Geopolitics International Terrorism United States War

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

Geopolitics International Security War World

405

Ukraine Takes Drone Wars to Next Level

From Trojan Horse to pager bombs, Ukraine’s drones have rewritten war tactics while Russia puts up a red face. N. C. Bipindra Ukraine’s audacious drone attacks on airbases deep inside Russian territory are so brazen that such tactics have never been attempted before. The targeting of five Russian airbases — one of them over 4,500 km away from the Ukrainian border has reportedly destroyed over 40 military aircraft, including some long-distance bombers that were tormenting Ukrainians for nearly two years now. The use of cheap, off-the-shelf modified and armed drones is asymmetry in warfare taken to the next level. The drone strikes on June 1, 2025, are now being likened to Israeli Mossad pager bombs that took out a massive number of Hezbollah terror operatives inside Lebanon and the visit of unknown gunmen to wanted terrorists inside Pakistan in recent years. The drone attacks came after a long-drawn-out plan by Ukrainian military along with its intelligence units. The Ukrainians packed the armed drones onto cargo trucks and hid them with wooden planks under the truck roofs. Once the trucks reached too close to four airbases that were targeted — Belaya in Siberia’s Irkutsk region, Olenya in Arctic Murmansk area, Ivanovo Severny near Ivanovo city, Dyagilevo in Ryazan and Ukrainka in Russia’s Far East the drones swarms were unleashed on Russian military aviation assets parked there. While the Belaya base in Irkutsk region was some 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles) from Ukraine’s border with Russia, the Olenya base near Murmansk in the Arctic Circle was more than 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) from Ukraine’s border. The shortest distances covered by drone-carrying trucks were to Diaghilev airbase in Ryazan Oblast, some 520 kilometers (320 miles) from Ukraine and Ivanovo air base for Russian military transport aircraft was some 800 kilometers (500 miles) from the border. These visible distances notwithstanding, Ukraine’s daring drone attacks under Operation Spider Web targeted Ukrainka, the furthest airbase at over 8,000 km in Russia’s East, too far away from the war frontline. In Trojan-horse style attacks, Ukraine launched 117 drones concealed in container trucks, according to one Ukrainian account, striking with precision at airbases across Russia. Ukraine seems to have chosen this covert operation because the Western missiles supplied to it, such as the American ATACMS and European Storm Shadow, lacked the range to reach so deep inside Russia. Ukraine has been using drones against Russian targets, including Moscow, for last three years now. But majority of these drone attacks have been intercepted by Russians, essentially due to low speed of these unmanned aerial vehicles. Operation Spider Web’s audacity essentially played out due to Ukraine smuggling them into Russia and deploying them next to its target sites. Russia, obviously, was complacent with security of at least three of the five air bases, comfortable in the thought that it was too deep inside its territory for Ukrainians to even think of targeting them, a devastating mistake in defence preparedness, when military operations were prolonged beyond what was first envisaged when it began in February 2022. Moscow had presumed its airbases and military facilities deep inside its territory were safe, given their distance from Ukraine. Russia-Ukraine war, progressing for last three years now, has turned the warfare paradigm upside down. Till the Russia-Ukraine war began over Kyiv’s attempt to join the anti-Russia military bloc in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), military thought leadership was talking for nearly two decades about a short, swift and destructive warfare. Russia’s obvious military strength notwithstanding, its military operations did not result in quick surrender of a comparatively weaker Ukraine. The Russian neighbour a nation that was once part of the Soviet bloc held back the military onslaught for a while and by doing so, got the support of its friends in NATO. The US, Germany and other NATO nations sent billions of dollars’ worth arms and ammunition, battle tanks, air defence systems and fighter jets to Ukraine for its David vs Goliath moment. Satellite images, videos and photographs of the damage on these five airbases show Russia’s Tu-160, Tu-22 and Tu-95 nuke-carrying bombers key to their air power were hit badly with plumes of black smoke rising. Among destroyed air assets of Russia were Ilyushin Il-78 airborne refueling aircraft and advanced A-50 early warning and control aircraft a prized possession for airborne intelligence and radar warnings. Though Russia had tried to protect these assets with decoys, these measures failed miserably. Whether Western powers were involved in planning and execution of Operation Spider Web will be known later as more details of Ukraine’s attacks on Russia become public. But what could be worrying both Ukraine and NATO nations would be Russia’s response to Operation Spider Web. Ukraine and its friends in the West would be hoping that Ukraine’s drones circumventing Russian defenses and blowing up their military aviation assets would cause a major psychological blow to Russia’s air force. Truth be told, Operation Spider Web did lift Kyiv’s spirits and it is a dent to Moscow’s morale. But what they may have discounted is that Russia still holds air superiority overall against Ukraine and it may come back to deliver a crushing blow to Ukrainians at a place and time of its choosing, including an unequal nuclear response. If the nukes get involved in Russia’s war, then it could be game over for both Ukraine and NATO. The current Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul have already stalled, with Russian officials signaling no desire for compromise. The Ukrainian drone strike could mean the end of peace with Russia altogether. In response, Britain has announced a £350 million package to supply 100,000 drones to Ukraine by April 2026, reinforcing Kyiv’s growing drone warfare capabilities. In the second Armenia-Azerbaijan war for Nagorno-Karabakh region in 2020, Azerbaijani forces widespread use of drones was seen as crucial in determining the conflict’s outcome in their favour. Since then, drone warfare, particularly the asymmetric nature of advantage cheap, easily modifiable unmanned aerial systems bring to the table, has been a major focus

