing hub rather than a primarily services-oriented economy. Indian exporters have felt the impact of rising US tariff barriers, especially under recent American policies that saw levies of up to 50% on Indian goods in certain sectors. The EU FTA offers a valuable alternative destination at a critical time. EU companies are expected to scale up investments across Indian manufacturing, technology, infrastructure and clean energy sectors, bringing capital, innovation and higher-end industrial activity to India. Why Europe Is Betting Big on India Europe needs stable, diversified markets. China’s slowing growth and geopolitical tensions with the EU over technology and security have encouraged Brussels to seek deeper ties with other large economies. India’s fast-growing consumer base and manufacturing capacity make it an ideal partner. The EU expects its exports to India to potentially double by 2032, saving billions in tariffs and opening opportunities for European cars, machinery and premium goods. Strong economic ties can underpin greater geopolitical alignment on issues from climate policy to digital standards and global governance. How This Compares to US-India and US-EU Trade Talks The US-India talks on an FTA are still in progress, but they have not yet resulted in a comprehensive agreement. US tariff hikes on Indian exports have strained trust and talks have been slow, partly due to competing domestic political agendas and protectionist pressures. Despite long-standing strategic cooperation, not least through defence and technology partnerships, a full trade deal remains elusive, giving the EU an opening to build momentum with India that the United States has so far not fully matched. The EU and US remain massive economic partners, combined they account for trillions in goods and services trade, yet they do not have a dedicated free trade agreement like the one just signed with India. Negotiations toward a free trade pact, notably the 2013 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposal, ultimately collapsed in 2016 and recent talks aimed at a new framework have been complicated by political differences. The US and EU signed a “reciprocal, fair and balanced trade” framework in 2025, but the path to comprehensive tariff reduction and deeper market integration remains fraught. Trade disputes aren’t rare either between the US and the EU. Issues like steel and aluminium tariffs, regulatory taxes on tech and agriculture have periodically flared up. A recent flashpoint between the United States and Europe has been tensions over Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has been threatening military operations to annex Greenland, a key Arctic territory that could be the key to controlling navigation and the resultant exploitation of the ice-capped region. Throughout 2025–2026, the US made headlines with proposals to acquire Greenland, triggering protests in Copenhagen and raising broader alarm in the EU about US intentions in the Arctic. US threats to levy tariffs on European countries opposing this move sparked fears of a transatlantic trade confrontation. Although President Trump backed off the strongest threats at the World Economic Forum in 2026, the episode has contributed to a sense in some European capitals that Washington’s trade policies can be erratic and unpredictable, fuelling EU efforts to pursue more autonomous global economic partnerships. This isn’t just about Greenland. It reflects deeper frustrations with US unilateral trade policies and protectionist impulses that, in Europe’s view, undermine long-standing transatlantic cooperation. What This Means for the Future of Global Trade The India-EU FTA is a milestone in a world where traditional trade alliances are being reconfigured. Partnerships are no longer simply North Atlantic or US-centric; Asia, Europe and emerging market ties are gaining prominence. Despite a more fragmented global economy and rising protectionism, the India-EU deal demonstrates that deep, rules-based trade agreements remain possible and can drive economic growth and strategic stability. As China continues to assert its economic reach and the US focuses on domestic political priorities, partnerships like the India-EU FTA become crucial counterweights that help middle powers shape the global order. Final Take on India-EU FTA Implications The India-EU free trade agreement is far more than a tariff-cutting pact. It is a powerful global political

