Guest Column International Policy Security

Bali Jatra Reflects Bharat’s Maritime Prowess

India and Southeast Asia share civilizational connect, maritime and cultural heritage that’s now dubbed as Global South. Dr Aniket Pingley Connections between India and Southeast Asia go back more than two thousand years, shaped by vast waters of Indian Ocean. These seas were not barriers but bridges, linking ports of ancient India with the islands and coastal regions of what we now call Southeast Asia. Merchants, monks, artisans and travelers carried more than goods; they carried stories, languages, faiths and practices. Over time, these exchanges left enduring marks on societies from Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and beyond. In many ways, Southeast Asia became a mirror that reflected civilizational outreach of Bharat. Trade was the most visible layer of this relationship. India exported textiles, spices, beads and ivory while importing gold, tin, camphor and exotic wood from Southeast Asia. These exchanges were never limited to commerce alone. Maritime routes were also pathways for ideas. Ramayana and the Mahabharata were retold in local languages; Sanskrit and later Pali shaped courts and religious practices and Indian temple architecture inspired monuments from Angkor in Cambodia to Borobudur in Indonesia. The very names of places such as Yogyakarta, Ayutthaya and Srivijaya testify to these cultural flows. These interactions reveal how India’s influence went beyond its borders helping to form cosmopolitan societies in Southeast Asia that were both rooted in local traditions and open to outside influences. Diplomatic and political exchanges played an important role. Rulers in Java, Bali and Sumatra often drew on Indian ideas of kingship, legitimizing their authority through symbols and rituals derived from the subcontinent. The legend of King Airlangga of Java, for example, shows how Indian epics and models of governance were woven into local traditions [5]. Similarly, in Malay Peninsula, early polities combined maritime trade with cultural borrowing from India, laying the foundations for the region’s lasting connections with the subcontinent [7]. These layers of connection commercial, cultural, religious and political formed a civilizational network that is now increasingly referred to as “Global South.” India’s historic outreach demonstrated how societies of South could link with each other, exchange resources, and build hybrid cultures without external domination. This perspective is particularly important today as countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America seek greater cooperation outside the traditional frameworks of the West [7]. Bali Jatra: Memory of the Ocean Voyages Odisha, known as Kalinga in ancient times, was a formidable maritime power. Its strategic location along Bharat’s eastern coast made it a hub for trade and cultural exchange. Major ports like Tamralipti, Palur and Manikapatna were bustling centres of commerce, facilitating movement of goods and ideas between India and Southeast Asia. It is in this context that festival of Bali Jatra (Baliyatra), celebrated in Cuttack, Odisha, hold such significance. Literally meaning “voyage to Bali,” the festival commemorates the journeys once undertaken by Sadhabas or Odia merchants, who sailed across the Bay of Bengal to trade with Java, Bali, Sumatra and other parts of Southeast Asia [1][2]. During full moon of Kartik Purnima every year, families in Odisha still set afloat small boats made of banana bark, paper, or cork, symbolizing vessels that once braved seas. The Balinese celebration of Nyepi, Hindu New Year, bears similarities to rituals of Kartik Purnima in Odisha. Both festivals involve offerings to the gods, prayers for prosperity and rituals closely tied to agricultural and maritime cycles. The practice is more than a regional ritual; it is a living archive of India’s maritime past. Bali Jatra reminds us that Indian Ocean trade was not incidental but central to Bharat’s engagement with Southeast Asia. At its height, these voyages established a dense web of relationships that enriched both sides. For Southeast Asia, Indian traders brought goods and technologies that supported local economies. For India, the voyages opened access to new markets, resources and cultural influences. The festival, therefore, is not only about nostalgia but also about acknowledging an interconnected past. Today, Bali Jatra has grown into one of the largest open-air fairs in Asia, attracting millions of visitors [3]. It showcases not just Odisha’s heritage but wider story of India’s role in maritime Asia. The festival includes cultural performances, food, handicrafts, and exhibitions that highlight the living traditions of seafaring communities. It also increasingly serves as a site of cultural diplomacy, inviting participation from Southeast Asian countries whose histories are tied to these voyages. Contemporary Relevance & Policy Play The significance of Bali Jatra does not end with heritage. It has clear implications for policy and diplomacy in the present. India and ASEAN today are strategic partners, cooperating in trade, security and cultural exchange. Yet for these partnerships to deepen, they need narratives that bind them beyond statistics. Bali Jatra provides one such narrative, rooted in shared history and civilizational connect. For Bharat’s policymakers, the festival is an example of India’s civilizational diplomacy. The presence of diplomats and foreign representatives at recent Bali Jatra celebrations shows growing recognition of its potential [3]. By inviting Southeast Asian leaders, academics, and artists to participate in the event, India can use the festival to create dialogues that are both cultural and strategic. Such engagements could align with forums like the Delhi Dialogue and ASEAN–India summits [8], making cultural heritage an integral part of foreign policy. For Southeast Asian nations, acknowledging festivals like Bali Jatra opens space to emphasize shared heritage while respecting national diversity. Countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, where Indian cultural imprints remain visible, can view these connections not as relics of the past but as foundations for renewed cooperation. Policy research papers from think tanks such as Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysia already suggest that cultural diplomacy can strengthen the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between India and Malaysia [6]. Similarly, Indonesian scholars point to the shared legacy of figures like King Airlangga as a reminder of intertweaved histories [4]. For the academic community, Bali Jatra offers a platform for dialogue on the meaning of the Global South. As scholars note, the Global South is not only