Indian Nationalism is Not What the West Thinks

Bharat Hindus Opinion World

536

Indian Nationalism is Not What the West Thinks

S Gurumurthy In a world fractured by power-hungry nationalism, often conjures images of military marches, border skirmishes, and ideological superiority, Indian idea of nationalism offers something radically different; a quiet, profound alternative rooted not in might but in meaning. It is not a nationalism that thunders from podiums; it is one that whispers from the soul. To truly understand India is to move beyond the tired paradigms of statehood and territory and to encounter a living, breathing civilisational rhythm; a spiritual consciousness that predates borders, flags, and constitutions. While Europe’s idea of nationalism was born through the ambitions of kings, forged in the crucible of wars, territorial conquests, royal marriages, and political unions which anchored in bloodshed and violence, gave nationalism itself a bad name, an order that civilised societies eventually began to distrust. It was nationalism by force. Whereas India’s nationalism is fundamentally different. It is not manufactured by power but nurtured by spirit. It is not imposed from above but arises from below, from saints, seers, philosophers, and common people who lived and preached peace, harmony, and unity across vast diversity. It is not territorial or military nationalism; it is civilisational nationalism. Hawaii University’s Professor Rammal R.J. conducted a study tracing 2,500 years of global violence, estimating that human beings have slaughtered between 680 million and 1.2 billion of their own kind. His maps and data revealed that the only geography untouched by large-scale violence until the 13th century was Bharat (India). While empires rose and fell in blood across continents, what preserved peace in India? It wasn’t statecraft or the sword. It was the silent, persistent work of sages and saints who cultivated a culture of coexistence, despite caste, creed, region, or religion. This is the only land where 33 crore Gods could exist in a single civilisation, where multiple ways of worship never fractured the social fabric. In contrast, the belief in one God elsewhere often created more divisions and violence than unity; wars were fought, lands were colonised, and people were exterminated in the name of “my god vs. your god.” This ethos, this capacity to live with contradiction and diversity, is the core of Indian nationalism. As one Swiss professor observed, India uniquely teaches how to live with differences of gods, languages, customs, and philosophies. This acceptance is the core of Indian nationalism. Ashoka’s war, the only major violent conflict considered “adharmic” in Indian history, was not celebrated but condemned. Indian consciousness was never at ease with conquest. It is this spiritual depth that Swami Vivekananda called the foundation of India’s unity. He proclaimed that India was a “union of hearts” beating to a shared spiritual rhythm, not a mechanical union imposed by administration or army. Maharishi Aurobindo, in his 1909 Uttarpara Speech, went further: “Sanatana Dharma is nationalism… With it, the Hindu nation was born. With it, it grows. If Sanatana Dharma declines, the nation declines. If it perishes, the nation perishes.” Even Mahatma Gandhi, often secularised in public memory, grounded his freedom struggle in this deeper idea of India. In his 1909 dialogue, Hind Swaraj captures his deep faith in India’s pre-colonial unity. When asked whether British railways, posts, and courts made India one nation, he responded: “We were one nation before they came… One thought inspired us; our mode of life was the same… What do you think our ancestors intended when they established Rameshwaram in the south, Jagannath in the east, and Haridwar in the north as places of pilgrimage?” This network of pilgrimages was India’s grassroots federation, uniting diverse peoples in a sacred geography: Punya Bhoomi, Karma Bhoomi, and Moksha Bhoomi. Unknown to most, Gandhi also invited Naga Sadhus to the 1920 Nagpur Congress session. The British were alarmed. Secret colonial documents noted that if saints and farmers united, the British Raj would collapse. That is why Gandhi dressed like a fakir because Indian nationalism was not bureaucratic but spiritual. Where European nations had to be artificially forged, with national languages and bureaucratic unity imposed after unification, India never needed that. It was always a living civilisation, not broken statues or forgotten scripts, but a lived experience. As Vivekananda famously said, unlike Greek or Roman ruins, Indian civilisation breathes even today in the lives of its people. This continuity was not preserved by emperors or parliaments but by the spiritual consciousness sustained by saints, temple traditions, and village dharma. That is why even someone arriving without preparation at the Kumbh Mela finds food, shelter, and welcome. India still lives that spirit without contracts, without government. In contrast, look at modern America. In 2020, five former U.S. Army Chiefs and six Defence Secretaries warned of a deep national fracture where Democrats and Republicans were unwilling to marry or even speak to each other. There was no shared sacredness. A Pew study revealed the stark truth: America has no sacred mountain, no sacred river, and no common sacred person. Only government institutions hold it together. In Italy, there are 30,000 canonised saints. In the U.S., just three. India, on the other hand, is a land where everything is sacred: the Ganga, the Himalayas, cows, trees, temples, sages, songs. The very soil is imbued with spiritual meaning. Even Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also acknowledged this reality. In Glimpses of World History (1935), he wrote: “Vivekananda’s nationalism was Hindu nationalism. It had its roots in Hindu religion and culture. This was not in any way anti-Muslim or anti-anyone else.” He added, “It is not easy to draw a line between Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism, for the two overlap.” This is not about majority vs. minority. It is about a shared civilisational memory. A memory that connects temples, tirthas, festivals, and philosophies across thousands of years and millions of hearts. In conclusion, Indian nationalism cannot be understood through Western lenses of political theory or colonial historiography. It is not “nation-state nationalism” but “civilisational dharma,” the living, breathing spiritual ethos of people who could house a thousand gods and a billion humans without losing

