China Geopolitics International Leadership Policy

Keeping The Window Open!

Delicate balancing of relations between US, China & Russia is test of Bharat’s foreign policy framework that centres on strategic autonomy. K.A.Badarinath Will there be a huge shift in Bharat’s foreign policy framework? Or, possible tilt towards China, Russia conglomeration, a permanent feature? Will this lead to increased distancing between India and US under Republican White House stewardship? What’s in store on geo-political, strategic and economic engagement for Bharat and the world? There are several unanswered and unsettling questions that pop up in inter-personal conversations and on the information highways as one scans on Google, Weibo to Douyin. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to China and Japan has set off a flurry of conversations internationally. Both, Beijing and Tokyo are most intrinsic foes that do not have much in common especially after the war leading to Japan’s surrender in 1945. Several questions that analysts, anchors and seasoned newsmen are also awe-stuck given that in the first place he lined up the visits to both China and Japan in one go. Secondly, not only do they keep distance but belong to two diametrically opposite camps but have huge issues in global equations. While China and Russia have had rivalled US-led NATO group, Japan falls into the latter alliance. Thirdly, this visit of Prime Minister Modi is significant in the backdrop of United States President Donald Trump weaponising trade, imposing 50 per cent tariff on Bharat’s goods and services and thereby burning bridges. Fourthly, Prime Minister Modi’s two nation visit gained prominence as the ‘global south’ network seeks to consolidate its position via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization whose twentieth session was held in Tianjin as China holds the rotating chair as of now. Fifth, most analysts think that Bharat’s ‘strategic autonomy’ policy framework is being put to test with re-setting its relations vis-à-vis US and China. Sixth, however, top hawks in Bharat’s foreign affairs department do expect the relations with United States to bounce back to normalcy as had happened in the past after Washington DC imposed unilateral sanctions in aftermath of Pokharan nuclear tests. Seventh, the probability of a ‘delicate balancing act’ that New Delhi would enact with caution but firmness of purpose as its near time posturing without yielding to bullying tactics of US. Eighth, there’s no reason why Bharat should not continue oil trade with Russia or any other country depending on prevailing market conditions. Neither US nor Europe have locus standi to corner Bharat citing oil trade given their own continued ‘lucrative gas deals’ with Russia and its partners. Ninth, Prime Minister Modi’s visit to both Japan and China indicate that Bharat has the depth to manage diversities. For instance, enhancing Japanese investments to US $ 68 billion from $ 34 billion through 170 deals is a big take away for both Bharat and Japan who enjoy strategic and special relationship. This is a firm message for US that sought to dry up the foreign investment pipeline in Bharat to push for a ‘bad trade deal’. By not participating in a significant programme to commemorate China’s victory over Japan is again a big message to Beijing that New Delhi has its friends elsewhere as well. Bilateral summit between Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping has been regarded as pivotal to ‘resetting relations’ as development partners and ‘not as rivals’. While the intent is good, first step has been taken to normalise relations, there are several challenges especially on borders, Belt and Roads Initiative that brings Chinese projects to the doorstep via Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Apprehensions seem to be very high on both over outcome of these meetings even as China and Bharat ready to celebrate 75-years of diplomatic relations. One significant point made by Prime Minister Modi that has gone viral was border peace and tranquillity was like an insurance policy for future enduring relations. Can the dragon and elephant in the room tango seamlessly is a billion dollar question as resetting of relations is attempted. As one Chinese scholar wrote ‘it’s rational choice and shared responsibility for both India and China to reset relations’. A big take away is a meeting between Prime Minister Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin with carpooling and Ridge Carlton delegation level talks happening in a ‘delightful’ atmosphere. The visuals and videos of Modi, Putin traveling in a Russian made car throwing protocols to winds is not something European Union or US will want to watch. Given that US described Russia and Ukraine conflict as ‘Modi’s war’ has had no impact on the two leaders’ summit deliberations that extended a wee-bit. Also, 2025 marks 15 years of Indo-Russian strategic relationship that would come into full play later this year. From Bharat’s perspective, there have been a few takeaways from 20-members SCO summit. Unadulterated condemnation of Pahalgam attack by terrorists from across the borders is what India expected and achieved. Also, expanding trade relations between different SCO member countries with payments squared off in respective currencies is big. This would also mean that increasingly trade would get delinked from US dollar and euro while Chinese Renminbi, Russian rouble and Indian Rupee would gain in terms of acceptability. While the show in China came to a near close, the implications of new found friendship between Presidents’ Xi, Putin and Prime Minister Modi will result in sleepless nights for those in Trump administration and Brussels, housing headquarters of European Union. (Author is Director and Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies) Keeping The Window Open!

