Defence Economy Kashmir Pakistan Policy Security Technology

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

384

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

433

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

385

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

546

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

390

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

602

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

439

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

579

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

556

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

Blog Post