Bharat Economy Policy United States USA World

393

Options Galore!

Putting in place long term policy framework on trade, investments, currencies, geo-political alignments to protect Bharat’s interests must be priority. K.A.Badarinath United States President Donald Trump’s adversarial tariff policy on India has largely been regarded ‘flip flop’ hinting at fluid stance and diabolical in spirit and content. From being most favoured trading ally with minimal tariff proposal of 10 per cent in April 2025, India has been bracketed in the list of enemy countries that attract highest impost of 50 per cent. Numbers and data apart, there has been a lot of noise, nervousness and anxiety as clock ticked 4 pm in last few days in India. It’s at about that time of the day Trump first announced 25 per cent and later doubled it to 50 per cent triggering a flurry of activity. Old timers did not miss the drama, show shah and high decibel drama that Trump put on these days targeting one or other trading partners. It was the turn of Bharat in last few days. A 21-day window announced for tariffs to kick in signalled that Trump was open to negotiation before inking the trade deal. It’s one way of exerting pressure on New Delhi’s negotiators to sign on a ‘bad trade deal’ which means granting US unhindered access to agriculture, fisheries and dairy sector in India. President Trump’s optimism to drive a hard bargain also reflects from his statement, “it’s only been eight hours, let’s see what happens…you are going to see a lot more and some secondary sanctions”. The eight hour time frame referred to by Trump hints at his ‘wait, watch and strike’ attitude in the midst of serious negotiations. Contrary to drama associated with Trump’s diatribe, India’s response has been mature, measured and nuanced in last fortnight within and outside the parliament. Unreasonable, unfair and unjustified is how India described Trump’s executive order on 50 per cent levy. For the first time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stuck his neck out and took it upon himself the consequences of tariffs tantrums thrown by President Trump. Modi said unequivocally that he was willing to pay a heavy personal price as Trump’s tariffs would impact large number of labour intensive and rural sectors. First, Prime Minister Modi has taken personal responsibility for the impact trade pact and tariffs would have on 1.4 billion plus Indians. Modi’s statement at M.S.Swaminathan International Centenary Conference on Thursday is very significant. He’s not willing to compromise on protecting farmers, rural people interests and labour intensive industrial sectors. Also, he was willing to face the political flak and pay heavy personal price on consequences given opposition parties’ intransigent line on United States. Prime Minister Modi understands that throwing open the agriculture sector to US is not only economically unviable but politically unsalable to the core Hindu vote bank, Sangh parivar and the ecosystem. On factual analysis, Modi government will have to deal with adverse impact on GDP growth of 0.2 – 0.4 per cent in case tariffs finally stay at 25 per cent during this fiscal. Top analysts estimate that entire US $ 86.5 billion annual goods exports from India to United States may turn non-competitive or commercially viable. Given that US is top market for India and constitutes about 18 per cent of its global goods exports and constitutes 2.2 per cent GDP, strains have begun to appear on near future. Given Prime Minister Modi’s steadfast commitment to protect India’s national interests, Indian negotiators are breathing easy. The proposed 50 per cent duties, if they kick in finally, translate to unannounced trade sanctions or embargo on India thereby worsening the strain in relations between the two countries. One big fall out that’s largely speculated was that India may not buy F-35 stealth fighter jet aircraft from United States. Factual position so far is that after US offered to sell these jets, formal negotiations have not yet begun. And, these discussions may remain a non-starter. Secondly, India may consider imposing retaliatory duties on 28 US products including its apples and walnuts given the precedent in 2019 to counter restrictive levies Washington DC had imposed on Indian steel and aluminium products. Thirdly, the arc of dis-engagement between India and US may widen for the time being unless recalibrates its trade and tariff policies. Fourthly, an aggressive campaign may be launched by the ruling party and the government to go local and opt for ‘made in India’ products and services. Fifthly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi may mobilize people in socio-economic spheres for adapting ‘swadeshi’. Sixthly, realigning India’s trade, investment, economic, geo-strategic relations may be a big option. Russia, China and other countries engagement may be enhanced to counter-balance US Republican White House under President Trump’s stewardship. Aligning with countries like Brazil who have been put on high tariff line by US could be an option. Seventhly, present developments may lead to expanding time tested foreign policy of strategic autonomy to protect India’s offensive and defensive interests. This may also be the right moment to promote south – south trade engagement. Eighthly, upcoming conclaves of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Quad and BRICS may be occasions for India to sharpen its policy framework for global engagement. Ninthly, evolving an independent financial architecture, decoupling from US dollar or hastening BRICS currency to opt for diversification in payments may also be considered. Tenthly, putting in place medium and long term policy on currencies and oil will go the India way. (Author is Director and Chief Executive of non-partisan New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat Hindus

