Bharat Business Cyber Security Defence Economy Geopolitics International Policy Politics Technology Trade United States USA War World

Iran’s War Aim Is Not Israel or US, It is Global Economy

By Rahul PAWA | X – @imrahulpawa The war began at 02:14 Tehran time on 28 February. Operation Roaring Lion and Operation Epic Fury decapitated Iran’s leadership, gutted its air defence architecture, and announced to the world that the post-1979 regional order was finished. Washington and Tel Aviv pulled the trigger. What followed was not what either capital planned for. Iran did not fold. A regime collapse as anticipated never materialised. In six days, the Islamic Republic of Iran has fired over 400 ballistic missiles and close to 1,000 drones across the Persian Gulf. The targets tell the story: Dubai International Airport, Jebel Ali port, Ras Tanura refinery, Hamad International in Doha, the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. Israel, by comparison, has absorbed a fraction of that volume. Tehran has made its calculus explicit. This is not a war Iran intends to fight against Israel or US. It is a war Iran intends to fight through the Gulf. This is not improvisation. It is strategy. Military planners have long understood doctrines where targeting civilian infrastructure to maximise chaos, delegitimise adversaries, and accelerate international pressure for a ceasefire. Iran has now adopted the same logic. Airports, ports, oil facilities, and luxury hotels are not military objectives in the conventional sense. They are the load-bearing pillars of Gulf economic identity. Iran is not trying to destroy them. It is making them ungovernable under fire, forcing every airline, insurer, and sovereign wealth fund to recalculate their exposure. The Strait of Hormuz closure clinches the argument. Twenty per cent of global oil and gas passes through that chokepoint. It is now shut. Oil markets have spiked. Bond yields are moving. Iran does not need to win a single air engagement to prosecute this strategy. It needs only to sustain pressure long enough for the global economic cost to exceed Washington’s political appetite for the campaign. The GCC’s Trilemma The Gulf states spent three years doing what may seem “everything right”. Qatar mediated. Oman back-channelled. Riyadh quietly denied offensive basing rights to US and Israeli aircraft. These were calculated risks taken at real political cost. None of it mattered. Iran has now struck every GCC member state within a single operational sequence. This is historically unprecedented. The Gulf’s core brand proposition, stability as a geopolitical product, has been punctured. The GCC faces a trilemma. They cannot retaliate alongside Israel without catastrophic domestic legitimacy costs; the Palestinian cause remains the organising moral framework for Arab public opinion, and any ruler seen fighting Tehran on Tel Aviv’s behalf risks street-level pressure that authoritarian stability cannot easily absorb. They cannot remain passive indefinitely as their cities burn. And they cannot negotiate from visible weakness without undermining the deterrent architecture they have spent hundreds of billions constructing. Interception is holding for now. But the economics of missile defence are brutally asymmetric. Iran’s Shahed-class drones and short-range ballistic missiles cost a fraction of the interceptors being expended against them. Analysts assess Iran can sustain the current rate of fire for approximately one month. The stockpile problem is real and worsening daily. The Decentralisation Problem Iran’s military planners anticipated regime decapitation. The IRGC has shifted to a mosaic defence posture, dispersed launch cells, mobile platforms, decentralised command. B-2 strikes on fixed facilities cannot suppress a doctrine built on mobility and redundancy. CENTCOM claims 17 Iranian naval vessels destroyed and Iran’s conventional air force eliminated. What it has not suppressed is the IRGC’s distributed short-range strike capacity, because that capacity was designed precisely to survive this campaign. Killing Khamenei removed the supreme decision-maker. It did not remove institutional will. Larijani’s Interim Leadership Council, announced on 1 March, confirmed what analysts feared: the succession mechanism is functioning and signalling continuity, not collapse. Real Target Was Always the Global Economy Strip away the operational detail and Iran’s strategy reduces to a single proposition. It cannot defeat Israel or the United States militarily. What it can do is make the cost of this war prohibitive for everyone else. By striking the Gulf rather than concentrating on Israel or US targets, Tehran has taken the war to the one geography where economic contagion is immediate and globally felt. Dubai going dark sends a signal that no missile hitting Tel Aviv can replicate. Gulf states are not Iran’s enemy. They are Iran’s instrument of leverage. Tehran is squeezing them to make their pain loud enough to force Washington’s hand. Trump’s contradictory signals on 1 March — simultaneously announcing Iranian negotiation outreach and claiming Iran has no navy remaining — suggest the economic pressure is already registering at the White House. GCC understands the game Iran is playing. The question is whether they can hold their nerve, sustain their defences, and resist being drawn into a military response that would finally give Iran the regional war framing it needs. That answer will determine not just this war’s outcome, but the shape of West Asia for a generation. (Rahul Pawa is an international criminal lawyer and Director of Research at the Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, New Delhi.) Share this:

China Geopolitics Policy Security United States Video War World

126

As Iran Fights the Allies, China Learns from It

China did not start this war and will not finish it. What it will do is walk away with something more valuable than victory; the data, the proof, the blueprint for the confrontation it is quietly rehearsing on the other side of the world in the western Pacific. Rahul PAWA | March 3, 2026 | x- imrahulpawa When three American F-15E Strike Eagles spiralled out of the sky over Kuwait on the night of March 1, the story that dominated headlines was one of tragic friendly fire. Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Iranian drones and ballistic missiles crisscrossing the Gulf, misidentified their own side’s aircraft in a chaotic, saturated battlespace. All six aircrew ejected safely. The jets did not survive. CENTCOM was unambiguous: friendly fire in a saturated sky, not Iranian action. Iranian state media claimed otherwise. The Pentagon held its line. But the deeper question remains: why that sky was so saturated in the first place. The answer leads not to Tehran. It leads to Beijing. China has not fired a single shot in this war. It has condemned the strikes on Tehran as violations of international law. And yet the weapons flying over the Gulf, the drones that refused to be jammed, the missiles that found their targets, the internet blackout sealing 93 million Iranians from the outside world, all rest on a technological architecture Beijing spent a decade carefully constructing. Not as charity. As a field test. This is the war behind the war. China using Iran as a live laboratory for systems it will one day need against adversaries whose weapons it is now learning to defeat. Every drone that navigates through Western jamming. Every radar that acquires a stealth aircraft. Every $20,000 drone that forces the expenditure of a $4 million Patriot interceptor. Beijing is watching, logging, and learning. The most operationally significant Chinese technology active in this conflict is BeiDou-3, China’s sovereign alternative to GPS. Following Isreal-Iran’s Twelve-Day War last year, in which GPS spoofing partially blinded Iran’s guided munitions, Iran drew a hard lesson. It formally abandoned the American system and transitioned its military navigation architecture to BeiDou. The encrypted network resists allied electronic warfare; its integrated short-message service sustains command node communication even when terrestrial infrastructure is destroyed. Iran’s 2026 missile campaign has demonstrated navigational resilience its 2025 predecessor lacked, striking targets across all six GCC states simultaneously and forcing the UAE alone to intercept 161 of 174 ballistic missiles fired at it. But BeiDou is not merely Iran’s tool. It is China’s proof of concept, a navigation system battle-hardened against the world’s most sophisticated jamming apparatus, stress-tested under real combat conditions. The telemetry flowing back to Beijing from every Iranian strike package is worth more than any simulation its engineers could run. The same scenario applies to the YLC-8B anti-stealth radar, reportedly transferred to Iran after the 2025 war. Engineered to operate on VHF frequencies that defeat radar-absorbent coatings, it addresses the defining challenge of modern air warfare: how do you acquire what your adversary designed to be invisible? Whether the YLC-8B batteries survived the opening strikes of Operation Epic Fury remains unclear, the IDF claims over 200 Iranian air defence systems destroyed. But even degraded performance data feeds directly into China’s own development cycle. Iran is the test range. The PLA is the end customer. This Chinese pattern of real-world testing was visible long before this war. Last May, during India’s Operation Sindoor strikes on terrorist and Pakistani army infrastructure, Chinese-origin PL-15 beyond-visual-range missiles and HQ-9 surface-to-air systems were active on the Pakistani side. Beijing opportunistically leveraged the conflict to test its weapons in live combat. It did not stop at data collection. The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission confirmed that China deployed fake social media accounts to circulate AI-generated imagery purporting to show debris from aircraft destroyed by Chinese weapons. A deliberate campaign to discredit India’s Rafale purchase and advance sales of China’s J-35. Chinese embassy officials reportedly persuaded Indonesia to pause a Rafale procurement already in process. Beijing said nothing publicly. It did not need to. Iran and Pakistan have become China’s two most valuable proving grounds. One tests area-denial and air defence against American and Israeli platforms. The other tests beyond-visual-range air combat against Indian platforms. China supplied roughly 82% of Pakistan’s arms imports between 2019 and 2023, it had substantial strategic investment in the outcome. Together, both theatres are delivering what no exercise can replicate: live performance data against real Western hardware. The supply chain completes the picture. On February 25, three days before the strikes began, the US Treasury sanctioned procurement networks supplying precursor chemicals and sensitive machinery to Iran’s IRGC missile and drone programmes, following 2025 designations of six Hong Kong and PRC-based entities feeding Iranian arms production. The $20,000 drones flooding the Gulf, cheap enough to force the expenditure of interceptors costing two hundred times more are products of that chain. A think tank report warned that US high-end interceptors including SM-3, PAC-3 MSE and THAAD could be depleted within days of sustained high-tempo operations. That attrition calculus is now live. Away from the battlefield, Iranian internet connectivity has collapsed to roughly 4% of normal levels. The tools enforcing that blackout bear Chinese brand names: Huawei and ZTE deep-packet-inspection platforms, Tiandy facial-recognition hardware explicitly supplying the IRGC. The function is unambiguous; seal the population off, suppress evidence of military degradation, keep the regime viable long enough to matter. Prima facie, none of this has made Iran invincible. Khamenei is dead. The IDF has conducted over 700 strike missions. What Chinese technology has done, in both theatres, is keep the fight going longer than it otherwise would have, and send data back to Beijing that no laboratory can replicate. The drones are still flying. The missiles are still navigating. The lights inside Iran are still off. And in Beijing, someone is taking very careful notes. Preparing for the western Pacific. (Rahul Pawa is an international criminal lawyer and

Bharat Cyber Security Defence Geopolitics Security Technology United States USA War

