Defence Geopolitics Hindus International Leadership Policy Security

Nepal Stares at Uncertainty!

A stable, open, vibrant Himalayan nation retaining its Hindu core with cultural, civilizational and spiritual underpinning is most sustainable. K.A.Badarinath Peace and tranquillity, political stability and nursing the tiny Himalayan nation, Nepal to normalcy is pivotal to enduring growth and sustained development in South Asia. Bharat’s nearest and one of the most trusted partners, Nepal went through a lot in last couple of weeks. Disturbing and painful scenes of complete anarchy, loss of 19 young lives, scores injured, iconic Parliament, Supreme Court and other top-end buildings burning to ashes in part or completely painted a distressing picture of this picturesque country. There’s no place for corrupt, authoritarian or anti-people regimes that let down their own people. Be it Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka, zero tolerance to corruption is something that each will have to prioritize as basic tenant of a democratic polity. And, Nepali political leadership of all hues and shades have got thoroughly exposed after they failed to provide corrupt-free governance. Social media related policies were incidental and served as trigger for youngsters to hit the road. Eight major political formations with diverse ideologies and linkages like Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Moist Centre, Jan Samajwadi Party, CPN – United Socialist, Loktantrik Samajbadi Party, Rashtriya Janmorcha that dominated the political arena today find themselves out of the system after K.P.Oli led coalition was forced out by the youngsters. Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah and Sudan Gurung that apparently played a key role during the protests seem to have shifted behind the screen in their activities. While uncertainty stares in Nepal, an interim government headed by Prime Minister Sushila Karki and her three ministers do not fit into any of these political parties. And, they would find it difficult to find their in moving forward. Given that the young protesters did not have centralized leadership or entity that led the violent protests, the interim government will have to carve out its own socio-political space. Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal, Power Minister Kulman Ghising and finance Minister Rameshwar Khanal appointed by the first lady Prime Minister reportedly enjoy clean image and do not come with political baggage of any kind. Their work in respective areas stands out. All the four including Prime Minister Karki seem to have western orientation either due to their profession or outlook. Hence, their work in the government would be subjected to closer scrutiny by all stakeholders in Nepal. For the first time, overtly professional Nepal army had to play a semi-political role leading to dissolution of Parliament, formation of interim government that will lead the country into general elections in March 2026. To its credit, Nepal Army displayed exemplary professionalism by not taking reins of governance and backed the Karki regime to see through difficult transition next few months. Also, it is immensely possible that political parties that lost people’s confidence may realign to bounce back to centre stage seeking a second chance. After adoption of the new constitution ringing in democracy in 2008, fourteen governments were formed, dislodged with political alignments happening all through. None of these political formations were able to complete the mandated five-year term after an election. In these 18-years of political turbulence marked by twists, turns and realignments, India stood as beacon of strength to lend a helping hand in the Himalayan nation’s transition to democracy. Notwithstanding political ideologies of a government that ruled Kathmandu, India stood firmly with Nepal in its socio-economic development journey as a steadfast partner with no strings attached. If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and external affairs minister S.Jaishankar’s statements are any indication, India continues to be firmly behind Nepal. One also needs to watch out for cold play from Communist China and Republican US while Nepal struggles to end uncertainty and get back its rhythm. Hard part for Nepal would be to retain its basic Hindu character while diverse ideological formations and external forces come into play. There were wild guesses that the former monarchs were behind protests which were proved wrong. An open, vibrant and bustling Nepal retaining its Hindu core in terms of its cultural, civilizational and spiritual orientation is what would sustain itself as a sovereign nation. (Author is Director and Chief Executive of non-partisan New Delhi based think-tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bali Jatra Reflects Bharat’s Maritime Prowess

Guest Column International Policy Security

648

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

Disinformation Media Misinformation News

297

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.