365

Insight: Explaining Caste

Pre-colonial Indian studies, historic roots, social practices expose Christian, Western framework on caste to drive agenda-based narratives. In Hindutva, Varna and Jaati are distinct concepts often conflated as “Caste” in Western discourse, causing confusion. Varna, rooted in texts like Rig Veda and Bhagavad Gita, is a theoretical framework dividing society into four functional roles based on capacities, qualities and duties they undertake: Brahmins (scholars, priests), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors), Vaishyas (merchants, farmers) and Shudras (labourers, service providers). Bhagavad Gita (4.13) stresses that Varna depends on actions and character, not birth, though it later became hereditary. Jaati, by contrast, refers to thousands of birth-based, localized groups linked to specific regions, occupations or traditions shaping social interactions in India. For instance, a single Varna like Kshatriya may encompass multiple Jaatis varying by region and time (Srinivas, M.N., 1985, Caste in Modern India). The term “Caste,” introduced by Portuguese colonizers (“casta,” meaning lineage) oversimplifies Varna and Jaati into a rigid hierarchy. Western views often mischaracterize Caste as a uniform, oppressive system unique to Hindutva ignoring its historical fluidity, regional diversity and parallels to class or guild systems elsewhere. This perspective overstates Brahmin dominance sidelining non-Brahmin roles in Hindu society (Dirks, Nicholas B., 2001, Castes of Mind). In paragraphs below, usage of caste refers to this complex, interdependent and layered architecture of Jaati and Varna and is used for simplicity purposes only.