Bangladesh Bharat Hindus Human Rights Pakistan Policy Security

198

Hindu Pogrom Under a Nobel Laureate’s Watch in Bangladesh

Ethnic Cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus A Nobel Peace Prize is not a shield against scrutiny. Bangladesh’s post-August 2024 reality demands a hard, evidence-led assessment: violence against Hindus has escalated into a pattern that aligns with internationally recognised elements of ethnic cleansing. This is not a claim made lightly, nor is it built on rhetoric. It is grounded in documented indicators that appear repeatedly across historical cases, from the Balkans to Rwanda and the forced flight of Kashmiri Hindus. Our report, “Hindu Pogrom Under a Nobel Laureate’s Watch in Bangladesh,” examines what changed after the extra-constitutional transition that installed Muhammad Yunus as head of the interim administration. In the immediate aftermath of Sheikh Hasina’s ouster, Hindu homes and temples were specifically targeted, and minority families attempted to flee toward India. This is the first stage seen in many ethnic cleansing trajectories: a sudden collapse of security, followed by identity-targeted attacks that signal “you are not safe here.” Reuters reporting captured these early markers, including vandalism of Hindu temples and homes and attempted flight by minorities. Ethnic cleansing is defined less by slogans and more by method. The method in Bangladesh is visible through six elements. Forced displacement is the predictable output when a minority is subjected to sustained terror and sees no credible protection from the state. When families attempt to flee, when communities retreat into guarded enclaves, when daily life becomes a risk calculation, the displacement is no longer voluntary. It is coerced Violence and terror form the second element. The pattern includes killings by shooting, hacking, abduction, lynching, and arson. The purpose is not only to kill, but to send a message to all remaining members of the community. Dipu Chandra Das’s lynching and burning is an emblematic example of violence designed to intimidate, not merely to harm. Deliberate attacks on civilians are the third element. The victims are not combatants. They are teachers, traders, community leaders, elderly couples, workers, and youth. They are targeted in homes, workplaces, and transit routes, consistent with identity-based selection rather than incidental crime. In the first post-ouster phase, minority groups documented attacks on Hindu homes and temples across multiple districts, underscoring organised targeting rather than isolated incidents. Destruction of property is the fourth element, and it is a strategic tool. Burning homes, looting businesses, and desecrating temples do more than punish. They make return difficult, erase cultural presence, and collapse economic survival. These are classic “remove the population by destroying the conditions of life” tactics. Reuters recorded that hundreds of Hindu homes and businesses were vandalised and multiple temples damaged during the initial post-ouster violence. Confinement is the fifth element. Even without formal camps, a minority can be confined by fear. When communities self-restrict movement, rely on volunteer night-guards, and avoid public visibility, they are being functionally contained. This is how pressure accumulates until exit becomes the only perceived option. Systematic policy is the sixth element. Ethnic cleansing does not require a written decree. In many cases, it proceeds through the combination of organised extremist violence and state failure: weak protection, delayed response, denial of communal targeting, and persistent impunity. Here, the core accountability question is state responsibility. Minority groups have accused the interim government of failing to protect Hindus, and the Yunus administration has denied those allegations. Denial, in the presence of repeated identity-targeted attacks, is not neutrality. It is an enabling posture. This is where the Yunus interim administration becomes central. The issue is not whether Yunus personally directs each assault. The issue is whether the state under his leadership has fulfilled its duty to prevent, protect, investigate, prosecute, and deter identity-based violence. When the outcome is repeated killings, recurring temple attacks, widespread property destruction, and the steady tightening of fear around a minority community, responsibility does not stop at the street-level perpetrator. It rises to the governing authority. The report also examines the role of Islamist forces operating in the current environment. Independent reporting notes that hardline Islamist actors have become more visible and influential since the fall of Hasina. This matters because ethnic cleansing campaigns typically require both ideological mobilisation and operational impunity: a narrative that dehumanises the target, and a system that fails to punish the perpetrators. Bangladesh is at a decision point. It can either reassert protection for all citizens and rebuild the rule of law, or drift toward a majoritarian model where minorities survive only as tolerated remnants. The world has seen this script before. The lesson from Rwanda and the Balkans is that early warning indicators are not “political noise.” They are the architecture of atrocity. What is required now is not performative condemnation. It is measurable action: robust protection for minority localities, transparent investigations, prosecutions that reach organisers and inciters, disruption of extremist mobilisation networks, and independent monitoring that makes denial impossible. Without these steps, the pattern described in our report will continue to harden. The Nobel label does not change the facts on the ground. The responsibility of the interim government is to stop the trajectory. If it cannot, it must be treated internationally as enabling an ethnic cleansing process by omission, denial, and impunity.