Bharat International Media News Security World

364

‘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

Disinformation Media Misinformation News Pakistan

658

Demolishing Dawn’s Deception

Rohan Giri Dawn.com, the Pakistani news outlet that hosts Naqvi’s fabrications, has a long history of anti-Indian prejudice, regularly publishing articles that undermine Indian sovereignty and national interests. While it claims to support democracy, it rarely, if ever, scrutinizes Pakistan’s establishment with the same zeal as it does India. The hypocrisy is apparent. It is a journal that thrives on manufactured frustration with India while deliberately avoiding the dictatorial reality of its country. Jawed Naqvi’s most recent piece in The Dawn, “India’s left-right centenary,” is another example of selective indignation and intellectual dishonesty. It is deliberately written to support the myth that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is the face of fascism in India. In his distinctive manner, Naqvi weaves together hypocritical historical allusions, ideological prejudices, and plain lies to create a story that has been disproven time and time again but is still promoted by those who are unwilling to confront except facts. In addition to criticizing RSS, his piece highlights the larger intellectual squalor that plagues segments of the Indian left and its supporters abroad. Exposing his distortions is not only necessary but also morally required since, if allowed unchecked, lying takes on the appearance of reality. Naqvi’s argument’s basic tenet is a sloppy and false analogy between RSS and European fascism. It reveals a basic misinterpretation—possibly deliberate—of fascism as well as the intellectual and historical foundations of RSS. RSS has never aspired to be an authoritarian entity, in contrast to Hitler’s racial superiority or Mussolini’s corporatist state. It continued to be a sociocultural movement dedicated to self-reliance, national cohesion, and a continuation of civilization. The alleged similarities to European fascism are merely rhetorical instruments employed by people who wish to discredit the movement without actually participating in its activities. The irrationality of this accusation is further demonstrated by the fact that RSS has never supported racial supremacy, a one-party system, or a dictatorship—all of which are fundamental elements of fascism. Decentralization of authority, community-driven governance, and cultural revival—values that are directly in conflict with the core of fascist ideology—have, if anything, always been at the heart of RSS’s priorities. Naqvi’s assertion that Hitler and Mussolini were the inspiration for RSS is a well-worn fallacy that has been repeatedly disproved but is still brought up by individuals with political frustrations. The accusations are the result of selectively misinterpreting words made by specific people while disregarding the broader context. Distorting historical facts to suit a convenient political narrative is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Unlike the Communist parties, which notoriously followed the Soviet line even at the expense of national interests, the RSS has no history of working with colonial or imperialist regimes. In 1942, the Communists fiercely opposed the Quit India Movement, calling it “subversive,” at the direction of their bosses in Beijing and Moscow. They weakened the quest for independence, whereas RSS struggled diligently at the