Evolving International Relationships of India since the 1980's

Introduction

In this article, we will look at International Relationships across the world from the 1980s to date, with specific focus on the diplomatic policies of India across the world and their development.

Since the 1980s, the global geopolitical landscape has undergone significant changes, marked by the rise of China and the rapid transformation of Asia. These changes have brought about complex international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia.

The 1980s: The Cold War Era Continues

The 1980s were marked by the continuation of the Cold War and the heightened tensions between the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union (USSR). This period saw the proliferation of nuclear weapons, regional conflicts, and proxy wars between the two superpowers. The Western countries, Europe, and most of Asia remained firmly aligned with the United States, while India and China maintained a policy of non-alignment.

In 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era in global politics. This event paved the way for closer relations between Western countries and Europe on the one hand, and Asia on the other.

The 1990s: The Rise of Asia

The 1990s saw the emergence of Asia as a major economic powerhouse, with the rapid growth of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. China also began to open up its economy to foreign investment, leading to significant economic growth, while India’s economic liberalisation of 1991 helped to create an economy that was market and service oriented and expanded the role for private and foreign investment.

This period also saw the establishment of closer relationships between Western countries, Europe, and Asia. The United States, in particular, sought to deepen its ties with Asia, as evidenced by the Clinton administration's "pivot to Asia" policy.

The 2000s: China's Rise and the War on Terror

The 2000s saw the rise of China as a global economic and military power. This period was marked by China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which paved the way for its integration into the global economy. It also saw the United States launch the War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. This led to closer cooperation between Western countries, Europe, and Asia in the fight against terrorism.

The 2010s: Shifts in Global Power

The 2010s saw significant shifts in global power, with China emerging as a major competitor to the United States. The Obama administration continued the Clinton administration’s "pivot to Asia" policy, which helped deepen the United States' engagement with Asia. At the same time, the European Union started to face significant challenges, including debt crisis and the refugee crisis. This led to increased tensions between Western countries and Europe, particularly over issues such as immigration and economic policy.

The 2020s: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Growing Tensions

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2019, has had a significant impact on international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia. The pandemic has highlighted the interdependence of the global economy and the need for closer cooperation between nations. However, the pandemic has also led to growing tensions between the United States and China, particularly over issues such as trade, intellectual property, and human rights. This has led to increased competition between the two countries, which could have significant implications for the future of global politics.

It remains to be seen how these relationships will evolve in the coming years. The United States under the Biden administration has signalled a shift towards greater cooperation and engagement with other nations, particularly in the areas of climate change and global health. However, the ongoing tensions with China and the challenges facing Europe due to the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict which could complicate these efforts.

As of today, the future of international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia will depend on a complex mix of economic, political, and social factors. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is more important than ever for nations to work together to address common challenges and pursue shared goals.

India has been an important player in international diplomacy for several decades. In the period between 1995 to 2021, and has developed strong diplomatic relationships with several countries across the world, including China, Europe, USA, and also the economically weak nations.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards China

India and China share a complex relationship that has been marked by several historical and territorial disputes. Despite this, India has pursued a policy of engagement and cooperation with China. In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and China engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2003 landmark agreement on the "Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question." This agreement laid the foundation for resolving the border dispute between the two countries. However, tensions between India and China flared up in 2020 following a border clash in the Galwan Valley. This has led to a significant deterioration in the relationship between the two countries, with India adopting a more assertive stance towards China, while attempting to keep the relationship isolated from frequent open conflict, while conducting a series of diplomatic initiatives at the border level, as well as at international levels.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards Europe and the U.K.

In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and Europe engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2004 India-EU Summit. This summit led to the adoption of the "Joint Action Plan" which aimed to deepen the relationship between India and the EU in areas such as trade, investment, and science and technology.

India has also pursued a policy of engagement with the United Kingdom, with both countries establishing a strategic partnership in 2004. In 2021, India and the U.K. signed the "Roadmap 2030," agreement which set out a comprehensive plan for deepening the bilateral relationship between the two countries in areas such as trade, defense, and technology.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards the United States

India and the United States have developed a strong strategic partnership over the past two decades. This partnership has been marked by closer cooperation in areas such as defence, trade, and energy.

In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and the United States engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2000 "New Framework for the US-India Défense Relationship" and the 2005 "US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement." In recent years, the strategic partnership between India and the United States has continued to grow. In 2021, India and the United States signed the "US-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership," which aimed to deepen the bilateral relationship between the two countries even further.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards Economically Weak Countries

India has pursued a policy of engagement and cooperation with economically weak countries across the world, particularly in the African continent. India's engagement with these countries has been guided by the principle of “South-South cooperation”, which aims to foster economic development and promote mutual cooperation among developing countries. In 2008, India and Africa signed the "New Delhi Declaration," which aimed to deepen the economic and strategic relationship between India and Africa.

India has also established several capacity-building programs in African countries, aimed at promoting human resource development and strengthening institutional capacity. These programs have included the Pan African e-Network project, which aimed to provide telemedicine and tele-education services to African countries, and the India-Africa Forum Summit 2015, which aimed to deepen the relationship between India and African nations in areas such as trade, investment, and technology.