Bharat Hindus Human Rights Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism

254

Kashmiri Hindus and Atrocity Crimes: A Legal Brief on Persecution and Forced Displacement

The brief argues that the removal of Kashmiri Hindus from the Valley must be read through the law of atrocity crimes, not through the language of “fear,” “sporadic violence,” or “voluntary migration.” Where civilians flee under targeted killings, sexual violence, intimidation, and the collapse of any real safety, the law treats the outcome as coerced displacement. The report applies the tribunal-tested standard of “genuine choice”: if staying is realistically impossible, leaving is not consent. The report aligns the record of atrocities with a structured legal framework. It traces a core objective consistent with ethnic cleansing: the creation of an ethnically homogeneous space through terror-driven removal. It then shows how the victim group was selected on inherited identity, not conduct, Kashmiri Hindus marked as a community. It documents the methods used to compel flight and prevent return: targeted assassinations and massacres, rape and sexual violence as terror, threats and social intimidation, property stripping and cultural erasure. Emblematic cases are examined to demonstrate how individual crimes served a collective outcome, including the assassination of advocate Tika Lal Taploo and the abduction, rape, and murder of Sarla Bhat. Legally, the brief explains that “ethnic cleansing” is not a standalone treaty offence, yet the conduct it describes is fully prosecutable through established categories: persecution, murder, rape, and forcible transfer as crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes within a conflict setting. It situates these findings within Indian constitutional guarantees, equality, life, movement, and religious freedom, alongside public international law standards on forced displacement and persecution. The report also sets out a responsibility chain. It argues that the perpetrator ecosystem was sustained by Pakistan-backed jihad infrastructure and local terrorist networks, and that the enabling environment was reinforced by ideological mobilisation and “soft separatist” cover that normalised denial and insulated perpetrators. Groups discussed include JKLF, Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamaat-linked networks, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, and separatist fronts operating as political shields, most prominently the Hurriyat Conference. The brief outlines the legal rationale for examining cross-border financing, training, infiltration, and sanctuary under doctrines of state responsibility and aiding-and-assisting.

Venezuela Case & UN - Crisis of Global Institutions

Geopolitics Human Rights Insurgency International Judiciary Leadership Media News Policy Politics Security United States USA War World