grassroots level to foster cultural awareness and a sense of pride in the country. If the study of treachery is the goal, then the Communist parties—not RSS—need to be examined. Communists teaching about nationalism is blatantly ironic. Communists were involved in violent uprisings, such as the Telangana Rebellion, which aimed to impose a Soviet-style revolution in India, while the RSS was working to unite the nation. Naqvi romanticizes this uprising as a noble peasant battle, but in reality, it was a violent and terrifying war. Under the guise of “revolution,” the Communist objective has always been to sow disarray, erode democratic institutions, and open the door for authoritarian control. It should come as no surprise that democracy has always suffered the most when Communists have taken control, whether in North Korea, the USSR, or Maoist China. The people’s rejection of their outdated, foreign-imposed ideology is what is causing their electoral downfall in India, not any alleged “fascist” repression. Naqvi’s attempts to demonize the RSS and cover up the wrongdoings of Indian Communists are blatant examples of selective amnesia. The CPI’s record is marked by obvious blemishes, including its ideological subservience to foreign powers, its unwillingness to support the 1962 war effort against China, and its vacillations on important national challenges. On the other hand, RSS has supported Indian army in needs, increased disaster relief, and supported national defense. These are not theoretical claims; they are demonstrable realities. Naqvi, however, avoids them out of convenience since they contradict his rhetoric. It is a flagrant fabrication to say that RSS and its inspired individuals were “apologists for colonialism.” The Communist leadership frequently undermined nationalist initiatives and remained ambivalent about India’s independence. While RSS karyakartas were actively involved in opposing British rule. The goal of the RSS was to create a robust, independent society that could fend off colonial domination on all fronts—politically, culturally, and economically. The Communist concern with quick and frequently violent upheavals was always in conflict with these long-term objectives. If we look at Jawed Naqvi explicitly, his history of anti-Hindu and anti-Indian hatred is well known. His publications frequently echo the talking points of Pakistan’s official narratives, raising doubts about his integrity, ethics and journalism. His previous pieces, such as “Hindutva Terrorism: Another View” and “The Crooked Timber of Modi’s India,” all follow the same formula: they show Muslims as unforgiving victims, Hindus as aggressors, and India as a country on the verge of collapse. The outrage is blatantly selective. He highlights every perceived or actual weakness in India’s democracy, but he says nothing about Pakistan’s deep state, its persecution of minorities, or its decline into political and economic catastrophe. Naqvi’s most recent article is not a rare occurrence; rather, it is a component of a larger trend—a network of authors and journals that want to discredit India’s revival of civilization by calling it “fascist.” A typical example of projection is this one. Extremist Islamism and Communism, I call that Islamo-leftist, the exact ideologies Naqvi espouses, have committed some of the most horrific crimes in recorded history. More than 100 million people have died as a result of communism worldwide, and extremist Islamist beliefs have sunk entire