Defence Economy Kashmir Pakistan Policy Security Technology

440

India’s Home Grown Defence Ascent

From Kargil war to Operation Sindoor, Indian forces have undergone transformational changes in capabilities, capacities & outlook. Brig Brijesh Pandey Twenty-six years ago, in May 1999, just as global accolades for Lahore Declaration echoed, Pakistani forces crossed Line of Control (LoC) in Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir, masked as “freedom fighters.” By occupying winter-vacated heights of Dras, Kaksar, Batalik, and Mushkoh, Pakistan’s Northern Light Infantry flagrantly violated international norms, bilateral accords and established military conventions. This covert infiltration was aimed at enlarging the arc of terrorism and reigniting global attention on Kashmir through deceitful aggression. India responded with Operation VIJAY under self-imposed constraints that precluded crossing Line of Control or deploying air power in Pakistani airspace. These limitations notwithstanding, Indian Armed Forces reclaimed the heights after a gruelling 54-day campaign suffering 527 fatalities and 1,363 injuries. Kargil conflict exposed glaring weaknesses in India’s military preparedness, particularly in surveillance, logistics, indigenous weapons systems and joint command structures. The post-war Kargil Review Committee catalysed vital structural reforms and laid groundwork for a transformation that would take shape over next two decades. Catalyst for Defence Modernisation Lessons of Kargil underscored that bravery alone did not compensate for systemic gaps. The government responded with sweeping institutional and strategic changes: Despite initial inertia and bureaucratic roadblocks, the foundations laid after Kargil began to take effect post 2014, when the government designed a vision for New India and exhibited the political will for a full-fledged indigenous defence ecosystem. Structural and Policy-Level Overhauls R&D and Innovation Ecosystem India has taken commendable step by establishing Anusandhan National Research Foundation with a proposed ₹ 1 Lakh Crore Research & Innovation Fund and steps such as: Indigenous Force Multipliers India’s self-reliant defence strategy is exemplified by an expanding portfolio of homegrown systems: Operation Sindoor: A Defining Moment in Indigenous Warfare On 07 May 2025, following a terror attack in Pahalgam, India launched Operation Sindoor a precision, tech-enabled retaliation that lasted just 22 minutes but left a lasting impact. Unlike the fragmented Kargil campaign, this was a demonstration of a fully integrated and indigenous warfighting ecosystem: A comparative snapshot of capabilities of Indian Armed Forces during Kargil vis-à-vis Operation Sindoor can be summed up as: Category Kargil (1999) Operation Sindoor (2025) Surveillance Foreign satellites Indigenous ISR networks, drones Artillery Swedish Bofors ATAGS, Dhanush, Vajra K9 Air Power Mirage 2000, MiG-21 Tejas Mk1A, drones, PGMs Intelligence Fragmented Real-time networked Cyber & EW Minimal Advanced indigenous capabilities Import Dependency 70%+ Majority of systems Indian-made Strategic Implications India’s growing strength in indigenous defence production carries significant strategic implications. It positions the country as a credible two-front deterrent, prepared to respond to potential threats along both its western and northern borders. Regionally, India is emerging as a power capable of projecting military influence from the Andaman Sea to the African coastline. On the global stage, India is carving out a role as a defence exporter, expanding its presence across Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Furthermore, it is asserting itself as a leader of the Global South by presenting a scalable, technology-driven model of self-reliance that other developing nations may aspire to emulate. Persistent Challenges Despite India’s impressive strides in indigenous defence capability, several structural and operational challenges persist. Bureaucratic inertia continues to impede the pace of procurement, often causing critical delays in the acquisition of essential equipment. In the realm of research and development, with stagnant R&D at 0.3% of GDP and Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) at 0.64% as against 2.64% of GERD of China Israel’s 5.6% R&D-to-GDP ratio supported by dense web of university-industry linkages, military R&D, and start up ecosystem. Innovation is not a by-product of industrial growth, it is pre-condition and modest levels of R&D funding levels limit the scope and speed of innovation. Additionally, India’s defence testing infrastructure has yet to scale proportionally with the growing production capacity, creating bottlenecks in quality assurance and deployment timelines. On the export front, while Indian defence products are gaining international attention, there is a pressing need for stronger global marketing mechanisms and streamlined certification processes to effectively compete in international markets. Dawn of Strategic Sovereignty From frozen heights of Kargil to precision battlefields of Operation Sindoor, India has undergone profound military metamorphosis. This evolution reflects not just technological innovation, but a strategic vision rooted in resilience, sovereignty, and civil-military synergy. As India approaches its centenary of independence in 2047, the foundation laid by these two watershed moments will continue to shape its trajectory as a confident, capable, and autonomous power in the global order. (Author is a defence analyst, former military advisor and commanded an artillery brigade)