India Emerges Global Power Through Sindoor

Pakistan Terrorism

502

India Emerges Global Power Through Sindoor

Biggest losers were Pakistan, Turkey & China that sided with the terror state. Bharat came thumbs up, foreign media cut sorry figure. N. C. Bipindra After India’s Operation Sindoor on Pakistan and its terror hubs to avenge Pahalgam terror victims, the overwhelming assessment of global strategic affairs community, military experts and international media is that New Delhi has had a decisive victory over Islamabad. As India began its precision military strikes on nine terror infrastructure sites inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, initially global media and think-tanks went overboard to declare an Indian defeat. Their claims were based on unverified Pakistan social media handles’ propaganda that Islamabad was successful in shooting down the Indian Air Force fighter jets. But these claims turned out to be untrue as Operation Sindoor progressed over four days during May 7 – 10, 2025. Now, a post-operation diagnosis has placed their trust in the Indian military declarations that India indeed struck specific targets based on undisputable pieces of evidence provided by Indian establishment. Pakistan, on the other hand, has failed miserably to provide any proof – technical data, satellite images, or otherwise – to back its claims. The New York Times had to grudgingly acknowledge the superiority of the Indian military operations in a piece written on May 14, 2025. Many international media outlets have been running interviews with military experts and analysts to back Indian assertions that they struck at precise locations, resulting in over 100 casualties among the Pakistanis. They have also shown satellite images provided by the Indian government and other international space technology firms to back their judgment on Operation Sindoor. India had struck at nine terror sites inside Pakistan and their occupied territories, apart from taking out 11 military infrastructure sites, including air bases, their runways, hangars, ammunition dumps, and air defence assets in the four-day military operations. Pakistan’s major reliance on Chinese military equipment has proved to be a disaster. Pakistan has been unable to back its claims of shooting down five Indian combat aircraft or bombarding Adampur air base, or even taking out Indian military assets such as the S-400 air defence system. This has resulted in the international community and media backing down on their initial claims, most of which was unnamed sources traced back to unverified social media posts. In the fog of war, news is a casualty. The fragmentation of news is a strategic victory. Untruths become the weapon of mass destruction. News becomes an instrument of war itself. As India woke up to the merciless killing of 26 innocent civilians at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, the media world saw an emotionally weak nation unable to bear the loss. There were no words of solace, no newsprint to waste on sympathy. There was an unspoken rejoicing. What a harsh domain the global media had become! As India responded with military strike on 7 May 2025 on nine terror camps deep inside Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Western media was unable to bear the emergence of a New India that had zero tolerance for terror. What followed was the unleashing of untruths and half-truths that beat their misplaced standards of post-truth. Brandon J. Weichert, a so-called national security editor for the American platform National Interest, rushed in on May 8, 2025, to claim that Pakistanis had won the battle with India during the latter’s Operation Sindoor. It hadn’t even been 24 hours since the Indian military operations had begun, and Brandon jumped into deliver his verdict. Operation Sindoor’s military campaign went on for three more days. Post the cessation of military operations by India, Brandon has yet to revise his assessment or claims. So much for his ethics and credibility! His first article was tweeted by Indian-origin Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia, who too is unrepentant on peddling Pakistan propaganda. The Pakistani line was followed by Chinese official state media such as the Global Times and China Daily, and their claims were countered by the Indian embassy in Beijing and by the Indian state-run Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check divisions. China’s concerns were real. Its entire arms export market was in line of fire. And probably this was the first time that Chinese arms were being tested in a real battle with an archrival in India. Lest we forget, China was in an eyeball-to-eyeball military confrontation with India till about six months ago in India’s Ladakh region, yet there were no real military battles that took place between them to force the use of heavier weapons. Under Operation Sindoor, India had ramped up on the escalation ladder by first targeting the terror infrastructure inside Pakistan, then shifting its strategic objective to take out Pakistani military assets. India had changed its warfare doctrine vis-à-vis terror groups supported, trained, armed, and funded by Pakistan forever. Indian Prime Minister Modi detailed New India’s approach to terror and their sponsors. India would follow a zero tolerance for terror strikes inside its territory. The nuclear war bogey would not threaten India from going after terror groups and their sponsors, thereby calling the nuclear weapons threshold bluff. And India would consider every terror attack on its citizens as an act of war, meaning Pakistan would face the Indian military might and fury in case another terror strike happened. The nuclear bluff from Pakistan was amplified by the Americans when President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed they had some alarming intelligence to intervene, thereby implying that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan was in the offing. India also indicated through Prime Minister Modi and the Ministry of External Affairs that they were not buying what the Americans were peddling. India also took a strong, long-term view of its qualms with Pakistan and its self-interest, by keeping the 1960 Indus Water Treaty in abeyance even after the cessation of military operations. This, again, is a strategically important position, as India has for years now wanted to renegotiate the treaty to provide its citizens the

Global Terror Factories Targeted During Operation Sindoor by India

Defence Kashmir Pakistan Security Terrorism

435

Global Terror Factories Targeted During Operation Sindoor by India

India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ on May 7, 2025, involved missile strikes on nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. India’s stated aim was to target and dismantle terrorist infrastructure used for planning and carrying out attacks against India, specifically mentioning groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM). India maintained that these strikes were “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” intended to avoid Pakistani military facilities and civilian casualties. Pakistan fake claimed that India targeted civilian areas, including mosques, resulting in significant civilian deaths and injuries. Reports from Pakistan mentioned a mosque being hit in Muzaffarabad, and a mosque complex struck in Bahawalpur, leading to casualties. India’s perspective, based on the provided information, is that these sites, irrespective of containing any religious structures, were legitimate military targets because their primary function was facilitating terrorism. They argue that the presence of religious or civilian structures might be a deliberate tactic to shield terrorist activities or gain legitimacy. India emphasized that intelligence confirmed these locations were actively used as recruitment, training, indoctrination, and operational hubs for terror groups responsible for attacks on Indian soil.