Illicit Foreign Funding and Radical Islamist Agenda in UK Elections

Economy Geopolitics Leadership Policy

555

Illicit Foreign Funding and Radical Islamist Agenda in UK Elections

Rohan Giri Prior to the UK general elections, a media investigation revealed that five of the six major British political parties had taken illicit foreign funds. To minimise excessive foreign influence, British legislation compels parties to refund unlawful donations within 30 days and disclose any failures to the Electoral Commission. Only people on the electoral roll can make donations, with a minimum limit of £500. However, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism discovered that the Conservative Party, Reform UK, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and Scottish National Party failed to prevent or identify these donations, which were made through an assortment of modest payments totalling more than £500 from a foreign source. As per the report, only the Labour Party successfully blocked such unlawful donations. Election law expert Gavin Millar criticised the self-policing method as ineffective and illogical because it relies on beneficiaries to enforce the law. Concerns had grown in the run-up to the 2024 UK general election about foreign players funding political non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Despite precise laws deliberate to prevent excessive foreign influence, some NGOs with significant influence in UK politics have evidently received large amounts of funding from international sources. These contributions, which are frequently routed through intricate channels to avoid detection, undermine the integrity of the democratic process and threaten to influence election results in favour of foreign interests. The current legal system, which relies mainly on self-policing, is deeply inadequate, allowing foreign funders to have hidden power over British politics. Several controversial groups in the British community receive funding from ambiguous sources, which they utilize to spread their propaganda and operations throughout the country. One prominent example is Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella group that represents over 500 interconnected mosques and Muslim organizations. MCB has a notorious history of sponsoring and supporting extremist actions, prompting consecutive British administrations to adopt a “non-engagement” stance with the organization since 2009. Notably, the MCB backed a declaration in Istanbul calling for jihad in reaction to Israel’s activities in Gaza and backing Hamas attacks on foreign forces, possibly involving British troops. Another outfit of concern is Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is secretively operational in the UK despite being banned in many countries due to its disruptive ideology and links to terrorist acts. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been accused of radicalising young Muslims and pushing for the formation of a global caliphate through non-democratic means. Its financing roots are opaque, leading to suspicions of foreign financial aid intended to destabilise communities. Islamic Relief Worldwide, headquartered in the United Kingdom, has been accused of supporting terrorist entities, especially Hamas. However, the organization denies the accusations. Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have blacklisted for the concerns about the misuse of charitable donations to help terrorists. Furthermore, CAGE, a UK-based advocacy group, has made headlines for its provocative viewpoints and possible ties to terrorists. The entity openly advocated for the prominent figures such as Dr Aafia Siddiqui who is serving an 86-year jail term for the attempted murder of an FBI agent in disputed circumstances. She is an al-Qaeda sympathiser. Also, they advocated for Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric of Yemeni descent, who was a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While CAGE professes to advocate for human rights, its support of high-profile terrorists and receipt of foreign financing have sparked investigation and criticism from a number of sources, including the British government. The Islamic community in the United Kingdom has considerable influence on the political mandate because of its large population and active involvement in societal and political concerns. British Muslims contribute to the electorate’s diversity of approaches, influencing policy discussions over immigration, foreign policy, and community welfare. The community’s participation in voting and political discourse ensures that the problems and demands of a sizeable portion of the people are addressed. This impact, however, can be destroyed by organizations and people that mislead or manipulate the community to advance their own objectives. Extremist organizations in the UK have not only attacked non-Islamic communities, as evidenced by the attacks on Hindus in Leicester, but are also actively influencing political circumstances ahead of the general elections. These organizations mobilise Muslim voters and lobby for certain political positions, such as supporting Palestinians and calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas conflict. According to studies, these organizations use societal tensions and global conflicts to acquire influence, which frequently results in heightened division and violence. The ubiquitous influence of these extremist groups emphasises the critical need for tougher measures to resist their activities and preserve the democratic process from being hijacked by radical ideology. In 2017, the Henry Jackson Society emphasised the importance of foreign money in spreading Islamist extremism in Britain. They noted that money, mostly from government-linked foundations in the Gulf and Iran, has supported the spread of extremist notions, particularly Saudi Arabia’s multimillion-dollar initiatives since the 1960s to promote Wahhabism. In the United Kingdom, the funds have taken the form of endowments for mosques and Islamic educational institutions that have hosted extremist preachers and distributed radical material. British Muslim religious leaders who have received training in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in Islamic schools in the United Kingdom, contribute to this effect. Many of Britain’s most infamous Islamist hate preachers are tied to foreign financing, which has contributed to the radicalisation of many who have joined jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria. Foreign funds pose a serious threat to the UK’s democratic values, as proven by recent exposes of illegal donations to major political parties and the influence of extremist organizations. Despite rules aimed at preventing undue foreign influence, the inability of a structured legal framework to ban illegal donations highlights the shortcomings of the current self-policing system. Furthermore, foreign funding by political NGOs and extremist groups undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process. These organizations use societal tensions and global crises to advance their objectives by propagating extreme beliefs and disrupting communities. (Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content manager