Deconstruction of Caste: Dismantling Misconceptions

Human Rights Policy

310

Deconstruction of Caste: Dismantling Misconceptions

Dr Aniket Pingley Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s seminal 1916 paper, “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development,” delivered at Columbia University stands as a profound scholarly effort to dismantle misconceptions about caste. Rather than accepting popular notions of caste as a divinely sanctioned religious institution or a system imposed nationally by Brahmins, Ambedkar rigorously applied ethnological and sociological tools to uncover its true nature as social technology. His work, as presented in the white paper, reveals that perpetuation and spread of caste are rooted in distinct mechanisms rather than conscious religious or hierarchical decree. Challenging Myth of Religious Sanction Ambedkar fundamentally disagreed with definitions of caste that focused on “surface features” like “food taboos, pollution, occupation, or social exclusivity,” arguing that these “were not essential”. Instead, in his paper, he asserted, “Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste”. This was a “decisive claim”: caste’s core is not about religion or rituals, but about “regulating marriage” with all other traits being secondary and serving only to “reinforce this boundary”. To elaborate, Ambedkar began by clearly defining two crucial anthropological terms: exogamy and endogamy. Exogamy refers to the practice of marrying outside one’s own group, a custom that was common in early Indian society, particularly among clans and gotras, and which historically served to expand social bonds. In contrast, endogamy means marrying within one’s own group, thereby establishing a clear boundary and restricting marital unions exclusively to those inside it. Ambedkar emphasized that Indian society, despite its diverse ethnic make-up, possessed a fundamental cultural unity and was originally characterized by exogamy as a “creed”. He argued that very creation of caste in India was result of “superposition of endogamy on exogamy”. This meant that a society that naturally tended towards intermixing and fusion through exogamous practices was artificially fragmented by forceful introduction of endogamy, halting the free circulation of people and creating distinct, closed communities. Thus, for Ambedkar, caste hinges entirely on the rigorous enforcement of endogamy. “Endogamy is the only characteristic that is peculiar to caste.” He meticulously demonstrated how the very existence of caste hinges on the rigorous maintenance of endogamy. When a group committed to marrying only within itself, it faced a “demographic logic” problem: “marital balance”. The inevitable presence of “surplus” individuals (widows and widowers) threatened to violate endogamy if they remarried outside the group. To solve this, society developed “means” — social mechanisms to maintain endogamy. Ambedkar identified three primary customs, often mistakenly viewed as religious ideals: Crucially, Ambedkar directly rejected spiritual or philosophical justifications for these customs in his analysis. He argued that these “high-flown and ingenious sophistry” were “invented to justify practices that already existed”. He powerfully stated, “The very fact that these customs were so highly eulogized proves that they needed eulogy for their prevalence”. He saw them not as expressions of devotion, but as “practical tools” and “strategic adaptations” designed to solve the structural problem of maintaining endogamy. Thus, Ambedkar exposed how caste operated through “biopolitical control”, where “women’s bodies became the site where caste was enforced,” sacrificing their freedom and survival for the system’s preservation. This demonstrates that caste was preserved by “deliberate enforcement,” not divine will. No Brahmin Imposition Ambedkar firmly refuted the widespread belief that caste was “imposed by a divine lawgiver — like Manu” or that Brahmins “consciously imposed caste system on entire Hindu population”. He stated, “It is unimaginable that the law of caste was given”. He argued that Manu merely “codified” existing caste rules and “preached Caste Dharma,” but “certainly he did not and could not ordain the present order of Hindu Society”. Similarly, while acknowledging Brahmins “became the first caste” by “socially detach[ing] themselves” and creating a “closed-door policy”, he explicitly stated that “imposing of caste system on non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle”. They “may have helped the process by their glib philosophy, but they certainly could not have pushed their scheme beyond their own confines”. The “spread and growth of the Caste system is too gigantic a task to be achieved by the power or cunning of an individual or of a class”. “The Brahmins may have been guilty of many things, and I dare say they were, but the imposing of the caste system on the non-Brahmin population was beyond their mettle”. Instead, Ambedkar proposed two “powerful explanations” for the multiplication and spread of caste across India, which he called a “psychological process” (imitation) and a “mechanical process” (exclusion): “The infection of imitation… caught all these sub-divisions… and turned them into castes.” These two forces — “Prestige-seeking imitation” and “mechanical social closure” — explain how caste spread and solidified into a complex system without a single, deliberate imposition or divine command. In essence, Ambedkar’s white paper revealed that caste is not a sacred mandate or a grand Brahminical conspiracy, but rather a “social system governed by status, hierarchy, and control over marriage”. It is a “parcelling of an already homogeneous unit” of Indian society into thousands of endogamous units. He offered a scientific framework, urging that to truly dismantle caste, one must first grasp its “mechanisms”: “How it begins, How it survives, And how it spreads”. Ambedkar’s analysis, as laid out in his paper, can be likened to a forensic investigation: rather than accepting hearsay or superficial religious narratives, he meticulously examined the societal “crime scene” of caste. By tracing the “fingerprints” of endogamy and its “tools” (sati, widowhood, child marriage), he demonstrated the systemic and structural nature of the “offense,” revealing it as a deliberate social construct, not an act of divine or centralized authority. (Author is an accomplished computer scientist, educator, and holds expertise in media content strategy)

Bharat Policy

351

Primer – Caste Census in Bharat: Policy, Politics & Social Justice

Caste Census in Bharat: Policy,Bharat’s renewed push for caste based enumeration or census is not just a domestic administrative reform but a landmark moment in the global conversation around equality, representation and justice. After nearly a century since last comprehensive caste enumeration in 1931, the upcoming 2027 census promises to confront deep inequalities embedded in Bharat’s social structure.

Business Economy Geopolitics Trade World

308

Damn EU Oil sanctions!