Disinformation Media Misinformation News World

620

Hypocrisy Mars Press Freedom Index

Enhanced transparency, fairness, inclusivity and addressing structural issues will make Reporters Without Borders report more credible. Madhu Hebbar World Press Freedom Day is observed annually on May 3 by United Nations General Assembly beginning 1993 to champion fundamental role of free press in free democratic societies. It promotes press freedom, evaluates its global state, defends media independence and honours journalists who face persecution or death for their work (United Nations, www.un.org). In 2025, the focus is impact of artificial intelligence on journalism, addressing both its potential to enhance reporting and its risks, such as misinformation and surveillance. The day calls for governments to protect journalists and encourages media professionals to reflect on ethical challenges, emphasizing the press as cornerstone of democracy. World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), ranks 180 countries based on press freedom across five indicators: political context, legal framework, economic context, socio-cultural context and safety (RSF, rsf.org). In 2024, rankings for United States, United Kingdom, France and India reveal varied challenges, while criticisms of the index’s methodology and perceived biases spark debates about its objectivity. United States (Rank: 55th, Score: 66.59) As per the index, US dropped 10 places from 45th in 2023 with press freedom score of 66.59, the lowest in recent years (Statista, www.statista.com). RSF cites growing public distrust in media, fueled by political antagonism, as a key factor. Limited government interference notwithstanding, media ownership concentration, decline of local newsrooms, and layoffs—thousands of journalists lost jobs in 2023–2024—have weakened media landscape (RSF, rsf.org). Biden administration’s rhetoric such as calling journalism “not a crime,” contrasts with its pursuit of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and failure to press allies like Israel on press freedom violations (RSF, rsf.org). Critics argue US ranking reflects domestic political polarization rather than overt censorship, yet its mid-tier position highlights structural vulnerabilities in a supposed bastion of free speech (ICIJ, www.icij.org). United Kingdom (Rank: 23rd, Score: 78.29) UK improved slightly to 23rd in 2024 from 26th in 2023 with a score of 78.29 reflecting a relatively strong press freedom environment within Europe (RSF, rsf.org). However, challenges persist, including threats to public media funding and legal harassment of journalists through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). UK’s score benefits from a robust legal framework and media pluralism but RSF notes concerns over surveillance laws and detention of Assange which raise questions about government commitment to press freedom (RSF, rsf.org). Critics argue the UK’s high ranking may downplay these issues, especially when compared to lower-ranked nations with more overt censorship, suggesting a possible Western bias in the index’s weightage for subtle versus explicit threats. France (Rank: 21st, Score: 78.53) France rose to 21st in 2024 from 24th in 2023, with a score of 78.53, bolstered by strong legislative framework and European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) which protects journalists from political interference (Vajiram & Ravi, vajiramandravi.com). Yet, RSF highlights issues like police violence against journalists during protests and increasing online harassment particularly targeting female reporters. France ranking reflects Europe’s generally favourable press environment but its score masks domestic challenges such as media ownership concentration and occasional government pressure on public broadcasters (RSF, rsf.org). Critics question whether France’s high ranking overstates its press freedom given these issues compared to lower-ranked nations facing more severe restrictions. India (Rank: 159th, Score: 31.28) India improved slightly from 161st in 2023 to 159th in 2024, but its score dropped from 36.62 to 31.28 with gains only in security indicator (Vajiram & Ravi, vajiramandravi.com). RSF reports that nine journalists and one media worker were detained in 2024 and new laws like the Telecommunications Act 2023 and Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 grant government sweeping powers to censor media (Drishti IAS, www.drishtiias.com). Modi government’s ties with media conglomerates such as Reliance, which owns over 70 outlets reaching 800 million people, exacerbate concerns about media independence. India’s government has dismissed the index as “propaganda,” arguing it overlooks democratic vibrancy and uses a flawed methodology with small sample size (Hindustan Times, www.hindustantimes.com). India’s low ranking behind relatively unstable nations like Pakistan (152nd) fuels accusations of bias, as critics claim the index penalizes non-Western democracies disproportionately. Hypocrisy in Rankings RSF index faces accusations of hypocrisy, particularly in its treatment of Western versus non-Western nations. US, UK, and France despite domestic issues like media concentration and legal harassment, consistently rank higher than India, where overt censorship and journalist detentions are more prevalent. Critics argue that RSF’s methodology, reliant on expert questionnaires and Western funding, may prioritize subtle threats in democracies (e.g., distrust in the US) over systemic repression elsewhere (Global Investigative Journalism Network, gijn.org). For instance, India’s ranking near conflict zones like Palestine (157th) seems harsh to its defenders, given its democratic elections, while the UK’s high ranking despite Assange’s detention raises questions of consistency. RSF’s focus on political indicators, which fell globally by 7.6 points in 2024 may amplify perceptions of bias when Western allies face lighter scrutiny than adversaries like China (172nd) or Russia (162nd) (RSF, rsf.org). The index’s credibility is further questioned due to its funding from Western governments and NGOs which some argue aligns rankings with geopolitical interests. For example, Qatar (89th) ranks surprisingly high despite media restrictions, possibly reflecting strategic alliances (RSF, rsf.org). India’s stagnation at 159th despite its democratic framework, suggests a potential Western-centric lens that undervalues non-Western contexts. To address these criticisms, RSF could enhance methodological transparency and diversify its expert pool to better reflect global realities. Conclusion World Press Freedom Day underscores vital role of a free press but RSF index’s rankings for US, UK, France and India highlight both unique national challenges and broader questions about the index’s fairness. While US grapples with distrust, UK and France face legal and structural issues and India contends with overt censorship, index’s perceived biases undermine its credibility. A more transparent and inclusive approach could strengthen its role as a global advocate for press freedom. (Author is an IIT Graduate Engineer, living in the greater Los Angeles area. He is engaged in coaching youngsters interested in Hindu civilizational