Geopolitics Leadership Policy Security

524

Refusal to Reform

Self-defeating journey that Pakistan embarked upon with Jihadist mindset has rendered Shimla agreement ineffective & unworkable. Rohan Giri Fifty two years back, Shimla accord inked on July 2, 1972 by then Bharat’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, bears testimony to Islamabad’s refusal to learn its lessons. It’s also a missed timeframe for Pakistan for evolving as a well-meaning, affable and socio-economic development partner on western borders that Bharat was looking for. Partition of Bharat in 1947 by imperialist British forces on withdrawal mode inflicted a huge injury that cannot be easily forgotten. Instead of metamorphosing as a well-meaning society based on true Islamic values, it resorted to genocide of Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan in most inhuman way in 1971. Pakistan had to eat a humble pie after getting defeated at the hands of Indian army and consequent liberation of Bangladesh. Shimla agreement concluded in Barnes Court christened as Raj Bhavan today was intended at bringing about lasting peace in South Asia, especially Bharat and Pakistan. But, that did not happen as predicted even before ink on the Shimla agreement dried. Things did not work out as Sunni extreme leadership refused to acknowledge magnanimity of Bharat in returning their 93,000 war prisoners without a word. Questions were raised on intent of Smt Indira Gandhi who returned all major territories of Pakistan that came under Bharat fold in aftermath of the war. Intentions and goals articulated in Shimla Agreement were magnificent on paper but hollow in reality. Commitment to a direct, bilateral approach to problem solving, emphasis on face-to-face interactions, were laudable. Pakistan that had long history of deception and flopped promises saw the accord as a strategic pause rather than genuine peace initiative. Among Shimla Agreement’s six important clauses, pledge to observe Jammu and Kashmir’s Line of Control (LoC) was most significant. This was one commitment that Pakistan gravely breached very frequently. Disagreements were to be settled amicably and that no government would unilaterally change the status. This again was violated. The rogue state that it evolved to be, Pakistan, continued to fuel fires of turmoil, culminating in Kargil War in 1999. This blatant crossing of Line of Control served as vivid reminder that Pakistan had never genuinely embraced principles of the Shimla Agreement. The accord had highlighted mutual respect for one another’s geographical integrity and political independence. Pakistan, with its malicious intent and plan on Kashmir made attempts on several occasions to intervene in India’s domestic affairs, breaking the very foundation of the accord. The pledge to desist from hostile propaganda was a scam, as Pakistan’s official machinery continued to spew anti-India rhetoric, stoking hatred and division. Despite the Shimla Agreement, Pakistan’s conduct over the decades demonstrated its deceit. The Kargil conflict, in which Pakistani soldiers penetrated Indian territory along the LoC, was a clear act of aggression that shattered the already fragile agreement. This fight, which lasted for more than 60 days, exposed Pakistan’s true character, reinforcing its reputation as an untrustworthy neighbor. Indira Gandhi, acclaimed as a competent leader, was heavily criticized for signing the Shimla Agreement without achieving a resolution to the Kashmir conflict. The pact was viewed as a strategic failure, a concession that failed to capitalize on India’s resounding victory in the 1971 war. Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir, combined with its repeated efforts to internationalize the issue, have rendered the Shimla Agreement ineffective and meaningless. The Shimla Agreement’s history is one of unfulfilled promises and broken expectations. It underscored the futility of trusting a country that has repeatedly proven its propensity to destabilize peace for geographical advantage. Pakistan’s repeated betrayal, from the Kargil conflict to its current backing for cross-border terrorism, demonstrates that it never intended to comply with the Shimla Agreement. The agreement, while ostensibly a plan for peace, was a strategic failure that failed to address the two countries’ core challenges. It allowed Pakistan to recover and rearm, which eventually led to other instances of conflict. India’s generous gesture of returning POWs and territory was met with Pakistan’s unwavering enmity, demonstrating once more that Pakistan’s word could not be trusted. Finally, the Shimla Agreement, which was offered as a historic step toward peace and stability. Pakistan’s reluctance to respect its pledges, as well as its ongoing efforts to destabilize the region, have demonstrated that any agreement with such a nation is worthless. The Shimla Agreement serves as a clear reminder of the drawbacks of naive diplomacy as well as the importance of taking a hard stance when dealing with a fraudulent neighbor like Pakistan. (Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content manager at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bangladesh Bhutan Geopolitics Leadership Policy Security Sri lanka World

921

‘Neighbourhood First’ Policy and Its Innovative ‘SAGAR’