115

US Tech Stack That Took Out Khamenei and Why It Matters to India

The joint US-Israeli strike of February 28, 2026 that killed Khamenei was full-spectrum corporate warfighting; satellites, AI, cloud, autonomous swarms, and information dominance working as one lethal system. India watched. It must now evolve. Rahul PAWA | x – iamrahulpawa In the predawn hours of Saturday, February 28, 2026, something extraordinary happened in the Shemiran district of northern Tehran. Khamenei, Iran’s Leader for 37 years, the man who had survived assassinations, wars, and decades of sanctions, was killed not primarily by a bomb, but by an algorithm. The operation, codenamed Epic Fury, was the first high-level decapitation strike in military history to be substantially driven by artificial intelligence across the kill chain. By the time Israeli aircraft and American munitions found their target, Palantir’s software had fused the intelligence, Anduril’s autonomous drone swarms had penetrated Iran’s air defences, Starlink had held communications together across a contested electromagnetic environment, and Claude’s Anthropic’s AI model, deployed on classified US defence networks had processed petabytes of intercepted Persian-language communications and generated targeting scenarios that human analysts would have taken weeks to produce. Ukraine had proved that Silicon Valley could hold a frontline. Venezuela had proved it could topple a government and secure an oil state. Iran was where both lessons converged into a single, decapitating strike. Invisible Architecture of a Visible Strike When news of Khamenei’s death broke, global attention fixed on the ordnance: 200 Israeli fighter jets in the largest military flyover in Israeli Air Force history, US bunker-busters, strikes across 24 Iranian provinces. What received less coverage was the invisible architecture that made it possible. Starlink was central long before the first missile launched. The Trump administration had covertly smuggled thousands of Starlink terminals into Iran in the months prior, sustaining a communications corridor for intelligence sources inside the country even as the Iranian regime drove national internet connectivity down to 4% of normal levels. When Iranian forces shut down Starlink networks, they were confiscating the same infrastructure that was feeding real-time intelligence upstream to US planners. Satellite connectivity was not a supporting element; it was the nervous system of the operation. Palantir provided the operational software layer; sensor fusion, targeting architecture, and the command-and-control framework that translated intelligence into actionable strike packages. Its Lattice system enabled autonomous drone swarms to communicate threat data laterally: when Iranian air-defence radar locked onto one drone, the entire swarm adapted, dispatching subgroups for electronic deception and anti-radiation strikes in real time. This is software-driven warfare weapons that are, as defence-tech investors now openly describe them, “code wrapped in aluminium shells.” Anduril’s YFQ-44A drones, operating through Hivemind AI pilots capable of executing complex missions without GPS, satellite communication, or human operators, demonstrated capabilities that rendered Iran’s hardware-centric air defences clumsy against algorithmic iteration. Shield AI’s autonomous systems operated in environments where traditional military drones would have been jammed and blinded. Amazon Web Services provided the cloud backbone, data continuity, logistics support, and the secure infrastructure that kept coalition planning intact against Iranian cyber-retaliation, which simultaneously targeted US military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. Anthropic’s Claude AI, which had already proven itself in Venezuela processing intelligence, mapping command chains, and generating scenario simulations that compressed weeks of human analysis into hours, ran the same playbook on Iran, this time trawling Persian communications and mapping fractures in the Revolutionary Guard’s targeting structure. Trump banned Anthropic the day before the strikes. US Central Command used Claude anyway, through Palantir and AWS, as bombs fell on Tehran. The corporate stack had become so load-bearing that a presidential order could not sever it mid-operation. It was not peripheral to American military power. It was the operation. From Sindoor to Stack For Indian strategic planners watching the war in West Asia unfold, the lesson is not comfortable. India has pieces of this architecture. It does not have the stack. India’s defence-industrial base is strongest where the old model still dominates: physical production. Native manufacturing capability is real, and Atmanirbhar Bharat has added momentum. But industrial production is the bottom layer of the stack US operation in West Asia demonstrated. Everything above it; connectivity, cloud, AI, autonomous systems, information operations is where India’s ambition is still catching up with requirement. India is building a commercial space sector, with domestic satellite launches accelerating and a small but growing constellation in development. It is not yet capable of blanketing a contested theatre with resilient satcom, let alone covertly sustaining intelligence networks inside an adversary state but the foundation is being laid. In operational software and autonomous systems, an iDEX-incubated startup ecosystem is producing native drones and ISR platforms, promising early capability, not yet embedded in classified pipelines at wartime depth. In frontier AI, India has launched sovereign large language model initiatives and is developing government-facing AI infrastructure but the institutional pathway from commercial deployment to classified defence integration remains nascent. In the information domain, digital public infrastructure is maturing, though platform-level influence at global strategic scale remains beyond reach. Iran’s near-total internet blackout could not sever the intelligence flow because a commercial satellite alternative existed. India is working toward equivalent resilience. However, it is not there yet. The operation that killed Khamenei was not a triumph of numbers. Iran was never going to match US and Israeli firepower. It was a triumph of the stack; satellites, AI, autonomous systems, cloud, and information dominance mobilised as one unified architecture. India already knows this, because it has lived it. Operation Sindoor 2025 was India’s own inflection point. AI fused multi-source battlefield data in real time. Native electronic intelligence software evolved mid-operation to pinpoint and rank threats. Over 600 drones were defeated in a single wave. Loitering munitions and FPV strike drones executed precision hits on high-value targets. The instinct was right. The native capability was real. But Sindoor also exposed the distance still to travel. The stack America deployed over Tehran was embedded in doctrine. India’s is battle-proven but not yet fully built. India need not replicate America’s model. But the underlying

Bharat Defence Economy Geopolitics Policy Security United States USA War World

Bharat May Brace Up for Post-War Economic Impact

Currency, oil, bullion, commodities markets volatility, contraction in consumption demand, disruption in supply chain, uncertainty on external front may be felt in medium term across geographies. K.A.Badarinath None can vouch for global economic certainty in medium term given about half a dozen conflicts happening simultaneously. Most of them are bloody and involve loss in large number of human lives, property, infrastructure and stunting military capabilities. While Russia – Ukraine conflict has done four years and there’s no sign of end coming anytime soon, several analysts have reason to believe that Iran, US – Israel war may continue for quite a while with ripple effect. Refrain in most circles is that US will not have a cake walk in meeting its avowedly stated objective of change in regime run by the religious leadership with political authority since the revolution of 1979 in Iran. It’s not like paying off the security apparatus, walking into Venezuelan President’s home on January 3, 2026 and bundling off the incumbent head of the state Nicholas Maduro and fly him off to an unknown destination. US must have prepared itself for a long haul given the kind of naval mobilization it has done around Iran in conjunction with Israel’s leadership led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Stated objective of both US and Israel is to deny Iran the capability to produce nuclear arsenal and redraw power equations in West Asia thereby trimming the Russia – China axis in the region. Other theory is that President Trump and his Republican ‘A’ team running the White House was after huge hydrocarbon reserves that Iran holds with its oil wealth exceeding 157 billion barrels. It’s also to secure complete authority on movement of commercial and naval ships in the narrow lanes of Gulf of Hormuz. Quixotic President Trump seems to have tasted blood by taking control of Venezuelan oil industry for American deep state and its cohorts. Even if high pitched, technology driven war comes to a close in couple of weeks – twelve days it took to end the conflict between Iran and Israel during June 13 – 26 last year – repercussions will be for the entire humanity to be felt while it’s become a virtual mute spectator as of now. Though some countries in Europe have threatened to join the bloody war, others have mostly been watching destruction of city after city in entire West Asia including Israel from side lines as of now. Especially after reported death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the war has spread its destructive tentacles across West Asia thereby bringing entire air travel, common waterways, ports, airports and transport infrastructure to a virtual standstill. Over last two days alone over 2000 flights in the region were impacted due to the war. Travel on roads, rail and waterways network has become insecure and unpredictable with missiles flying across zones. Hospitality industry has been halted. Commercial enterprises dealing with goods and services across the region have been impacted big time. Millions of professionals running commercial enterprises in the region have suddenly become vulnerable and restless. Even as painful process of electing a new supreme leader supported by three member council in Iran got into motion, there seems to be no let-up in bombardments by US and Israel while Shia leadership of Iran retaliated with large bouquet of missiles targeting half a dozen capitals, ports and airports apart from energy facilities in eleven countries. Oil markets with epicentre in West Asia have fluctuated wildly with Brent crude quoted at US $ 78.72 – 81 in the spot market on Monday, cargo insurance risks hitting the roof. Currency markets also experienced huge fluctuations given that financial capital in West Asia, Dubai came under missiles attack from Iran. For instance the green buck was quoted at 91.45 apiece against Indian rupee on Monday as markets opened for nervous trading across the region. From Indian perspective, alarm bells on possible economic impact are yet to ring in. Currency and oil markets fluctuations may not make adverse impact on Bharat’s economy with the financial year closing this month end. Given that the country holds over 74-days strategic and commercial crude reserves, oil prices crossing US $ 80 per barrel may not be felt big. Reports and independent analysts hint that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had factored oil prices of US $ 60 – 62 per barrel when she presented her federal budget on March 1. In case, volatility in both spot market and long term crude contracts persisted, India would feel the heat in medium term. Given its huge import dependency in crude, the country will have to cough up an additional US $ one billion against every dollar hike in oil prices. Thankfully, Bharat’s economy has the resilience to absorb temporary shocks in oil and currency markets as fall out of bloody confrontation in West Asia, Russia – Ukraine and Afghanistan – Pakistan. Given increasing future premiums on cargo movement, currency swaps and oil going forward, combined impact of wars are likely to reflect in medium term. As the federal borrowings were much below budgeted Rs 14.82 lakh crore, bountiful goods and services tax (GST) collection of Rs 1.83 – 1.93 lakh crore each month, Narendra Modi government is on top of the situation to overcome combined impact of wars at least for next two quarters. Also, since federal expenses were much within the budgeted Rs 50.65 lakh crore and even if last two months (February – March 2026) spending rush was experienced, macro-economic numbers may not go haywire. During April 2025 – January 2026, federal expenditure has not crossed Rs 36.90 lakh crore. Weakest link in managing aftermath of wars would be external trade sector where export of services and merchandise goods may face uncertainty with sentiment being very low, demand contraction for consumption and payment crises looming large. A part of demand contraction can be made up by India’s infrastructure majors that could tango with international partners to strike post-war reconstruction deals spilling over billions