Report: Conversion Cartels, Silent War on Bharat’s Soul

Hindus Policy

399

Report: Conversion Cartels, Silent War on Bharat’s Soul

India’s dharmic landscape is witnessing significant alteration with patterns emerging that raise concerns about national security, social cohesion and sovereignty. These patterns include proliferation of churches, legal actions related to religious conversions, children rescued from missionary organizations and increased scrutiny of missionary bodies under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

Beyond Analogy: Rethinking Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

Security Terrorism

473

Beyond Analogy: Rethinking Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

Shambhavi Thite In recent years, there has been a growing effort to portray Islamophobia and anti-semitism as synonymous forms of prejudice. Though well-meaning, this analogy ignores their quite different histories, intentions, and outcomes. Not only another type of prejudice, anti-semitism is a centuries-old hatred spun into the fabric of Western and Middle Eastern civilizations by religious demonisation, economic conspiracies, and violent scapegoating. From medieval blood libels to the Holocaust, Jews have been persecuted for who they are—a people wrongly accused of dominating media, banks, and governments not for anything they have done. Though equally destructive in its consequences, Islamophobia usually results from modern geopolitical concerns, security fears, and responses to radicalism. Understanding these differences is essential—not to rank suffering but rather to face every type of hate with the historical and contextual knowledge it requires. While a major problem, Islamophobia usually results from geopolitical conflicts, terrorism, and radical Islamist movements rather than from a basic theological hate. Major Islamist terror events like 9/11 and later acts of violence by groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been intimately associated with the rise of anti-Muslim attitudes in many Western countries. Unlike anti-semitism, which presents Jews as all-powerful conspirators, Islamophobia is mostly molded by security concerns and cultural anxiety rather than a natural, unprovoked animosity against Muslims. While anti-Muslim discrimination should be categorically denounced, conflating it with anti-semitism obscures the unique challenges faced by Jewish communities. It disregards the specific historical and ideological sources of every type of discrimination. Anti-semitism: A Constant, Systemic Hatred For millennia, anti-semitism has been ingrained in religious, political, and economic machinations that have excluded and attacked Jewish populations all over. From medieval blood libels and the Spanish Inquisition to the Dreyfus Affair and the Holocaust, Jews have been unfairly accused of dictating media, financial organizations, and international governments. As shown by the emergence of online hate speech targeting Jews following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, these conspiracy theories still feed current anti-semitism (The New York Times). Clear expression of modern anti-semitism is the continuous brutality against Israeli people by Hamas, including intentional killing, kidnapping, and torture of men, women, and children. These crimes are rooted in a strongly ingrained worldview that denigrates Jewish people and rejects the validity of Jewish sovereignty; therefore, they transcend political or territorial boundaries. While ostensibly separating Jews from Zionists, Hamas’s 2017 charter has often spread antisemitic discourse based on historical clichés of Jewish conspiratorialism and cruelty. Targeting citizens—a breach of international law—reflects an ideological dedication to the destruction of Israel, which functions as a front for the more general denial of Jewish self-determination. This