Strategic autonomy coupled with its right to source crude at affordable prices and quality is non-negotiable. Here’s New India… By NC Bipindra Latest round of sanctions announced by European Union on July 18, 2025, has opened a new chapter in the growing geopolitical standoff between Brussels and New Delhi. For the first time, EU has directly targeted Indian oil trade, specifically naming Nayara Energy’s Vadinar refinery which is majority-owned by Russia’s Rosneft. The EU sanctions, coming as it does within days of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s warning about secondary sanctions on India, are part of these regional institutions’ crackdown on what it calls indirect financing of Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. At the heart of this issue lies India’s continued and unapologetic purchase of discounted Russian crude. India has been refining this oil and exporting resultant diesel and jet fuel, some of which flows back into Europe. While New Delhi views this as a perfectly legal and economically sound strategy, Brussels sees it as a dangerous workaround that weakens Western sanctions regime. What makes this clash more than a bureaucratic quarrel is its broader significance for global energy markets, economic diplomacy and tests limits of Western pressure in a multipolar world. Why Is the EU Escalating Pressure on India over Russian Oil Purchases? EU wants to isolate Russia economically. India, however, is determined not to compromise its energy security and strategic autonomy, the principles it considers non-negotiable. From European perspective, India’s growing role as a refinery hub for Russian crude threatens to undercut its sanctions framework. Eighteenth package of EU sanctions which includes lowering price cap on Russian crude to about $ 47.60 per barrel and sanctioning over 100 tankers in Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” is aimed at choking off alternative routes for Russian oil revenue. By focusing on Indian exports and targeting refineries like Vadinar, Europe is sending a clear message that it will go after any actor — state or private — that contributes to propping up Moscow’s war chest. What are Its Strategic Imperatives? But India isn’t taking this lightly. Ministry of External Affairs responded swiftly and sternly, calling the EU’s actions unilateral and unjust. Officials in New Delhi accused the bloc of practicing double standards, pointing to Europe’s own imports of Russian LNG and uranium even after war in Ukraine escalated. Energy security, Indian leaders assert, is not just a matter of policy but a constitutional duty, especially for a developing nation with over 1.4 billion people striving for economic growth and social stability. From New Delhi’s standpoint, its trade with Russia is both lawful and pragmatic. Indian officials frequently cite EU Regulation 833 / 2014, which states that once a good is substantially transformed in a third country, it is no longer considered to originate from the sanctioned country. India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar and Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri have made this argument repeatedly, maintaining that diesel refined in India is legally distinct from the Russian crude it was made from. The economic logic behind this policy is also compelling. Minister Puri has stated that importing discounted oil from Russia has saved India billions of dollars, helped stabilise inflation and shielded consumers from worst of global energy shock. In a world still reeling from economic aftershocks of the pandemic and the war, these savings have helped India remain on a steady growth trajectory while other economies faltered. India’s position is also shaped by deeper strategic calculations. The country has long prided itself on its foreign policy of non-alignment, now recast as “strategic autonomy.” This allows New Delhi to navigate complex relationships with both the West and traditional partners like Russia without being forced to pick sides. India’s close defence and energy ties with Moscow continue, even as it deepens cooperation with the United States and European Union in other areas like technology, trade, and counterterrorism. What are India’s Strategic Options? Rather than cave in to external pressure, India has quietly but effectively diversified its oil imports. Over past year, it has increased purchases from Middle Eastern countries, United States, Brazil and new suppliers in Africa and Latin America. This diversification has enabled India to demonstrate that it is not wholly dependent on Russian oil, even as it defends its right to continue buying it. At the same time, India has expanded its investment in natural gas, renewables and long-term energy security. A 15-year LNG deal with United Arab Emirates’ ADNOC, for example, will bring in one million tonnes of gas annually, supporting the country’s gradual shift toward cleaner fuels. India’s resilience is also built on its ability to conduct trade outside of Western financial and logistical systems. Russia has set up rupee-based trade settlements, used vostro accounts through Indian banks and relied on non-Western insurance and shipping firms. This alternative infrastructure insulates India-Russia energy trade from Western sanctions to a large extent and helps maintain stability despite external disruptions. Even as EU tightens restrictions and hints at possible secondary sanctions, India continues to find new export markets for its refined petroleum products. Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America have emerged as key destinations where buyers are less concerned about the origins of crude and more focused on price and availability. These regions offer India a buffer against any loss of European markets, keeping its refineries running and export revenues intact. At the legal level, India has pushed back forcefully the very idea of violating sanctions. Indian legal experts argue that under international law, unilateral sanctions not backed by United Nations are not binding. New Delhi has taken this position consistently and has also pointed out hypocrisy of Europe’s own uneven implementation of sanctions where Russian LNG and enriched uranium remain untouched by embargoes. Behind all this lies a larger philosophical question. Should developing countries bear the brunt of economic disruptions caused by conflicts they did not start and do not control? India has answered this with a firm no. It argues that energy access at affordable prices is a matter of global

Disinformation Fact Sheet Hindus Misinformation

473

Understanding Savera, 31 co-signatories that petitioned Mayor Eric Adams

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) reveals that the Savera coalition and the groups that countersigned its 10 July 2025 letter are not a loose assortment of concerned New Yorkers; they constitute a disciplined advocacy network that fuses three streams of ideologies: These entities repeatedly collaborate under banners such as Reclaiming India and the Alliance for Justice & Accountability, run coordinated social-media campaigns, and target three policy nodes in Washington: Congress, USCIRF and the State Department. Their operational goal is to brand Indian government positions, and increasingly mainstream Hindu events in America, as “supremacist”, thereby normalising an equivalence between Hindutva and violent extremism. While most are registered 501(c) organisations, multiple red-flag indicators emerge: historic Hamas-related designations (CAIR), documented Jamaat-e-Islami overlaps (IAMC), Soros-funded BDS-style campaigning now redirected from Israel to India (HfHR), opaque fiscal disclosures, and revolving-door leadership across the network. The pattern warrants Treasury, DOJ and IRS scrutiny for potential FARA non-compliance, foreign in-kind support and grant-making that masquerades as purely humanitarian work.