Bali Jatra Reflects Bharat’s Maritime Prowess

Guest Column International Policy Security

937

Bali Jatra Reflects Bharat’s Maritime Prowess

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

Bharat Economy Policy United States USA World

692

Options Galore!

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

Bharat Hindus

690

Insight: Explaining Caste

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

Defence Economy Kashmir Pakistan Policy Security Technology

695

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)

Bharat Policy

669

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.

Geopolitics United States USA World

615

Trump’s Tantrums & Lies!

Quixotic dealing with strategic allies untenable, US may lose out on India and get cornered as the deep state and left lobbies plays dirty. K.A.Badarinath Overwhelming opinion amongst intelligentsia is that US President Donald Trump is throwing tantrums and lying through his teeth. His repeated claims from Washington DC, Kananaskis – the venue for G-7 summit – and elsewhere have come under close scrutiny internationally. First big claim that President Trump made was to have successfully mediated between Bharat and Pakistan during the week-long conflict to avert a nuclear war. The two countries fought a limited war following daylight murder of 26 tourists in Pahalgam of Jammu and Kashmir by ISI sponsored terrorists in April 25, 2025. Yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi categorically debunked President Trump’s falsified claims from White House and outside. Neither was there any mediation, dialogue nor intervention by President Trump to pause the armed conflict. Instead, ‘Operation Sindhoor’ was paused only at specific and desperate request of Pakistan military establishment through regular channels of communication after Bharat pounded its airbases deep. In fact, Trump had gone ahead and tweeted to claim his leadership role in dissuading the South Asian neighbours from going to a major nuclear war. Yesterday, President Trump went a step further and pointed out that international media did not write about his ‘stellar role’ as peacenik between the arch rivals. On the contrary, in his 35-minutes telephonic conversation with Trump, Modi unambiguously stated that the latter had no role whatsoever. Indian foreign office ‘read out’ by Secretary Vikram Misri clearly dismissed in most certain terms any mediation by President Trump. What’s laughable is that Donald Trump repeated his bombastic claim from Oval office that he stopped the war even after getting a ‘earful’ from Modi. Second big claim of President Trump that trade deal between India and US was used as leverage to bring around Prime Minister Modi. Again, this has been outright dismissed outright by India. President Trump’s suggestion that trade deal in the works between India and US leveraged to prevent a larger war was again billed as ‘preposterous’ and ‘untrue’. To drive home India’s unambiguous position on war with terror infested Pakistan, Modi firmly and politely declined Trump’s invite to stop over in Washington DC for a chat citing ‘prior commitments’. One cannot recall if American President’s invite was ever declined by Indian leadership in the past. Few things have been stated crystal clear to President Trump in the telephonic conversation whether he liked it or not. India will not and never accept mediation with Pakistan. This is key articulation of the country’s policy as part of its ‘strategic autonomy’ framework. Yet another point made was that funding, sponsoring and abetting terrorism will now on be considered war against India and not Proxy war. And, hence, Bharat reserves the right to hit back in a manner it deems fit. Thirdly, Jammu & Kashmir is non-negotiable, integral to India and only discussion could be on areas under illegal occupation of Pakistan. In last few weeks, India exercised maximum restraint in not taking on President Trump’s claim either directly or indirectly. Yesterday’s phone call between the two leaders reflected clarity in articulation India’s position. On the parallel, General Asim Munir of Pakistan getting close to White House, having a closed door lunch with President Trump is something that clearly indicates complete disruption in US foreign policy under Republican Presidency. Reports that President Trump promised hitherto denied defence technologies to Pakistan for using its territory to strike against Iran has its own implications. Old foreign policy hands have an independent analysis on the chain of events including President Trump’s claims that have been eventually denied by Indian foreign secretary Misri. Entire rule book in diplomatic niceties have been consigned to dust bin by President Trump and his bunch of policy advisors from corporate world while dealing with Presidents and Prime Ministers. Hosting General Asim Munir has its own nuances and messaging for sure. President Trump seems to have realized that General Munir could be deployed to could push the American agenda in Asia. Using Pakistani airbases and army entry – exit points across 1000 kilometres long border with Iran will only expand the war theatre between Israel and Iran. Courting Pakistan at most critical junctures have had happened even in the past. Hence, Trump – Munir lunch may not have come as a big surprise for some Indian security hawks. Also, Donald Trump may be looking at a defunct and rudderless Pakistan as ‘potential market’ for clinching transactional business deals as well as go down in human history with a ‘peace nobel’ courtesy Islamabad’s leadership. One big suspicion is that American deep state may be playing dirty against Prime Minister Modi’s decisive leadership as it had attempted at denying his re-election for a third consecutive term. Cosying up of Pakistan military establishment with Republican White House may have come after a successful trade deal hammered out by Trump and Chinese Communist Party’s iron-fisted President Xi Jingping. In ultimate analysis, President Trump comes out as an ‘undependable ally’ for anyone including Bharat. Disruptions in equations with friends and foes may be treated with equanimity by the slippery Trump administration. Rising American societal unrest that has begun to show up in demonstrations and protests may only deepen threatening the very idea of ‘United States of America’. American deep state and Left aligned lobbies entrenched over decades are bound to exploit the churn to their advantage. In the process, there’s huge possibility of President Trump getting cornered. In the process, Trump may lose out on India. (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Radicalised Khalistanis, a Canadian Problem