violence must be viewed in the context of anti-semitism, which has historically justified the persecution of Jews through group guilt and demonization. The reaction of the world community to these crimes will be a crucial test of whether anti-semitism is actually given the same importance as other kinds of racial and ethnic hatred. Moreover, anti-semitism results from ideas of a far right or white supremacist nature as well. However, extremist Islamist rhetoric also plays a significant role. For decades, Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood have spread antisemitic tales linking Jews to malevolent conspirators running worldwide affairs (Fathom Journal). Independent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this enmity toward Jews highlights even more how anti-semitism is a hate-driven ideology rather than a response to political events. Anxiety About Radical Islamism: Reversing Extremism Although sincere anti-Muslim discrimination ought to be denounced, most of what is labelled as “Islamophobia” nowadays results from a response to radical Islamism and extreme violence rather than from a natural hostility against Muslims. Unlike anti-semitism, which has historically attacked Jews regardless of their beliefs or behaviour, modern animosity toward Islam is often motivated by issues connected to terrorism, the application of Sharia law, and the larger sociopolitical influence of Islamist extremism. Contextual analysis is necessary to grasp the different historical paths and society reactions to these two kinds of discrimination since this difference defines them. High-profile Islamist terror acts, including 9/11, the Charlie Hebdo murder, and the Manchester Arena bombing, have mostly coincided with the explosion in Islamophobia across Western countries. Along with organizational actions like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, these events have stoked public fears about radical Islam. Prejudice of any kind is disgusting, but dismissing these problems as mere bigotry fails to recognize the actual security risks posed by radical groups. Jews have historically faced persecution regardless of their behaviour. On the other hand, most of the hostility directed at Muslims in the West results from concerns about Islamist extremism rather than from a general contempt of the religion itself (The Jerusalem Post). Encouragement of serious debates on religious tolerance, security, and the complexity of modern global politics depends on an awareness of this vital difference. The term “Islamophobia” is misused in the suppression of Islamist extremism criticism The fact that the modern “Islamophobia” story is so often used as a weapon to stifle reasonable criticism of radical Islam raises some very alarming questions. While it’s vital to combat real anti-Muslim bias, the term Islamophobia is increasingly used to silence discussions about Islamist ideology and its intellectual roots. This misreading of religious tolerance and security shapes the conversation such that even well-founded criticisms of extreme ideas are written off as bigotry. One prominent illustration of this phenomenon is the way detractors of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel are sometimes accused of Islamophobia. Rooted in a mix of Islamist and far-left activity, the BDS movement aims to minimize the Jewish state under the cover of human rights campaigning. But resistance to BDS is a reaction to a political objective that fits parties renowned for their animosity toward Israel and, at times, Jews in general, not a statement of anti-Muslim feeling. Combining Islamophobia with BDS compromises free speech by deterring honest discussion on the consequences of the movement (The Conversation). This more general trend of characterizing any criticism of Islamist militancy as Islamophobic has alarming results. It discourages attempts to properly fight