Bharat Defence Security Technology

VSHORADS Delivers India Its Own Aerial Firepower

Three flawless trials at Chandipur signal that India’s last line of aerial defence is no longer foreign. Rahul PAWA | x – iamrahulpawa On the evening of 27 February 2026, along the windswept test ranges of Chandipur on Odisha’s coastline, India wrote a new chapter in its quest for aerial self-reliance. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) conducted three successive, flawless flight trials of the Very Short-Range Air Defence System or VSHORADS, a fourth-generation Man-Portable Air Defence System (MANPAD) that has been years in the making. The results were unambiguous: a 100% interception rate against fast-moving aerial targets that mimicked the full spectrum of modern aerial threats. What made these trials extraordinary was not simply the precision of the kills, but the conditions under which they were achieved. For the first time, the system was operated not by DRDO scientists in lab coats, but by soldiers who will one day carry this very weapon into India’s most hostile frontiers. Targets were engaged at varying speeds, ranges, and altitudes, including aerial vehicles engineered to simulate the low thermal signatures of the surveillance and kamikaze drones that have fundamentally altered modern warfare from Ukraine to the Middle East. Technology Inside the Tube To appreciate why VSHORADS matters, one must understand what sets it apart, not just from the Russian Igla-M systems it is designed to replace, but from the world’s most battle-proven MANPADs. The American FIM-92 Stinger, for all its combat pedigree from Afghanistan to Ukraine, requires a coolant gas cylinder to chill its seeker head before firing, adding weight, complexity, and critical seconds to the launch sequence. The British Starstreak, while blindingly fast at Mach 3+, demands a highly trained operator to guide it manually onto the target, making it unforgiving under battlefield stress. VSHORADS sidesteps both limitations. At its heart sits an uncooled Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker that needs no gas kit and no operator hand-holding. It locks, it fires, it hunts. Where the Stinger and the Igla-M track a point of heat and can be fooled by a magnesium flare, the IIR seeker builds a high-resolution thermal picture of its target. A jet engine looks nothing like a burning flare in thermal resolution, and VSHORADS knows the difference. The system further incorporates a miniaturised Reaction Control System (RCS), using small directional thrusters rather than fins alone to change course mid-flight, granting it the agility to chase a drone executing a sudden corkscrew or a cruise missile hugging a valley floor. Combined with dual-thrust solid propulsion, it keeps pace with whatever the modern battlefield throws at it. Engineered for India’s Terrain Unlike Western or Russian systems designed primarily for European plains or desert theatres, VSHORADS has been engineered from the outset to function in India’s uniquely demanding environments. Himalayas present challenges that most military hardware simply was not designed to overcome: oxygen-thin air that degrades aerodynamic control, sub-zero temperatures that drain batteries and fog optical seekers, and rugged mountain passes where a soldier must carry everything on their back. DRDO has hardened the electronics, optimised the battery systems, and ensured the seeker functions without the coolant gas cylinders that legacy MANPADs require. In Ladakh, where a soldier cannot afford to carry extra weight, that elimination of the coolant bottle is a logistical blessing. The system can be shoulder-fired, tripod-mounted, or integrated onto vehicles, giving commanders tactical flexibility across mountainous, desert, and maritime environments. With an operational range of approximately six to seven kilometres, it comfortably outreaches the American FIM-92 Stinger and is competitive with the Igla-S, while offering superior guidance technology against modern threats. The Strategic Picture: Mission Sudarshan Chakra The February trials are the final milestone before full induction. Production has been assigned and the Indian Army placed an initial procurement order in June 2025. The Ministry of Defence has already issued a Request for Proposal for a next-generation VSHORADS-NG variant, signalling confidence that this platform will evolve with the threat landscape for decades to come. VSHORADS is a cornerstone of Mission Sudarshan Chakra. India’s ambitious roadmap to build native “Iron Dome” style, multi-layered air defence network by 2035. Named after the discus of Hindu deity Vishnu, the mission envisions an unbroken, spinning shield over Indian territory, from the highest Himalayan ridgelines to the coastal perimeter. Within this architecture, VSHORADS fills the most dangerous gap, the first 10,000 feet of airspace, where radar coverage is patchy, and response windows are measured in seconds. Alongside the Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missile (QRSAM) for mid-range threats and emerging laser-based directed energy weapons for close-in interception, VSHORADS forms the innermost and most mobile ring of the shield. The successful trials at Chandipur are proof of concept that Indian ambition, when given the time and resources to mature, can produce systems that stand at the global technological frontier. India’s skies, from the frozen passes of Ladakh to the mangrove coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, will soon be guarded by a weapon born entirely on Indian soil. When VSHORADS finally takes its place in the inventory, it will represent far more than a missile, it will be the outermost blade of the Sudarshan Chakra, finally spinning. (Rahul Pawa is an international public lawyer and Director of Research at the Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, New Delhi.)