Canada Khalistan Pakistan Security Sikh

656

Radicalised Khalistanis, a Canadian Problem

For years Canada’s mainstream parties have courted Sikh immigrants to win votes. Now, they pander to Khalistani extremists for political gains. Rahul Pawa As Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Canada for the G7 summit, an unsettling scene greeted international media: young children brandished “Khalistan” flags and even defaced a Hindu temple in Surrey with secessionist graffiti. These images of toddlers taught to chant separatist slogans sparked outrage in India and around the world. Spokesman Sudeep Singh of the revered Patna Sahib Gurudwara, the birthplace of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji warned that “the way children were used in the protests is highly condemnable”. Similarly, Sikh seminary leader Sarchand Singh Khyala condemned the videos as “spreading hatred by brainwashing children”. Dressed-up flags and violent symbols at public parades horrify many Sikhs abroad who see these stunts as political theatre, not Sikhism. Mainstream Sikh leaders make the same point: Khalistanis in Canada are a tiny fringe, not the Sikh community. In late realization of sorts, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has emphasized, “many supporters of Khalistan in Canada… do not represent the Sikh community as a whole.” Leading Sikh voices echo this. Jasdip Singh Jassee of Sikhs of America reminds Americans that “the vast majority of Sikhs globally, including in the US and Canada, do not support separatist agendas.” In India, religious seats like Takht Patna Sahib and Damdami Taksal have publicly denounced the protests. Their message is unequivocal: the Khalistan protesters are not Sikh martyrs. Patna Sahib’s spokesman notes that all of Sikhism’s pending issues are being resolved in India, so “there should not be such protests” against PM Modi “no Sikh can tolerate this.” In fact, these Khalistani stunts run directly counter to Sikh teachings. Sikhism emphasises service and harmony not hate or violence. Provincial Sikh leaders emphasise, “Sikhs have protected mandirs (Hindu temples)” as their sacred Dharmic duty. Yet last April in Surrey, vandals scrawled “Khalistan” on the pillars of Shree Lakshmi Narayana Mandir. This hate-crime – denounced by the temple as “an attack on a sacred space” would deeply sadden ordinary Sikhs. Jasdip Jassee said it was “disgusting” that extremists chose Diwali (a Sikh-protected festival) to vandalise a mandir, calling it “shameful” and against Sikh values. Similarly, Damdami Taksal (a mainstream Sikh seminary) has openly criticised Canadians who use children to insult India’s PM, saying these pro-Khalistan people “are spewing venom against India”. These Sikh authorities unanimously emphasise that Khalistan is not a Sikh cause and certainly not one worth teaching to children. On the contrary, Sikhism is deeply Dharmic and Indian. From the Punjabi heartland to global diaspora Sikhs celebrate their faith’s founder Guru Nanak and their tenets of service (seva) and protection. India’s own armed forces and civil institutions reflect Sikh contributions: for example, Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh (a Sikh) was made India’s first Air Force Field Marshal, and Sikh generals have led the Army in multiple wars. Sikh entrepreneurs, scholars and saints likewise uplifted Indian society. For modern Sikhs, the idea of carving out a