158

Venezuela Case & UN: Crisis of Global Institutions

The US aggression on Venezuela and the forcible capture of President Maduro raise a serious question about the efficiency of the UN as a global watchdog. It’s time to examine whether nations, which designed the post-1945 system, still regard themselves as committed to it, or treat the UN anchored treaty-based project as optional. Rahul Pawa On January 3, 2026, the U.S. forces launched a surprise strike inside Venezuela and forcibly removed President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York to face the U.S. charges. Reports described explosions in Caracas and the Maduro Government denounced an “imperialist attack” on national sovereignty. President Trump boasted on social media that the strike was carried out “in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement,” heralding Maduro’s capture as a triumph. The world responded with alarm. Venezuela’s interim Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, demanded proof that the couple was alive. Russia and China voiced their strongest objections. Japan stressed the safety of its nationals, reaffirmed its commitment to “freedom, democracy, and the rule of law,” and indicated that it would work with G7 partners to help stabilise the region, while India expressed “deep concern” and reaffirmed support for the security of the Indian community and the people of Venezuela. Even within the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged at a press briefing that Congress had not been consulted. These events raise stark legal questions. The core issues are jus ad bellum limits on the use of force, the prohibition on intervention and extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction, the personal immunities of incumbent senior officials, and the consequences if the incursion triggered an international armed conflict. U.S. constitutional processes and the War Powers Resolution may constrain American decision-makers as a matter of domestic law, but they do not alter Venezuela’s rights under international law. Armed Assault or Law Enforcement Operation? Under the U.N. Charter, no state may unilaterally use military force against another except with Security Council approval or genuine self-defense. The US administration claims this was a cross-border “law enforcement” operation, but international law treats armed assaults like this as uses of force. As one expert summary notes, counter-narcotics or “illegitimacy” justifications cannot override Article 2(4)’s prohibition. Legal scholars agree that drug trafficking, even if a global scourge, is a criminal matter, not an armed conflict that justifies invasion. Customary international law adds another dimension: sitting heads of state have absolute immunity from arrest by foreign courts. Under the Arrest Warrant case and related practice, Maduro, as the incumbent Venezuelan President enjoys complete “inviolability” from forcible seizure. The U.S. might say it no longer recognises Maduro as legitimate, but international law does not allow one country to strip another’s leader of all protection while still holding it to its obligations. Even if Washington claims Noriega-like precedent, “unilateral kidnapping is unlawful regardless of recognition, and immunity questions aggravate, rather than cure, the illegality.”. Likewise, the principle of non-intervention is clear. “Cross-border apprehension” by force without the host state’s consent is an “unlawful exercise of enforcement power”. By sneaking in Marines or special ops to snatch Maduro, the U.S. bypassed all Venezuelan authorities and UN mechanisms. It also bypassed its own procedures by not informing Congress. As France’s foreign minister noted, the U.S., a Security Council member violated the principle of non-use of force and imposed an external solution, warning that “no sustainable political solution can be imposed from the outside” By employing bombs and missiles on Caracas, the operation arguably triggered an international armed conflict between two states. If so, the full body of international humanitarian law (IHL) applies. Every strike must meet IHL’s distinction and proportionality tests. For example, reported strikes that knocked out civilian power infrastructure would be illegal if the civilian harm outweighed any military gain. Moreover, once Maduro was captured, he became a protected person under the Geneva Conventions. He and his wife would be entitled to safe detention conditions and eventual release or trial, but under domestic law, not as prisoners of war. Importantly, even the abduction itself violates the duty to take “prisoners” only lawfully. In practical terms, neither side seems prepared to declare war, but the weapons used leave no doubt: the U.S. struck fixed targets with lethal force on foreign soil. Still, any escalation (for example armed skirmishes with Venezuelan forces) would immediately invoke full wartime protections. The Maduro abduction cannot be seen in isolation. In recent years, permanent members of the UN Security Council have repeatedly tested, stretched, or disregarded legal constraints: China has rejected the legal effect of the South China Sea arbitral award; Russia’s conduct in Ukraine has triggered sustained allegations of Charter breach; and the United States has its own history of unilateral uses of force, including the closely analogous 1989 intervention in Panama (Operation Just Cause). Each episode erodes confidence that treaties and the Charter’s restraints bind the most powerful as much as the rest. The United States is central to this story not only because it helped design the post-1945 order and was among the earliest to ratify the Charter, but also because its subsequent engagement with the UN’s treaty architecture has been selective. This is illustrated by continued non-ratification of major UN-linked instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Those choices do not reduce UN Charter obligations, but they sharpen doubts about commitment to the wider treaty-based project the UN Charter was designed to anchor. Unsurprisingly, the fiercest reaction came from Russia and China. After a China‑sponsored UNSC emergency session, several members condemned the raid as illegal, echoing concerns about a dangerous precedent. Russia’s Foreign Ministry condemned the raid online as “an act of armed aggression.” Intriguingly, France’s envoy reminded that any UN Security Council permanent member breaking the force ban would have “grave consequences for global security”. The cumulative message is clear: when the great powers act unilaterally, the

Bangladesh Bharat China Economy Geopolitics Human Rights Policy Security

180

Myanmar’s Strategic Crossroads China’s Influence, Western Interests and a Turbulent Election

Arun Anand Myanmar (formerly Burma) sits at a critical crossroads in Asia, both geographically and geopolitically. The country’s location – bordering China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Laos, with a long coastline on the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea – makes it a bridge between South Asia and Southeast Asia. In fact, Myanmar is often described as the “main connecting hub” linking East, South, and Southeast Asia. Its shores provide access to the Indian Ocean’s major shipping lanes, which has long attracted great power interest. In short, Myanmar’s geostrategic location grants it outsized importance: it is the only Southeast Asian nation sharing borders with both India and China, and it offers a land gateway from the Bay of Bengal into the heart of Asia.