Bharat Defence Economy Geopolitics International Policy Politics Security Technology Trade

Narendra Modi in Israel: Friendship Reborn

Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Israel goes beyond symbolism. Substantive outcomes may lead to redrawing alliances in West Asia. Paushali Lass For decades, India and Israel were close yet cautious partners, working behind the scenes. This week, that changed. Prime Minister Modi’s visit did more than make history. It marked dawn of “Special Strategic Partnership,” a status Israel reserves for select nations. Historic Embrace: Modi at Knesset During his address to Knesset, Modi spoke with clarity and warmth, praising shared democratic values and civilizational bonds between India and Israel. Members of parliament took selfies, posted on social media, visibly enthusiastic. Modi was not merely welcomed; he was embraced. In recognition of his leadership in deepening India–Israel ties, he was bestowed Speaker of the Knesset Medal, a historic first. The award was not just a personal accolade but public affirmation of renewed strategic friendship, reflecting trust, shared values and civilizational bonds that his visit celebrated[1]. For many Israelis, this was the moment India stepped out from behind diplomatic caution and said simply: we are friends. Modi invoked deep historical ties, highlighting that India has been part of Jewish story for millennia. He reminded the Knesset that Jews found refuge in India long before modern states existed, citing the story of Queen Esther in Bible and mentions of India in Talmudic texts[2]. Modi made a powerful, unequivocal statement condemning barbaric acts of Hamas, supporting Israel without ifs or buts. For many Israelis, this clarity of friendship was unprecedented. Sharp criticism at home from certain quarters questioned how an Indian Prime Minister could visit Israel at a time when allegations of genocide in Gaza loomed large. But, Modi proceeded and made a bold declaration of solidarity. He not only condemned the atrocities committed by Hamas as acts of ‘terror’ but also expressed profound grief over loss of innocent lives on October 7, 2023. Interestingly, Modi highlighted a deeper point that may help explain the particular affinity between India and Israel from perspective of ancient civilization and culture. Although India, a majority-Hindu nation and Israel, a majority-Jewish state, may appear to have fundamentally different faith systems, there exists a philosophical thread that binds the two peoples more closely than one might assume. Modi drew parallels between Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam (repairing and healing the world) and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the ancient Sanskrit declaration that world is one family. These deep-rooted philosophical traditions of both nations should not be underestimated. They offer precisely the kind of moral and spiritual foundation the world needs today as it seeks to promote global security and combat terrorism. After all, the world cannot be made a better place through political and economic deals alone; spiritual dimensions of these ancient civilizations must also be recognized and strengthened. The two-day visit was especially meaningful for Indian Jewish community. Prime Minister Modi met Indian Jewish community, creating a historic and emotional connect. Revital Moses[3], who dedicated herself to strengthening India–Israel cultural ties described the experience as “surreal”, meeting a leader she had grown up watching on television, whose vision she had admired for decades. The visit carried deep symbolic weight. Modi took out time to be at Yad Vashem and paid tributes to Holocaust victims, highlighting shared commitment to humanity. What many may not be aware of is that India gave refuge to Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust during World War II. Modi also held a private meeting with President Herzog who thanked him for India’s unwavering support and friendship towards Israel. Something that surprised many and instantly went viral was Modi’s meeting with immensely popular stars of Israeli TV series Fauda, celebrating creative talent that has become one of Israel’s global cultural exports. He engaged with Israel’s innovation leaders in a special tech forum, reflecting the cutting-edge technological landscape of the country. And then there were visuals that linger: Indian flags waving on Jerusalem streets. This is a profoundly moving sight. Agreements to Action: Strategic Partnership Modi’s visit translated goodwill into action. Together with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he oversaw signing of sixteen major agreements (Memorandum of Understanding) covering defence, technology, trade, agriculture, finance and people-to-people engagement. Highlights include: In short, it was more than a diplomatic exercise. It was roadmap for peace, innovation and prosperity, built on mutual trust, democratic values and complementary capabilities. Beyond MoUs and agreements, the visit signals a strong social and economic agreement: businesses, innovators, cultural leaders and citizens on both sides are invited into the partnership, encouraged to collaborate and recognised as part of the strategic equation. This public acknowledgement of friendship between the two nations also gives fresh momentum for private sector businesses to collaborate more actively, while also encouraging deeper people-to-people engagement, allowing citizens to explore and appreciate each other’s cultures. Geopolitical Implications: New Alignment Indian Prime Minister’s open friendship with Israel, warm reception he received across political spectrum, his huge popularity among Israelis and unequivocal condemnation of Hamas terror, not only deepens strategic and civilisational ties with Israel but invoked anger among adversaries. This partnership indicated a potential broader regional alignment with Greece, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Somaliland as counterweight to Turkey, Pakistan and Iran line up.The latter countries havea proven record of destabilizing Middle East and Indian subcontinent that are now sharpening their capabilities to challenge this emerging alliance. Consolidation of these partnerships is a significant shift in regional geopolitics, reflecting shared security priorities, mutual economic interests and concerted effort to safeguard stability and counter terrorism. Beyond defence and technology deals, what strikes the most is subtle but profound shift in how Israeli society is responding to relationship with India. Modi’s unequivocal acknowledgment of October 7 massacre has touched hearts of Israelis like few other world leaders’ speeches ever have. What truly sets this visit apart is that Modi has won hearts, from top leadership to regular Israelis on the street. (Paushali Lass is an India-born intercultural educator, writer and international speaker based in Germany. She authored Tasting Faith: Jews of India and works to build cultural and business bridges between Israel,

Bharat Canada Disinformation Geopolitics Hindus Human Rights Pakistan Security

118

Did SOAS Institutionalise Hinduphobia on behalf of George Soros?