Disinformation Media Misinformation News

319

Washington Post Does It Again!

Agenda based biased reportage from Bharat seems to never end. Latest story is with regards to illegal infiltrators from Bangladesh. CIHS Several global media representatives operating out of India or those descending in New Delhi on behalf of organizations like Washington Post seem to have been adequately briefed on their agenda. And, these uncouth operators who carry press cards may have in reality been sold out to ‘anti-Bharat’ lobbies globally. Otherwise, there’s no reason why Washington Post does time and again only seek to debunk the India story through its editorial and news columns. Latest in a series of ‘anti-India’ despatches appeared in July 11, 2025 edition of Washington Post under the headline, “In India’s deportation drive, Muslim men recount being tossed into sea” put together by Pranshu Verma, Tanbirul Miraj Ripon and Sahal Qureshi. Their claim through the write up is simple from the word ‘go’. They claimed with obviously little or no-evidence that Indian Muslims with valid documents were either thrown into the sea or pushed across Bangladesh borders. Detentions, demolitions and torture purportedly perpetuated by Indian security personnel have been written about. Even a cursory online search puts the number of illegal migrants and Bangladeshi infiltrators as more than 20 million turning India into being the country with largest number of illegal migrants in the world. As per Ministry of Home Affairs, Bharat, Delhi and Mumbai, apart from coastal states like Gujarat and Goa have become centres of illegal migrants especially from Bangladesh and Pakistan. These numbers in no way bother Washington Post reporters with an ‘agenda’ to paint Bharat black and dirty as it expands its growth story, spreads prosperity and remains open, largest and a bustling democracy. Washington Post management decision to run an anti-India tirade through its editorial and news pages may not surprise many. In recent past, WP published two anti-India stories that turned out to be blatantly false if one were to go by Indian government. One WP report made a sensational claim that India made serious attempts to impeach Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu. Second big claim made by WP was that Indian agents attempted to eliminate certain terror elements in Pakistan. Well, both reports were denied by Indian government and bracketed them as ‘compulsively hostile’ in nature, spirit and content. In fact, Washington Post had to publicly apologise for mocking at Bharat’s mars mission with ‘frugal budgets’ and turning it blatantly racist. Well, WP management, under owner Jeff Bezos of Amazon who purchased the media house through Nash Holdings in 2013 for reported US $ 250 million, may have overstepped in its editorial and news policy towards India. Otherwise, there’s no reason why Washington Post goes hammer and tongs against Bharat, her interests and her ethos. Leave alone the factthat Bangladeshis form largest chunk of illegal immigrants, WP does not consider significant enough that India is home to over 205 million Muslims as per Pew Research. And, this number would only grow in multiples to become largest Muslim population in the world by 2050. Now, these projections are in contradiction to WP claims of Muslims being targeted or framed by India. Deportation of infiltrators or illegal immigrants from India may not be an outright crime. But then, for Washington Post, it’s a human rights issue. Will Washington Post come up with screaming headline when illegal migrants to America are sent back to their countries of origin? In the deportation of infiltrators, where do Hindu groups figure? What’s their crime? Why portray Hindus as the aggressors? In the process, Washington Post has lost the plot and pursuit to objective reporting of events, developments and ‘news worthy’ issues. If India were to demonize her own Muslim citizens as claimed by Washington Post, how does one explain their socio-economic progression in last two decades in particular? In a campaign against illegal occupation of public spaces also, Washington Post sees a sinister design to dismember Muslims in India.