Bharat Education

177

Vivekananda for Gen Z on National Youth Day 2026

Vivekananda for Gen Z on National Youth Day 2026 CIHS DESK Gen Z is at a turning point in 2026. Many young minds, surrounded by information, polarised narratives, and instant outrage, are drawn towards extremes, ideological, political or social, not always out of conviction but frequently out of confusion, rage or a need for meaning. In this context, Swami Vivekananda appears not just as a historical figure but also as a mentor for young people looking for meaning. National Youth Day, which is marked on January 12 to commemorate the birth anniversary of Vivekananda, one of India’s most influential intellectuals and enduring voices for youth upliftment, serves as a reminder that while youth power can be destructive if left unchecked, it can also be transformative when it is grounded in strong values. Long before the internet era, Vivekananda was aware of this threat. He cautioned against mental weakness, emotional excess, and mindless imitation, conditions that frequently lead to vulnerability and exploitation in our times. His timeless teachings connect directly to Gen Z, a generation living through uncertainty and hyper-connectedness, navigating imported “woke” cultural constructs, and increasingly vulnerable to disruptive and extremist ideologies. Vivekananda addressed young people as active creators of the future rather than as passive inheritors of tradition. His message was straightforward but profound: develop inner strength, have faith in yourself, and direct your energy towards positive endeavours. Vivekananda’s teachings provide an alternate route based on purpose, balance, and accountability at a time when many young people look for significance in extremes, whether they be ideological, digital, or social. The notion that education is the unfolding of each person’s inherent excellence rather than just the acquisition of knowledge was fundamental to his worldview. Gen Z, generation rich in knowledge and experience but frequently weighed down by comparison, worry and outside approval, finds great resonance in this concept. Young people are reminded by Vivekananda’s emphasis on self-belief that one’s value is determined by one’s character and inner convictions rather than by followers, trends or approbation. His conviction that knowledge without integrity is worthless feels particularly important in this day and age, when radical groups frequently draw highly educated but morally disengaged adolescents. Self-belief was a fundamental tenet of Swami Vivekananda’s philosophy, as seen by his statement, “Weakness is sin.” He encouraged the young people to believe in themselves by acknowledging the limitless potential that each person possesses. According to him, self-belief is not conceit but rather a profound understanding of one’s inherent power and moral obligation, which elevates people to overcome obstacles, take responsibility and strive for greater goals. This inner confidence, according to Vivekananda, is the cornerstone of nation-building: strong, fearless and disciplined people inevitably develop into responsible citizens who advance society. He thought that a country created by self-assured people would be durable, forward-thinking and cohesive, strong not just materially but also morally and purposefully. Vivekananda’s emphasis on character development over credentials was equally significant. He cautioned that knowledge devoid of integrity is meaningless in an era fixated on rapid success and immediate recognition. He held that the moral foundation of both people and nations is composed of integrity, bravery, empathy and selflessness. Vivekananda’s emphasis on education as the “manifestation of inner perfection” is vital for Generation Z, who are often faced with narratives that split the world into adversaries and allies. This serves as a reminder that trustworthiness and moral fortitude, rather than indignation or radicalism, are the sources of long-lasting impact. Another foundation of the ideals held by Vivekananda was discipline. For him, discipline served as a link between values and conduct. People who possess self-discipline in their thoughts and actions can focus on their goals and use their energy in constructive ways. According to Vivekananda, disciplined people construct powerful organisations and nations and disciplined minds produce ordered lives. He believed that discipline was liberating rather than limiting, enabling people to overcome obstacles and flaws. Another characteristic that set him apart was his fearlessness. Vivekananda exhorted the young people to behave bravely, talk honestly, and think for themselves. But wisdom, not recklessness, was the source of his fearlessness. He was as opposed to blind revolt as he was to blind conformity. This is especially important now since polarisation, fear, and false information can lead young people to adopt extreme viewpoints. Young people are empowered by Vivekananda’s bravery to think critically, question, and change without resorting to violence or hatred. Today, when extremism frequently poses as bravery while stifling introspection and discussion, striking this balance is crucial. Swami Vivekananda, who helped bring Vedanta and Yoga to Western audiences, understood Bhagwan (God) as the universal, formless, all-pervading Truth. He stressed personal, direct realisation over rigid dogma, taught that the divine dwells in every soul, and encouraged people to seek Bhagwan through love, service, and compassion, an outlook profoundly shaped by his guru, Sri Ramakrishna. Combining faith in Bhagwan with self-belief establishes equilibrium, ensuring that power is used for everyone’s benefit and anchoring human endeavour in higher ideals. For Vivekananda, spirituality is a force that propels national advancement and humanitarian service rather than an escape. These principles together create a comprehensive foundation for greatness. Swami Vivekananda envisioned young people who are self-assured but modest, disciplined and energetic, courageous and caring and socially engaged but deeply rooted in their spirituality. He felt that these people are the real builders of a powerful, enlightened, and cohesive civilisation. National Youth Day serves as a reminder that, when directed by admirable ideals, young people’s enthusiasm, inventiveness and tenacity may influence society. Vivekananda’s teachings, “Believe in yourself and believe in Bhagwan (God),” is still relevant and continue to motivate young people to overcome obstacles, give freely to humanity and strive for a just as young people look for significance outside of extremes: true power comes from character, clarity and service rather than radicalism. On his birth anniversary, we are reminded to reflect upon his teachings and inspire young people to lead with honesty, bravery, and compassion, influencing not only their own future but