At the President house during swearing-in ceremony of India’s 16th Prime Minister, the country reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy and its innovative ‘SAGAR’ (Security and Growth for All in the Region) initiative. The invitation to neighbouring countries and those in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Mauritius, and Seychelles, was extended amid the august assembly of dignitaries and demonstrated India’s unwavering commitment to developing strong ties with its maritime neighbours. Vision SAGAR started in 2015, to promote inclusion and adherence to international law while deepening economic and security cooperation, embodies India’s strategic vision for the IOR. Developing marine security capacities among neighbours is a key component of this goal, as it empowers them and ensures a cooperative approach to regional stability and prosperity. SAGAR is easily incorporated into the larger marine policy of India, working in concert with programs such as the Act East Policy, Project Mausam, and Project Sagarmala to advance the country’s approach towards regional providers of security. SAGAR highlights the significance of the Blue Economy and works to promote environmental stewardship and sustainable growth by utilizing the enormous potential of maritime resources. As India takes lead in IOR and is dedicated to creating an atmosphere of mutual respect, collaboration, and prosperity in order to fulfil the goals of all the nations in region. India aspires with SAGAR, the Indian Ocean would be a symbol of prosperity, peace, and advancement, demonstrating the strength of regional cooperation and strategic planning.

Disinformation Hindus Leadership Misinformation Policy Security

565

Fresh Set of Challenges for Modi 3.0

Khalistanis, Naxalites, Kashmiri subversives gaining legitimacy in Parliament demands fresh thinking and strategy K.A.Badarinath As Bharat’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi readies to take reins at centre for a third consecutive term, challenges, known and unknown may have to be dealt with on priority basis. Commentators of every hue and shade have written copiously on Prime Minister Modi’s tenacity or lack of it to run a coalition government with Telugu Desam and Janata Dal (United) and half a dozen others in tow. Challenges identified here are different and mostly new to tackle right away. For a year, Amritpal Singh, a Khalistani extremist who waged a war on Punjab Police has been put away in Dibrugarh jail of Assam. Waris Punjab De chief who hitherto owned a logistics company in Dubai is being tried for crimes including possible treason after having led a mob on Ajnala police station in Punjab. He’s being tried under National Security Act (NSA) from April 2023. His reported linkages with Pakistani spy agency, ISI to source weapons to spill violence on streets of Punjab are some of the allegations against Amritpal Singh. The 31-year old radical Khalistani separatist will have to be dealt with by Modi government when eighteenth Lok Sabha opens for newly elected members of Parliament to take oath. From Khadoor Sahib in the Punjab, Amritpal Singh was elected a member of Lok Sabha after having trounced his Congress rival. Security forces that laid trap in and around Punjab after the Ajnala incident will now have to provide security cover to the ‘Honourable Member of parliament’. Singh was successful in recent elections with highest majority of 1.97 lakh votes in Punjab. Member-elect from Khadoor Sahib will have to be respectfully escorted by the very security forces from jail to Parliament. Election Commission of India (ECI), Lok Sabha Speaker and the new government apart from courts will have to bear with his idiosyncrasies on Khalistan, the imaginary separate Sikh state. One big positive however is that the avowed Khalistani will have to take a pledge as per Bharat’s Constitution and work within the country’s governance system. Protocols to deal with him will change overnight. Second case will be Sarabjeet Singh Khalsa, son