Geopolitics International Terrorism United States War

526

Lions, Shadows & Silk Roads

Israel-Iran clash reshaped West Asia’s strategic chessboard with US getting in. India will have to display maturity, dexterity, openness and exercise its strategic autonomy. N. C. Bipindra The Middle East was thrust into dramatic escalation of hostilities as Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a comprehensive preemptive military campaign against Iranian targets, taking out military and nuclear facilities, on June 13, 2025. The operation, which included airstrikes, cyber-attacks and targeted assassinations was Israel’s most extensive cross-border military endeavour in recent years. In response, Iran activated proxy militias, launched missile attacks via Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and escalated its hybrid warfare tactics across the region. After calling for asking Iran to surrender, US President Donald Trump approved American air strikes completely obliterating three key Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, yet noting “now is the time for peace.” This confrontation has far-reaching implications for regional stability, global oil markets, US foreign policy and emerging trade corridors like India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and India-Isreal-UAE-USA (I2U2) group. For India, which has been investing heavily in regional diplomacy and infrastructure partnerships such as IMEC and I2U2, the conflict raises urgent questions about risk, resilience and realignment in its West Asia strategy. Operation Rising Lion, Israel’s Gambit Israel’s Operation Rising Lion was triggered by a surge in Iranian backed attacks on Israeli diplomatic and economic interests in northern Iraq, Syria and transfer of precision-guided missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon apart from repeated calls for use of nukes to annihilate Israelis. The operation marked a shift in Israel’s longstanding “campaign between the wars” doctrine into an open and assertive military campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure, weapons convoys and senior commanders in multiple theatres. Key components of the operation included coordinated airstrikes on IRGC installations, targeted killing of senior operatives, military leadership and taking out nuclear facilities. The operation included cyber strikes and group covert attacks that disrupted Iranian air defence networks, missile stations and fuel supply chains. Anticipating a counterstrike from Iran, Israel deployed its new laser-based missile defence system which had been tested successfully against Iranian cruise missile barrages. Most of the Iranian attacks were intercepted though some have penetrated the air defence system to hit Israeli cities and towns including a hospital complex. Israel declared the operation a strategic necessity to “decapitate Iran’s regional encirclement architecture” and pre-empt future multi-front attacks including the nukes. While tactically effective, it has risked triggering a full-scale war with Iran and its axis of resistance apart from getting US and Russia-China involved in the war. Iran’s Proxy Retaliation, Strategic Posturing Iran’s counter-response blended military retaliation, strategic ambiguity, and proxy warfare. Apart from direct state-to-state confrontation with Israel — still a risky escalation — Iran relied heavily on asymmetric tactics. Iran fired hundreds of drones and rockets into Israel, overwhelming Iron Dome systems despite Israeli air superiority. The Houthis, an Iranian proxy in Yemen, have dubbed the US strikes on Iran as a “declaration of war” and have fired several missiles at Israel. Iran’s missile strike on Israel marked the first direct hit from Iranian territory since the April 2024 skirmish, indicating a new threshold of confrontation. Though Iran is trying to avoid full-scale war, its response is carefully calibrated to bleed Israel politically and militarily, while also testing the resolve of US deterrence commitments in the region. US Strategic Overstretch? The US was quickly pulled into the maelstrom, just over a week into the launch of military hostilities. Though Trump only issued warnings for a week, providing intelligence support to Israel and deploying at least two aircraft carriers to the region, his administration seems to have decided that enough is enough. Washington now faces accusations of strategic inconsistency. While it pushed for de-escalation publicly, on the parallel it supported Israeli operational aims covertly. This dualism will further strain US ties with Gulf States like Oman and Kuwait who fear further regional de-stabilisation. Furthermore, as tensions peaked, Trump administration’s G7 engagement was interrupted, which complicates America’s long-term global balancing act. Disruptions, Opportunity for India India has deep economic, energy and strategic stakes in West Asia. Operation Rising Lion and its aftermath present both direct threats and unexpected opportunities for New Delhi. IMEC Corridor in Jeopardy: The IMEC, announced at the 2023 G20 Summit, depends on regional stability across UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Jordan. The Israel-Iran conflict has disrupted port operations in Haifa and Eilat, key to IMEC’s Mediterranean leg. It has jeopardised land connectivity across Jordan due to increased Israeli military mobilisation. The insurance premiums on Red Sea maritime routes are expected to spike by about 35 per cent hurting Indian exporters. While not dead, IMEC’s viability is now under serious question until a ceasefire or détente is re-established. I2U2 Faces Diplomatic Strain: The I2U2 grouping aimed at high-tech cooperation, food security and infrastructure investment now faces political turbulence. UAE, a key I2U2 pillar, is deeply wary of regional conflict spilling over and has called for restraint putting it at odds with Israel’s aggressive posture. India is caught between maintaining its longstanding ties with Israel and its desire to deepen linkages with Iran, UAE and the Arab world, especially after recent Chabahar Port developments. India’s diplomatic tightrope is getting narrower. Energy Security and Diaspora Risks: Iran’s retaliation threatens commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz if India is seen backing Israel. While largely rhetorical, these threats would increase Brent crude prices beyond current rates, putting India’s inflation control at risk. There is heightened concern on nine million-strong Indian diaspora in the Gulf, as militias near Kuwait and Bahrain showed signs of mobilisation. India has had to yet again evacuate her citizens from Iran, Israel and the spill over of the conflict to other States in the region would compound the evacuation tasks on hand. Strategic Recommendations for India In navigating the evolving West Asian crisis, India must pursue a multi-vector strategy. It must reinvigorate strategic neutrality. India must avoid taking sides publicly while conducting quiet shuttle diplomacy between Israel, Iran and Gulf countries. A role in

Blog Post