Khalistani-Jamaat Joint Operations amid Minority Killings in Bangladesh

Hindus Bangladesh Bharat Human Rights Khalistan

194

Situational Analysis: Khalistani-Jamaat Joint Operations amid Minority Killings in Bangladesh

Khalistani support for Islamist-linked violence and minority killings in Bangladesh, and the appearance of anti-Hindu and anti-India sloganeering outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London, reiterate that this is not simply a local Western “public order” problem. It is foreign territory being utilised as an outward-facing theatre for a Pakistan-rooted, anti-India orientation, where street spectacle and digital amplification do the work of deniable pressure.

Bangladesh’s Political Alliances Ahead of the 2026 Elections: Domestic Shifts and Geopolitical Alignments

Bangladesh Bharat Election Hindus Human Rights Leadership Pakistan Policy Politics

268

Bangladesh’s Political Alliances Ahead of the 2026 Elections: Domestic Shifts and Geopolitical Alignments

By N. C. Bipindra As Bangladesh moves toward the general elections scheduled for February 2026, the country is experiencing its most far-reaching political realignment in decades. The collapse of Sheikh Hasina’s long-entrenched Awami League dominance following the 2024 mass uprising has dismantled the familiar two-party framework and given rise to a fragmented, competitive political arena. New coalitions, revived Islamist forces and youth-driven political platforms are all vying for space, and their manoeuvring is unfolding amid intensifying regional and global interest. For India, China, the United States and Pakistan, the choices Bangladeshi voters and parties make in 2026 will shape not only domestic governance but also Dhaka’s strategic orientation in South Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific. From Awami League Dominance to Political Fragmentation For more than a decade, Bangladesh’s political and foreign policy trajectory was closely associated with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League. Domestically, the party presided over a strong centralised system that delivered economic growth while constricting political competition. Internationally, it cultivated a close strategic partnership with India, maintained extensive economic and infrastructure engagement with China and managed an increasingly strained relationship with the United States over issues of democracy, elections and human rights. The upheaval of 2024 abruptly ended this equilibrium. The interim administration under Muhammad Yunus pledged institutional reform and credible elections, but it also left the Awami League politically marginalised, creating a vacuum that rival forces are now racing to fill. BNP: Strategic Balancer with a Nationalist Tilt In this transformed landscape, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has emerged as the most significant electoral contender. Long the principal opposition to the Awami League, BNP now sees itself as the natural governing alternative in a post-Hasina order. Its campaign narrative centres on restoring democratic norms, recalibrating economic policy, and reasserting civilian political authority. The death of party chairperson Khaleda Zia in December 2025 has accelerated a generational shift within the BNP, with her son Tarique Rahman assuming a central leadership role and directing alliance-building efforts ahead of the polls. This transition has infused the party with renewed urgency but also heightened scrutiny of its internal cohesion and strategic direction. Geopolitically, a BNP-led government would likely pursue a more balanced and less India-centric foreign policy than the Awami League. While ties with New Delhi would remain important, BNP has historically been more cautious, sometimes sceptical, of India’s influence and would seek a relationship framed more explicitly around reciprocity and sovereignty. At the same time, BNP is open to deepening economic engagement with China, viewing Beijing primarily as a source of investment and infrastructure rather than an ideological partner. Relations with the United States are