separate nation feels alien only a “microscopic” minority even entertains it. A former Punjab Chief Secretary notes that hardcore Khalistani ideologues are “not even one per cent” of Sikh population while many others view Khalistan more as a business or polarising narrative. Polls agree Punjab elections show pro-Khalistan candidates picking up well under 1 – 2 per cent of votes in Sikh-majority districts. In short, the Khalistan idea has virtually no grassroots support back in India; it lives on only in select pockets abroad. So why does the Khalistan fringe loom so large in Canada? The answer lies in Canadian diaspora politics and foreign meddling. For years Canada’s mainstream parties have courted Sikh immigrants to win votes, often ignoring their excesses. Observers note a growing consensus among all Canadian parties to pander to Khalistan sympathies for electoral gain. Minister S. Jaishankar put it bluntly: by giving radical Sikhs impunity, “the Canadian government… is repeatedly showing that its vote bank is more powerful than its rule of law.” Veteran broadcaster Terry Milewski described it as a dirty deal: Canadian MPs attend Sikh parades and “look the other way” at posters of terrorists, in exchange for “10,000 votes… because the people of the gurdwaras will vote as we tell them”. In such a climate, small separatist groups found refuge on Canadian soil under the banner of free speech. Worse, intelligence services have cynically empowered them. Indian officials repeatedly assert that Pakistan’s ISI funds the Khalistani network in Canada. Union Minister Hardeep Puri openly called protestors “kiraye ke tattu” (mercenaries on hire) whose demonstrations were staged “from the neighbouring country [Pakistan] where they get funding.” Security analysts back this up, several top analysts observe that these activists have their own underworld and are often involved in deadly gang rivalries and are essentially “helping Pakistanis spend whatever remains of their money”. Indeed, he warns that Sikh extremists in Canada “will continue to be funded and fuelled by the ISI”. Put bluntly, this looks less like a grass-roots Sikh movement than a criminal-intelligence network. It is a problem imported into Canada by a hostile state, not spawned by Sikh communities. The political consequences in Canada have been dramatic. In the 2025 federal elections, Jagmeet Singh, NDP leader who long voiced support for Sikh protesters, saw his party collapse. Singh lost his own seat and announced he would step down as leader. Earlier, in September 2024, Singh had even “ripped up” his confidence-and-supply deal with Trudeau’s “Liberals”, erasing the government majority he once helped engineer. Meanwhile Trudeau’s gamble backfired. As Sikh ally Singh turned on him, Trudeau’s Liberals barely clung to power under newcomer Mark Carney. By early 2025 Trudeau himself resigned as a result of his Khalistan miscalculation. In short, Ottawa’s flirtation with diaspora extremism not only frayed Canada-India ties, it torpedoed the careers of Western politicians. Against this turmoil, Sikhs have reaffirmed their core values. Sikh institutions wasted no time republishing lessons of unity. Damdami Taksal’s Sarchand

Indian Nationalism is Not What the West Thinks

Bharat Hindus Opinion World

819

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

Bharat International Media News Security World

592

‘Mis-Reporting on War Against Terror’