China Security

463

China’s ‘Gunboat’ Expansionism in Tasman Sea

PLA Navy seeks to expand Chinese Communist control beyond traditional Indo-Pacific areas and change power dynamics vis-à-vis Australia, New Zealand and their Western allies. Ayadoure Stalin China’s recent naval activities in Tasman Sea have caught the attention of many across Indo-Pacific. This unusual move by People’s Liberation Army (PLA) marks a significant display of naval strength, indicating Beijing’s strategic aim to disrupt current balance of power in the region. Considering Tasman Sea’s closeness to Australia and New Zealand countries that have traditionally held sway in South Pacific China’s actions imply a broader geopolitical strategy that could alter security landscape in the area. Tasman Sea has traditionally remained outside China’s naval exercises domain making this recent manoeuvre an unusual and deliberate display of force. PLA Navy’s growing presence in these waters marks a departure from its conventional areas of military operations, primarily concentrated in South China Sea, East China Sea and Taiwan Straits. This geographic shift indicates Beijing’s desire to expand its operational reach into broader Indo-Pacific, demonstrating its ability to project power beyond its immediate maritime periphery which in itself is controversial and expansionist. China’s decision to operate in this region should not be viewed in isolation but as part of its broader maritime strategy which seeks to counter Western presence in the Pacific. While official Chinese statements may downplay significance of these drills, the message to Australia, New Zealand and their allies is apparent: China will assert its presence in waters traditionally dominated by Western powers. Western presence in South Pacific Tasman Sea has typically been outside the realm of China’s naval exercises, making this recent manoeuvre a notable and intentional show of strength. PLA Navy’s increasing activity in these waters departs from its usual military operations which are mainly focused on South China Sea, East China Sea, and Taiwan Straits. This shift suggests that Beijing aims to expand its operational reach into wider Indo-Pacific showcasing ‘communist military strength’ beyond its immediate accepted maritime boundaries. China’s choice to engage in this region should be considered part of its larger maritime strategy which aims to counter Western influence in the Pacific. Although official Chinese statements may downplay the importance of these drills, the message to Australia, New Zealand, and their allies is clear: China is prepared and capable of asserting its presence in waters that have traditionally been under Western control. Provocative Display of Power China’s naval expansion in Tasman Sea is more expansionist as part of a larger plan of President Xi Jingping to alter regional security landscape. Deployment of Chinese warships in this unexpected area goes beyond a simple military exercise; it represents a calculated display of power that fulfils several strategic goals. Firstly, it tests responses of Australia and New Zealand assessing their speed and effectiveness in addressing perceived threats nearby. This gives China insight into Western regional allies’ military readiness and strategic collaboration. Secondly, it conveys a strong message to smaller Pacific nations that China was the ‘big brother’ capable of wielding diplomatic and military influence in their waters. China’s activities in Tasman Sea might not be limited to mere displays of strength. Violation of territorial waters treaties, coercive actions and other aggressive manoeuvres cannot be ignored. Given China’s history of using its naval power for intimidation such as island-building in the South China Sea or conducting military drills near Taiwan these concerns are valid. Shadow of Gunboat Diplomacy China’s naval activities in