The Leicester unrest of 2022 generated a crowded and contested reporting ecosystem. By the time the SOAS commission published Better Together: Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester in February 2026, the evidential field already included rapid-response briefs, computational forensic analysis, fact-finding reports, media investigations, and an ongoing UK government-commissioned review. The key analytic question, therefore, is not whether the SOAS report entered a vacuum. It did not. The real question is whether it fairly integrated the prior evidential landscape, or whether it reorganised that landscape through a pre-set ideological frame. Across the pre-2026 reporting ecosystem, a striking convergence is visible. Reports issued by CIHS, NCRI, CRT/Charlotte Littlewood, and CDPHR differ in method, tone, and institutional location, yet they repeatedly arrive at two common findings. First, disinformation and influencer amplification were not incidental features of the Leicester violence; they were causal drivers in escalating tensions, shaping perceptions, and mobilising individuals towards real-world confrontation. Secondly, Hindus were not merely one community among many caught in a diffuse breakdown of cohesion. They were, in significant respects, targets of online incitement, doxxing, false attribution, intimidation, and attacks on property and religious symbols, much of which these reports attribute to Islamist factions and allied misinformation ecosystems operating in and around Leicester. This matters because media gatekeeping failed at a critical moment. The prior reports, especially NCRI, CIHS, and CRT, converge on the claim that unverified influencer narratives were elevated into mainstream discourse without sufficient due diligence. In that environment, misinformation ceased to be rhetorical noise and became operationally consequential. False claims about “RSS terrorists”, “Hindutva thugs”, or organised Hindu extremism were not simply descriptive errors; they shaped how violence was interpreted, whom authorities and media treated with suspicion, and which communities were left exposed. The result was not neutral confusion, but a reputational inversion in which Hindu victims could be reframed as presumptive aggressors. It is against that background that the SOAS commission report must be read. The report adopts the formal language of inquiry, relies on mixed methods, and includes an express statement that Open Society Foundations had no influence over its methods or findings. Yet the report was privately funded, publicly linked to a reported £620,000 OSF grant, and conducted in parallel with an already existing UK government review. In a politically charged communal context, that institutional configuration was always likely to attract scrutiny. Even if one accepts the non-interference disclaimer at face value, such statements do not settle the deeper question of whether funding relationships, institutional culture, or ideological priors shaped the report’s framing, priorities, and recommendations. The central criticism advanced in this paper is not that the SOAS report contains no useful material. On the contrary, its own descriptive sections document anti-Hindu harm in serious terms, including intimidation, attacks in Hindu neighbourhoods, and the Shivalaya Mandir incident. The problem lies elsewhere: in the report’s interpretive and policy architecture. While acknowledging anti-Hindu targeting and admitting verification limits around some claims concerning alleged Hindutva-linked organisational involvement, the report nonetheless elevates “Hindutva extremism” into the principal prescriptive concern. In doing so, it produces a structure in which Hindus are descriptively recognised as having suffered harm, yet prescriptively positioned as the primary object of suspicion and institutional management. That asymmetry is the report’s most serious flaw. A report can document harm accurately and still institutionalise bias through the categories it privileges and the remedies it recommends. In the Leicester case, the cumulative evidential landscape pointed first towards protection: countering disinformation, recognising anti-Hindu prejudice, scrutinising Islamist mobilisation, and repairing failures of media and civic response. The SOAS commission instead shifts the centre of gravity toward the ideological containment of “Hindutva”. That is not a neutral synthesis of the evidence. It is a policy reorientation with downstream consequences for safeguarding, public discourse, community recognition, and the equal treatment of Hindus in Britain. This report therefore proceeds from a narrow but important contention: the SOAS commission should not be assessed only by what it says, but by what it does institutionally. Read against the wider evidential record, it raises a serious question as to whether a privately funded, politically salient inquiry helped recast a pattern of anti-Hindu victimisation into an official-sounding framework of Hindu suspicion. If so, the issue is larger than one report. It is whether elite institutions, media ecosystems, and donor-linked inquiry structures together contributed to the normalisation of a one-sided narrative of Leicester—one with damaging implications for public trust, social cohesion, and the recognition of Hinduphobia in the United Kingdom. Prior reports and what they establish The pre-2026 report ecosystem is largely overlapping. It contains briefs, computational forensics, and fact-finding studies. The correct analytic method is to compare what each report credibly establishes, given its methods, and then evaluate whether the SOAS commission report fairly integrates that evidential landscape or reorganises it into a pre-set ideological frame. The Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS), an independent Delhi-based think tank issued rapid-response briefs in September 2022. Its Leicester briefs highlights that organised Islamist entities and individuals targeted Leicester’s Hindu population and that over fifty Hindu properties and vehicles were damaged in targeted attacks; it further records that Leicester police refuted the kidnapping narrative, and it names Majid Freeman as a prominent misinformation disseminator. CIHS reports there after have been tested against the computational and police-referenced work in NCRI and CDPHR. The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) report is the most technologically explicit computational study. It describes multi-platform data collection and applies machine learning, natural language processing, network analysis and OSINT to build a timeline of malicious narratives and mobilisation patterns. Its headline figures include that AI models detected calls for violent action on Twitter during the Leicester events, with 70% of those calls directed against Hindus and 30% against Muslims. Crucially, NCRI also states that disinformation about Hindus as “bloodthirsty and genocidal” motivated attacks by recruiting online reinforcements to real-world engagements, and it explicitly criticises mainstream outlets for failing due diligence and amplifying Majid Freeman as a “central agitator”. This is not an aesthetic

Afghanistan Geopolitics Pakistan Security Terrorism United States War

Pakistan’s War of Its Own Making: Durand Line, Pashtun Identity, and Terrorist Blowback