expected to improve relative to the later Awami League years, as Washington sees BNP as more receptive to competitive politics, though US support would remain contingent on credible elections and limits on Islamist influence. Any warming of ties with Pakistan under a BNP government would likely be symbolic rather than transformative, constrained by historical sensitivities and limited economic incentives. Islamist Bloc: Ideological Identity, Strategic Ambiguity Alongside BNP’s resurgence, the return of Islamist politics has added a new layer of complexity to the electoral contest. The reinstatement of Jamaat-e-Islami has allowed it to rebuild an Islamist-leaning bloc drawing on conservative rural constituencies and religious networks. Although Jamaat is unlikely to dominate nationally, it is well-positioned to influence outcomes in a fragmented parliament. Its re-entry into mainstream politics has unsettled secular and centrist forces, raising questions about Bangladesh’s ideological trajectory after years of enforced secularism under the Awami League. From a geopolitical perspective, Jamaat’s participation is viewed with unease by both India and the United States. New Delhi associates Islamist political mobilisation with potential risks to border security and counter-extremism cooperation, while Washington remains wary of Jamaat’s ideological orientation and historical baggage. Pakistan, by contrast, sees a degree of ideological affinity in Jamaat’s worldview, though this does not automatically translate into strategic alignment. China has taken a more pragmatic stance, showing little concern for Jamaat’s ideology so long as political stability is maintained and economic engagements remain intact. In this sense, Islamist influence complicates Bangladesh’s external relationships without clearly anchoring the country to any single power. National Citizen Party (NCP): Reformist Politics, Geopolitical Ambiguity Another significant player in the evolving political landscape is the National Citizen Party, a youth-led formation that emerged from the 2024 protest movement. The NCP articulates a reformist agenda centred on institutional accountability, anti-corruption measures and generational change in politics. Its rise reflects widespread public fatigue with dynastic politics and entrenched elites. However, the party’s limited grassroots organisation and inexperience have constrained its electoral prospects, pushing it toward alliance calculations that have sparked internal divisions, particularly over potential cooperation with Islamist groups. Internationally, NCP’s discourse resonates most strongly with Western actors, especially the United States, which views its emphasis on transparency and civic rights as aligned with democratic norms. The party has not articulated a clear or consistent stance toward India or China, reflecting both its novelty and its focus on domestic reform rather than foreign policy. Over the longer term, NCP represents a potential new political elite that could tilt Bangladesh toward stronger engagement with Western institutions, but in the immediate electoral cycle, its influence is likely to be indirect, mediated through alliances. Awami League Remnant: Pro-India, Diminished but Not Irrelevant Although the Awami League has been largely sidelined, its residual networks within the bureaucracy, business community and local governance structures continue to matter. Any partial rehabilitation of the party would be welcomed in New Delhi, which still regards the Awami League as its most reliable partner in Bangladesh. However, strained relations with the United States and deep hostility toward Pakistan would remain defining features of an Awami League foreign policy orientation, limiting its room for manoeuvre even if it regains political relevance. Democracy, Stability, and Strategic Competition For the United States, 2026 election represents a test of process rather than personalities. Washington’s primary concerns revolve around electoral credibility, political pluralism and the containment of violent extremism. A BNP-led or broadly technocratic

Blog Post