Tasman Sea reflect its Gunboat Diplomacy, a tactic historically used by it to exert influence through naval presence. This strategy has been apparent in Beijing’s approach to territorial disputes in South China Sea, its assertive stance in Taiwan Straits and its growing resistance to US Pacific Command operations. China aims to bolster its claims over Indo Pacific waters by employing Gunboat Diplomacy, intimidate rivals and deter outside interventions. Deployment of PLA Navy assets in Tasman Sea extends this strategy, signalling Australia, New Zealand and their allies that western powers may not be able to negate China’s influence in wider Indo-Pacific region. China is contesting supremacy of US Pacific Command. Historically, Washington has maintained a robust naval presence in Indo-Pacific to counterbalance China’s expanding military reach. However, Beijing’s ability to conduct operations far from its shores indicates a growing desire to quickly expand its arc of influence thereby challenge U.S.-led regional security frameworks. Implications for the Indo-Pacific PLA presence in Tasman Sea raises important questions about the future of regional security and strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific. Australia, New Zealand and their allies will likely see China’s actions as a wake-up call, leading to discussions on effectively counterbalancing Beijing’s increasing military assertiveness. Several potential responses could arise: First, strengthening regional alliances Australia and New Zealand may look to enhance their defence cooperation with like-minded partners including US, Japan, and India through frameworks like Quad and AUKUS. Secondly, enhancing maritime surveillance both nations might prioritize increased investments in maritime domain awareness capabilities to monitor Chinese naval activities better. Thirdly, diplomatic pushback Canberra and Wellington could use diplomatic channels to garner support from Pacific island nations, ensuring they do not fall under China’s influence. Fourthly, increased military preparedness expect to see greater defence spending and military exercises aimed at showcasing regional resolve against possible Chinese encroachments. China’s recent activities inTasman Sea are not likely to be a one-off event. Instead, they indicate a more significant shift in Beijing’s military strategy one aimed at challenging the current security framework in the South Pacific. Through economic pressure, diplomatic initiatives and increased naval presence, China is gradually working to reshape the Indo-Pacific to its advantage. China’s PLA navy operations in Tasman Sea represent a notable shift from its usual military focus indicating a bold move into waters traditionally under Western control. (Author is an UGC Junior Research Fellow at Centre for Indo Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)China Extends to Tasman Sea

Disinformation Misinformation Security United States

448

USAID Shady Agenda Exposed

Foreign influence peddling is not new to India. From colonial trade networks to modern soft power strategies, external forces have long sought to shape the nation’s socio-political landscape. In the present era, dominance is not limited to dominance through military strength but exercised via economic dependencies, cultural narratives and policy interventions to try and subjugate communities to slavery of ultra-modern variety. In Indian context, foreign influence is often orchestrated through a meticulously structured network of private corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks and academic institutions with funding streams strategically directed to shape public discourse and policy formulation. And, in most cases, it’s an operation of the deep state. At the heart of this intricate web, the common patron is United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Blog Post