India faced serious issues when a few top international media outlets shred objectivity in their reportage on terror, terrorist organizations, their handlers and financiers. Rohan Giri In the dense fog of war against terror unleashed by India after dastardly killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, several international media outlets rushed not to inform, but to build slanted opinion in sync with their agenda-based narratives. From manipulated assumptions to selective outrage, recent reportage by outlets like The Independent, Al Jazeera, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times raises serious questions not just about journalistic standards but the intent behind this slanted coverage of war on terror. Even global news agency like Reuters fell to prey to such narratives. Between May 7 – 11, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) jointly released evidence and detailed press briefings were held showing how India’s calibrated military actions were in direct response to a spate of cross-border terror attacks traced to Pakistan-based jihadi networks. Indian government provided satellite Intelligence, precision strike data and official press briefings were held. But, the international media houses chose to bury facts, ignore or sidestep India’s security concerns, campaign against terror and gave platform to unverifiable Pakistani military propaganda. One big question was the possible agenda these media houses peddled during the conflict? London-based The Independent carried articles in series on terror attacks, military retaliation by India and the two full days of conflict. One piece suggested that Pakistan shot down three Indian Rafale fighter jets. Reuters went a step further and put the number of fighter jets lost by India at five. The New York Times even claimed that it had evidence. But then, what’s the basis for these dispatches? Well, an old hand at international news agencies averred that the story was blurted out by American security establishment sleuths that reportedly kept a watch on India’s precision strikes that led to destruction of nine terrorist sites in Pakistan occupied Jammu Kashmir and deep within Pakistan where over 100 terrorists were neutralised. Another version was that Chinese Communist Party apparatus swung into action. Its agenda that apparently was pushed big time. As per these media analysts, China was keen to portray that its military aircraft and missiles in Pakistani armour shot down the Rafale fighter jets. Beijing’s possible intent was to establish its superiority in tactical and technological superiority in a complex war theatre. The word around was that China was simultaneously looking at testing its fighters capabilities and missiles power as against French Dassault built Rafales and Indian missiles. Well, one wonders on ethical part of media ecosystem that comes under close scrutiny in trying war situation. But then, lobbies with geo-political interests and corporates pushing their defence ware also played out. Unverified claims made by Pakistani military as part of its psychological offensive was taken as ‘fact based’ news copy without third-party verification or forensic satellite imagery. Interestingly enough, the big unanswered question was why several international media outlets failed to pass muster by for not juxtaposing India’s official version or basic checks done with South Block that houses defence ministry on Raisina Hill. A story on similar lines filed by The New York Times team in South Asia with screaming headlines that India lost jets. This is contrary to Indian army version that all aircraft returned safely to their base. If Pakistan had such decisive victories shooting down as many as five Indian jets and global media networks reported this as the ‘absolute truth’ where’s the evidence? Did Pakistan present wreckage or pilot log information? Was evidence sought either from US security establishment, Chinese peddlers or Pakistani machinery? Is this objective ‘war reporting’ or part of the larger misinformation campaign launched by Islamabad, its backers and cahoots? Another write up by Independent claimed that India used Israeli-origin Harop drones against Pakistan in a provocative act insinuating recklessness. Again, no proof was offered, no drone telemetry was shown and no assessment was provided of the Harop’s actual precision capabilities. Were these articles meant to inform the reader—or feed into a broader narrative that paints India as a trigger-happy aggressor, irrespective of facts? Al Jazeera went a step further. It aired emotional testimonies from locals in Muridke who disputed India’s intelligence that a mosque in the town had doubled up as a terror training camp. Civilians deserve to be heard in a war situation. But, why was it that these newsmen with huge track record failed to piece together Muridke’s well-documented history as headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba. This is not classified information—it is part of the 26/11 Mumbai terror ATF reports and independent research. Why suppress this reality? Who benefits from painting that Muridke was a “victim”? Moving to the next peddler, The Guardian published a humanizing profile of Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir, portraying him as a composed and stabilizing force. What got omitted in the process was Munir’s leadership of Pakistani military that intensified support to jihadist proxies under the guise of “strategic depth”—a doctrine responsible for decades of regional instability. Why romanticize military leadership in a country where elected civilian voices are repeatedly silenced and the army retained unchecked power? Why does The Guardian avoid similar puff pieces for India’s civilian leadership during crisis management? In another article, The Guardian casually reported India’s accusations that Pakistani drones had attacked Indian civilian and military sites. It framed this as part of a “tit-for-tat” cycle—effectively equating defensive action with terrorist provocation. But how can a country’s retaliation after civilian deaths be presented as escalation? Is there no difference between attacking civilians and targeting terror camps based on intelligence? Meanwhile, The Washington Post centered its story on the theme of “misinformation”—but blurred the lines between Pakistan’s unverifiable claims and India’s official statements backed by data and press briefings. Does Washington Post really believe a constitutional democracy’s formal briefings are on par with WhatsApp forwards and anonymous leaks pushed by a military-intelligence complex with a known

Blog Post