of Beant Singh who killed then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi following Operation Blue Star. Sarabjeet is the new Member of Parliament elected from Faridkot and a fundamentalist. Though an independent candidate, hitherto Sarabjeet Singh Khalsa was with Siromani Akali Dal – Amritsar. This party has had Simranjit Singh Mann as its member in Lok Sabha from Sangraur previously represented by Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann. Sarabjeet Singh Khalsa’s plank as an independent in Faridkot was to seek justice for desecration of Guru Granth Sahib in October 2015. On October 12 that year, Sikhs’ holy book was desecrated in Behbal Kalan and a couple of days later two sikh youth were killed. This very is part of Faridkot constituency. Even after election, Khalsa and Mann along with several Khalistani separatists shouted slogans for a separate Sikh state at Golden Temple, the highest seat of Sikh Panth in Amritsar. While Sarabjeet is regarded a fundamentalist, his election and allegiance to Bharat’s Constitution as a Parliament Member may ring in some positivity. But, there’s denying that going forward Sikh panthic politics has come here to stay and traditional Sikh parties like Shiromani Akali Dal will have to make way for new alignments and forces especially aligned with extremist and terror elements globally. Modi government will have to redraw its Punjab strategy in sync with new realities. Third member who could turn tricky for Narendra Modi government is Sheikh Abdul Rashid who’s serving his term in Tihar jail. He’s been elected to lower house from Baramulla after trouncing former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of National Conference. Popularly known as engineer Rashid, he’s been in high security Tihar jail for over five years in cases relating to money laundering and funding terror in the Kashmir valley from across the border and elsewhere. Oppression, revenge and jail term were emotionally put forth by his sons to garner votes for engineer Rashid. While Rashid’s swearing in as Lok Sabha member would turn an eyeball event, abrogation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir assembly elections may come back to focus. Courts have to take a call on his interim bail to facilitate his swearing in. After a gap of 25-years, Communist Party of India – Marxist Leninist (Liberation), Left extremist group will enter the parliament with two of its members in Rajaram Singh from Karakat constituency. His comrade, Sudhama Prasad defeated BJP minister and high profile R K Singh from Arrah. Both these constituencies are in Bihar. The party that draws inspiration from one of left extremist movement, Charu Mazumdar, has moved into public space from arms struggle and is part of the opposition, Indi alliance. CPI-ML Liberation shifted gears and moved away from Kondapalli Seetaramaiah faction’s Peoples’ War group that still is in the midst of waging a war against the state. Mainstreaming of naxalites with entry into Parliament and state legislatures is a tribute to Bharat’s democracy. But, spread of Left extremist political ideology overtly may demand a fresh strategy from Modi government. Chandrashekhar Azad alias Ravan is yet another figure from Uttar Pradesh that BJP-led alliance that needs to watch out for. Chandrashekhar will represent Nagina Lok Sabha constituency in the lower house after having won the seat with a margin of over 1.51 lakh votes. He is regarded as a self-established Dalit leader after having setup the Bhim Army. His activism extends to a decade. On March 15, 2020, Chandrashekhar launched Azad Samaj Party (Kanshiram) to mainstream his political activism overtly. Initially, he looked at a tango deal with Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP). But, Chandrashekhar felt let down when his party was offered just two seats in the Lok Sabha elections by SP. Azad’s direct involvement in Saharanpur violence led to his arrest under National Security Act by the Uttar Pradesh government. Delhi Police denied him

Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Geopolitics Leadership Nepal Policy Security Sri lanka Technology

1.01K

Bharat Goes Whole Hog in Neighbourhood

Stability, progress and growth is what Bharat seeks to achieve in South Asia through its ‘neighbourhood first’ policy Dr Divya Gupta Post-independence in 1947, Bharat pursued a regional policy based on the principle that neighbours are important to national security and a market that can contribute to India’s economic development. Given the bipolar world order that prevailed during Cold War, Bharat pursued non-alignment based on its stated global role as the third-world leader. India built her policy on the basis of “The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence” (Panchsheel) which was first signed on April 28, 1954 between then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai. Panchsheel covered issues like sovereignty and integrity, territorial integrity, no mutual aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence. Panchsheel agreement was considered one of the significant bases for building foreign policy with immediate neighbouring countries that India pursued after independence. But, Prime Minister Nehru was particularly interested in building and strengthening international cooperation especially among developing countries. Indian foreign policy during that period had focused more on international relations than neighbourhood relations. After end of Cold War, India made significant adjustments in her foreign policy framework owing to international, regional changes and internal challenges. Over the years, India has gradually come to occupy a significant role on strategic chessboard within the region and the world. A person who thought ahead about close relationship with neighbouring countries was former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, known for his Gujral doctrine, a policy orienting the relationship between India and its neighbours. Gujral doctrine was a policy that sought friendship based on sovereign equality and non-interference with “non-reciprocal magnanimity” towards smaller countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The incumbent Prime Minister Narender Modi has formulated, followed and executed “neighbourhood first policy” in letter and spirit with respect to our immediate neighbours including Afghanistan. Essence of this policy is the desire to effectively contribute to the construction and architecture to establish a stable foundation of peace and cooperation in South Asia in particular and Asia in general as a responsible, stable and large country. Narendra Modi expanded the matrix of his foreign policy framework, took new line showing distinct imprint in his policies. He formulated his foreign policy doctrine (Modi doctrine) and introduced new pillars of India’s foreign policy (Panchamrit) including five pillars: dignity, dialogue, shared prosperity, regional and global security, cultural and civilization linkages aimed at affirming India’s position as a rising power in the world. During high-level discussion at 69th session of United Nations General Assembly in September 2014, Prime Minister Modi said, “The destiny of a country is linked to its neighbourhood. That is why my government has placed the highest priority on advancing friendship and cooperation with neighbours” (Modi 2014). He argued that “neighbours are the number one priority” which is considered a bright spot in India’s foreign policy. India’s ‘Neighbourhood First policy’ guides its approach towards management of relations with countries in its immediate neighbourhood, i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The policy is based on the idea that a stable and prosperous neighbourhood is essential for Bharat’s economic and security interests. The Neighbourhood First Policy is also part of Bharat’s larger vision of becoming a leading power in the region and world. India’s Neighbourhood First policy can also be seen as a manifestation of Modi government’s vision of building ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world as one family). Vaccine diplomacy and development assistance based on mutual respect and equal partnership are two most important pillars to catapult India’s Neighbourhood First policy[i]. Vaccine diplomacy has been seen as pragmatic response to a global pandemic and way to strengthen its image as a responsible leader at both regional and global levels. Noteworthy, Indian diplomacy, particularly during the Covid-19[ii] pandemic, resulted in India being recognised on the world stage as a harbinger of hope providing necessary help to needy nations and their people globally. As part of India’s Neighbourhood First policy, India, through its vaccine diplomacy (Vaccine Maitri)[iii], extended help to many countries of the world and neighbouring countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. Also, and notwithstanding that India was affected very badly, particularly during the second wave, India handled the situation very well to overcome the worst effects of the pandemic relatively, and at the same time, help other countries to address the challenge. Primary beneficiaries of Vaccine Maitri in South Asian region are Bangladesh (Rs 22.5928 million in total supplies in the form of commercial and grant assistance, followed by Nepal (Rs 9.499 million); Sri Lanka (Rs 1.2640 million); Afghanistan (Rs 1.4680 million); Bhutan (Rs 0.55 million) and Maldives (Rs 0.312 million). India committed $10 million to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Fund to address the global pandemic. Keeping with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, India is providing support to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka to address their myriad challenges through its development assistance initiative. Since the Taliban assumed charge in Afghanistan, India supplied wheat and other essential food items and Covid-19 vaccines as humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. In its budget for 2022-23, India allocated Rs 2,000 million as development assistance to Afghanistan. Apart from this India also provides financial assistance to neighbouring countries through Lines of Credit (LoCs), Grant-in-aid, Credit Facility, Currency Swap Facility and others. India has extended four Lines of Credit worth US $ 7.862 billion to Bangladesh under Indian Development and Economic Assistance Scheme (IDEAS). India also supports Bangladesh in several developmental and infrastructure projects across sectors such as roads, highways, railways, ports, power transmission, waste management, economic zones, information and communication technology, solar power generation etc. India has also provided Rs. 45,000 million as development assistance for 12th Five Year Plan (November 2018-October 2023) to Bhutan. India has extended five LoCs totalling to US $ 1.33 billion[iv] to Maldives including assistance to Greater Male Connectivity Project. India has provided budgetary support to Maldives. In September 2020, India offered US $ 250 million in financial assistance to Maldives to mitigate the impact

Blog Post