How a colonial boundary drawn in 1893 planted the seeds of war that now threatens to engulf the entire region and why Pakistan is its own worst enemy. Rahul PAWA | x – iamrahulpawa On February 26, 2026, Pakistani jets struck targets in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost provinces. Kabul retaliated. Islamabad declared open war. The international community scrambled for its talking points. But for anyone who has studied the Afghanistan-Pakistan relationship with any intellectual honesty, there was nothing surprising about this moment. It was, in every sense, inevitable, the product of a colonial wound never properly healed, an ethnic identity never properly reconciled, and a strategic miscalculation of historic proportions that Pakistan inflicted upon itself In November 1893, British civil servant Sir Mortimer Durand sat across a table from Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and drew a line across a map. That line, 2,670 kilometres of mountain, desert, and river became the Durand Line, and it bisected the Pashtun tribal homeland with surgical indifference to the people who lived there. It was a colonial instrument of administrative convenience, not a meaningful border between two nations. When Pakistan was carved out of British India in 1947, it inherited the Durand Line as its western frontier. Afghanistan refused to accept it. Kabul was, in fact, the only country in the world to vote against Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations that year, a remarkable act of diplomatic hostility toward a nation barely days old, driven entirely by the conviction that Pakistan had absorbed Pashtun lands that had no business being part of a new Muslim state in the subcontinent. Every Afghan government since; monarchy, communist, mujahideen, the first Taliban, the Western-backed republic, and now the second Taliban has refused to formally recognise the Durand Line as an international border. Pakistan has spent 75 years insisting the matter is settled. It is not settled. It has never been settled. And that unresolved dispute is the tectonic fault line beneath everything that has erupted in 2026. Fifty Million People Who Refuse to Be a Border Roughly 50 million Pashtuns live across both sides of the Durand Line. They share language, tribe, genealogy, and code, the ancient honour system of Pashtunwali that governs loyalty, hospitality, and revenge in equal measure. To a Pashtun tribesman in Waziristan, the line on Pakistan’s map means little when his cousin lives in Khost. Cross-border movement, cross-border marriage, and cross-border allegiance are not insurgent behaviour. They are culture. Pakistan’s military establishment has never fully grasped or chosen to accept this reality. Its periodic attempts to fence and fortify the border, most aggressively from 2017 onward, have been met with fierce resistance from tribal communities that view the fence not as a security measure but as a colonial imposition. Skirmishes between Pakistani border forces and Afghan fighters over the fence are practically routine. The current war did not materialise from a vacuum; it escalated from a slow-burning conflict that has been claiming lives along the Durand Line for years. The Monster Pakistan Built To understand how Pakistan arrived at this catastrophic juncture, one must understand the doctrine of “strategic depth.” Pakistan’s generals, perpetually preoccupied with the Indian infatuation on their eastern border, became obsessed with ensuring that Afghanistan would never side with India, or worse, open a second front. The solution, as conceived by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) through the 1970s and 1980s, was to cultivate a network of jihadist proxies in Afghanistan that Islamabad could control and deploy. The Afghan mujahideen. The Taliban. Assorted terrorist networks that moved through Pakistan’s tribal areas with impunity. The Taliban of 1994 were, in significant measure, a Pakistani creation. The ISI funded them, armed them, and provided the political scaffolding that allowed them to sweep to power in Kabul in 1996. For five years, Pakistan had the compliant Afghan government it had always wanted. Then came 11 September. Under intense American pressure, and out of greed for US dollars, Islamabad was forced to publicly disavow the very asset it had spent two decades cultivating. What followed was perhaps the most cynical double game in modern geopolitical history. Pakistan publicly cooperated with the American-led war on terror while elements of its intelligence apparatus continued to shelter, fund, and facilitate the Taliban through two decades of conflict. Safe houses in Quetta. Sanctuaries in Baluchistan. The Haqqani network operating from Pakistani soil. American generals and CIA directors said it in public, in congressional testimony, with barely concealed rage. Pakistan denied everything, pocketed billions in American aid, and continued. Blowback: The Reckoning When the Americans abandoned Afghanistan in August 2021 and the Taliban swept back into Kabul, General Faiz Hameed, Pakistan’s former ISI chief, was famously photographed sipping tea at Kabul’s Serena Hotel. But Pakistan had not fully reckoned with what came next: the Afghan Taliban, now rulers rather than stateless militias, showed little appetite for serving as Pakistan’s instrument. They had decided long ago to govern as Afghans and think as Pashtuns. And they have shown no meaningful inclination to police their eastern border on Islamabad’s behalf particularly not against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban known as TTP. The TTP is, in ideological and genealogical terms, indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban. They share theology, ethnic identity, and in many cases, blood. The Afghan Taliban’s refusal to launch operations against TTP is not weakness or negligence, it is a deliberate choice rooted in Pashtun solidarity. Pakistan created the militant infrastructure that spawned the TTP. It nurtured the ideology that animates them. It is now being consumed by the very forces it engineered, and it wants the Taliban to solve a problem that Pakistan itself created. That is blowback in its purest form. TTP has killed thousands of Pakistani soldiers since 2007. It has Pakistani military installations. Pakistan has responded by demanding the Afghan Taliban act, and when they don’t, by launching airstrikes into Afghan territory. Those airstrikes kill civilians. They inflame Pashtun sentiment on both sides of the Durand Line. They validate every Afghan suspicion

Bharat Business Defence International Policy Security Technology Trade

129

Israel, Bharat Tango: Hope for Future

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Jerusalem would take bilateral relations to next level, expand engagement on security, technology. Paushali Lass Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel on February 25-26 is not a ceremonial by any stretch of imagination. It is a strategic engagement focused on defence alignments, long-range missile collaboration and technology integration vital for a country facing challenges on multiple fronts. India faces a complex security environment from cross-border terrorism to proliferation of precision-guided weapons. Prime Minister Modi’s visit is an effort to deepen cooperation in missile defence systems, drones, AI-enabled systems and integrated surveillance, reflecting a partnership grounded in operational experience and strategic foresight. Beyond defence, the engagement strengthens technological collaboration, economic growth and opens the door for people-to-people exchange. Strategic synergy beyond procurement Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s itinerary includes an address at the Knesset, participate in an innovation forum congregation at Jerusalem and pay respects at Yad Vashem. It highlights three pillars of India‑Israel relations: political trust, technological cooperation and shared understanding of existential threats. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has noted, the partnership has evolved beyond trade calling Indian Prime Minister a “dear friend” with the two countries increasingly co-developing capabilities that will shape future security. For decades, India relied on importing military platforms from several sources including Israel. Today, under framework of Atmanirbhar Bharat, India’s initiative for self-reliance and domestic capacity building, the focus is on integration, co-development, and locally scaling up. Israeli expertise in missile defence, surveillance, drones, cyber systems and AI aligns with India’s modernisation goals. The aim is not dependence but absorption, embedding Israeli know-how into Indian-built systems so that the capability multiplies across country’s industrial base. The scale of India’s ambition is reflected in its defence spending. With an allocation of ₹7.85 lakh crores (roughly $94 billion) in 2026-27 budget, the country is signaling a decisive pivot toward intelligent systems rather than standard, ready-made solutions. Israeli defence technology firms hold a distinct advantage for India: they are not merely manufacturers of hardware but providers of battle-proven operational expertise. As India seeks to integrate artificial intelligence across land, air, sea, and underwater domains, Israeli software embedded within Indian manufacturing offers a pragmatic and scalable solution. Joint research centres and co-development hubs expected from this visit could accelerate precisely this process, enabling India to deploy these systems domestically at scale rather than import in fragments. Timing of Modi’s visit to Israel after eight years is also crucial. Pakistan continues to expand missile and drone capabilities often supported by Chinese and Turkish systems. Turkey’s alliance with nuclear-armed Pakistan, combined with its regional expansionist ambitions, poses a strategic challenge to both Israel and India, making closer collaboration between the two essential. Moreover, low-cost unmanned platforms and precision-guided munitions are proliferating globally, reshaping warfare. Traditional measures such as troop numbers or heavy armour matter less than integrated air defence, rapid detection, and automated response. India’s Mission Sudarshan Chakra and similar initiatives illustrate this transformation. Israel’s systems, refined through decades of real-world threats, offer India operational lessons it cannot afford to ignore. Visit Not Without Critics Modi’s engagement with Israel has drawn criticism at home, largely framed in moral terms. Some opponents characterise closer ties as complicity citing alleged genocide in Gaza. As someone who has been to Israel multiple times since the start of Gaza war and witnessed the impact of terrorism first-hand in Israel, such claims deserve scrutiny, not simple slogans. Gaza conflict began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, killing Israelis and also foreign workers. Hamas embeds fighters in dense civilian areas and its charter openly calls for Israel’s destruction. Civilian casualties in urban warfare are tragic but do not constitute genocide. Israel’s military targets an armed organisation that deliberately shields itself with civilians. Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza could have turned its vast network of terror tunnels into bomb shelters but did not. Meanwhile, Israel invests heavily in Iron Dome technology and shelters, ensuring its citizens survived relentless Hamas and Hezbollah attacks since October 2023. A nation that prioritises human life is exactly the kind of partner India should engage with. Interest over Ideology India must anchor foreign policy in national interest and not on slogans. Our country has endured cross-border terrorism and asymmetric warfare for decades. We understand importance of protecting civilians while confronting non-state actors embedded among them. Israel’s lessons, defending cities, protecting infrastructure and responding to missile and drone saturation are directly relevant to India. Strategic partnerships exist to ensure security and survival, not to serve as moral litmus tests, often based on one-sided narratives. India-Israel relationship extends beyond defence. Both nations are diverse democracies thriving on innovation and cooperation in agriculture, water management, cyber security and start-ups demonstrates how complementary the ecosystems are. Deep engagement offers military, economic, and scientific dividends, and even opens doors for people-to-people interactions. A Hopeful Future For me, Modi’s visit is just the beginning of something much bigger. It signals continuity in strategic thinking and offers the possibility of a deeper connection between our peoples. Beyond missiles and AI systems, Indians and Israelis can see each other, travel, meet and engage directly, moving beyond defence deals. We share more than we think, civilisational roots, cultural diversity and commitment to pluralistic societies. This human dimension of diplomacy is as important as defence and technology. Strategic alignment and civilisational exchange can go hand in hand. A future when citizens of both nations recognise and appreciate each other’s societies, discover despite differences, we share more in common than is often assumed, in culture, history and the richness of diversity. (Paushali Lass is an India-born intercultural educator, writer and international speaker based in Germany. She authored Tasting Faith: Jews of India and works to build cultural and business bridges between Israel, Germany and India) Reference:

Bharat Business Economy Geopolitics International Policy Politics Trade United States USA

Trump, Tariffs & Tumult

Uncertainty in global trade got new lease of life with US President Trump insisting on weaponising tariffs with no signs of easing down. K.A.Badarinath President Donald Trump is going bonkers. Tariffs or weapons of mass destruction, it makes no difference to him or the Republican White House that he runs. It’s with the same vigour that deadly arms to different parts of the world are supplied or sold, tariffs slapped or reviewed. In one of my earlier write ups, I did say that Donald Trump would be one of the ‘biggest disruptor’ of global order, be it geo-political, economic and trade relations. This has been proved beyond doubt in recent days. US Supreme Court order of last week may have been just a few hours of pause on weaponised tariffs that’s central to Donald Trump’s economic policy formulation. In those few hours, he switched statutes, juggled acts, related provisions and then slapped 15 per cent import tariffs on each and every country that America trades with, be it an ally or a foe. Well, reciprocal tariff regime of President Trump under his emergency economic powers may have ended. But then, he opened another line to slap tariffs for 150 days pending approval from US Congress. Even as new tariff regime comes into operation beginning Tuesday that are over and above most favoured nations (MFN) duties, uncertainty in global trade continues to reign supreme with nations’ capital across seven seas trying to make sense of the new tariffs, their future and what’s in store for each one of them. By weaponizing tariffs to force both allies and enemies alike into submission, Donald Trump opened a new untested model of building relationships. In the process, President Trump has addressed his domestic white core political constituency who perceive him as a ‘decisive leader’ who’s just going about his job of governing America. From provisions relating to balance of payments, discrimination against American interests to several substantive clauses of Trade Acts in US may be invoked by President Trump to carry forward what he describes as part of his campaign to Make America Great Again (MAGA). President Trump is going gaga to leave his imprint on America’s governance come what may. He shows no signs of backing off any time now. But, what essentially happens is that period of uncertainty would extend, most countries will use this timeframe to recalibrate to redefine their negotiation strategy. While China is better off as it secured one-year negotiation time to sign upon a new trade deal, Bharat has kept its options open and may need more fresh air in the room before a pact is clinched with Washington DC. Now, the proposed18 per cent reciprocal duty to be part of free trade agreement with US becomes infructuous as use of International Economic Emergency powers have been struck down by US Supreme Court. Fresh negotiations for a deal between Bharat and US seem inevitable at much below 18 per cent impost though President Trump continues to insist that nothing has changed for Bharat. Postponing current round of negotiations on FTA for a later date would work well for both India and US as Washington DC. Secondly, keeping all options open would work in best interest of Bharat and its 1.4 billion citizens. Reworking the entire deal with US in totem over next six months is not a bad idea with ‘strategic autonomy’ being central to engagement. In this context, taking a common approach on US tariffs with like-minded partners as suggested by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva may be explored. Building blocks or unions against America may not be an option for Bharat though the visiting President Lula has postulated such a strategy. Similarly, putting a full stop to purchase of oil and gas from Russia cannot be an option as Bharat continues to diversify its energy basket, sources and undertakes rework of energy matrix. Diversifying its markets for selling its goods and services beyond European Union should be seriously considered by Bharat’s negotiators. Speciality minerals deal with Brazil is a fine example like the ‘strategic relations’ entered into France is unique and specific to Bharat. Similarly, arriving at a working understanding with China be seriously considered notwithstanding the aggressions, transgressions made by the people’s liberation army on the borders. Containing border conflicts, China giving up its falsified claims in Indo-Pacific should be integral to the working arrangement with Beijing. Thirdly, Bharat should aggressively play the role of a peacenik in conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Israel & Iran apart from taking an aggressive ‘zero tolerance’ posture against radicalism, religious terror and overseas interferences on the sly. Fourthly, achieving a fine balance in our global engagement in the medium to long term to safeguard Bharat’s security interests that are non-negotiable should be the objective. Republican or Democratic White House is no patronizing friend of Bharat. Bharat must safeguard her own interests. (Author is a veteran journalist, writer & blogger, director & chief executive at non-partisan New Delhi based think-tank, Centre for Integrated & Holistic Studies)

Blog Post