In addition, India has also pursued a policy of engagement with Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands for establishing several economic and strategic partnerships with countries of these regions, including the India-CARICOM Joint Commission in 2009, which aimed to deepen the economic and strategic relationship between India and Caribbean nations; and has established several capacity-building programs in these countries, aimed at promoting human resource development and strengthening institutional capacity. These programs have included the establishment of centres of excellence in various sectors, including information technology, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. India’s relationship with the Pacific Island nations has deepened with the establishment of the FIPIC in 2015. The recent meeting between Prime Minister Modi and the leaders of the India-Pacific Islands Developing States (PSIDS) at New York (2019) focused on the view towards building close partnership with the Pacific Island nations and work closely to advance mutually beneficial developmental goals. 

Moving forward, India's diplomatic policy will need to be guided by a mix of economic, political, and social factors. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is more important than ever for nations to work together to address common challenges and pursue shared goals. India's diplomatic policy will need to reflect this reality and aim to deepen the relationship between India and other nations across the world.

This brings us to the importance of the G20 forum where India is a member and has been elected to hold the Presidency of the G20 in this year 2023. The G20 group of countries, also known as the Group of Twenty, is an international forum that brings together the world's leading developed and emerging economies to discuss global economic and financial issues. The G20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union, representing around 85% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world's population.

Importance of the G20

The G20 has emerged as a key platform for international cooperation on global economic issues, providing a forum for countries to discuss and coordinate policies that can promote sustainable and inclusive growth, create jobs, and reduce poverty. The G20 has become increasingly important in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which highlighted the need for greater international coordination and cooperation to address global economic challenges.

It plays an important role in promoting international trade and investment, ensuring financial stability, and addressing global issues such as climate change, inequality, and social inclusion. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the G20's role in promoting global economic cooperation and ensuring economic stability has become even more crucial.

Agenda of the G20

The G20 agenda is focused on promoting sustainable and inclusive growth, creating jobs, and reducing poverty, while being committed to promoting open and fair trade, and to ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all members of society. The G20 agenda is guided by a number of principles, including the importance of cooperation and coordination, the need for inclusive and sustainable growth, and the importance of promoting economic stability and financial reform, across the world.

Policies of the G20

The G20 has implemented a number of policies which include efforts to promote investment in infrastructure, to increase access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, and to promote the development of skills and education. It has also implemented policies to promote open and fair trade, including efforts to reduce trade barriers and to promote the development of regional and global trade agreements. It has worked to address issues related to global financial stability, including efforts to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions, and to promote transparency and accountability in financial markets, and has played an important role in promoting the Paris Agreement on climate change, and in supporting efforts to promote sustainable development and reduce inequality.

The presidency of the G20 is transferred from country to country on an annual basis to ensure that the organization remains inclusive, representative, and responsive to the changing needs and priorities of its members. By rotating the presidency, different regions and countries have the opportunity to lead the organization and bring their unique perspectives and priorities to the table. This helps to promote continuity and stability, while also ensuring that different countries have the opportunity to shape the agenda and priorities of the G20. This ensures that the organization's decision-making processes are more visible and transparent and helps to promote public trust in the organization and ensures that its policies and priorities are aligned with the needs and interests of its members.

During the 2016 G20 summit, which was hosted by China, the focus was on promoting innovation and sustainability, and the launch of initiatives such as the Green Finance Study Group and the Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance, while Japan's presidency in 2019, was focused on promoting innovation and digitalization; with the aim to “realize and promote a free and open, inclusive and sustainable, human-centered future society” and recognize the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as being at the core of the development agenda and other global issues. 

The 2020 G20 summit, hosted by Saudi Arabia, focused on promoting global cooperation to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts, and launched initiatives such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI). These initiatives helped to promote international cooperation and solidarity in the face of a global crisis, reflecting the unique priorities and leadership of Saudi Arabia as the host country.

India, as the host of the G20 summit in 2023 is focused on promoting the universal sense of one-ness, via the theme 'One Earth, One Family, One Future'. Essentially, this affirms the value of all life; human, animal, plant, and microorganisms, and their interconnectedness on the planet Earth and in the wider universe. The theme also spotlights LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), with its associated, environmentally sustainable and responsible choices, both at the level of individual lifestyles as well as national development, leading to globally transformative actions resulting in a cleaner, greener and bluer future.

The period from the 1980s to the present day has seen significant changes in the international relationships between countries across the world. The emergence of Asia as a major economic and military power, and the rise of China as a global competitor to the United States, have led to complex and evolving relationships between these regions.

India's diplomatic policy towards China, Europe, the United States, and economically weak countries between 1995 to 2021 has been marked by several successes and challenges. While India has developed strong partnerships with several countries across the world, it has also faced several challenges, particularly in the areas of border disputes and trade negotiations.

India’s soft diplomacy is reflected in its international relationships. Its vision is optimistic and is based on the principles of non-violence, largely pluralistic governance and a non-threatening global leadership. The legacy of India’s culture, history and ancient philosophy has shown the world that India is a largely harmonious nation that has assimilated various different religions and ethnicities over the centuries, and has never forgotten its own culture and the philosophy of peace, and has been a stalwart champion of inter-civilizational and inter-cultural exchanges.

The current government has created innovative ideas by blending traditional soft-power elements of dialogue and mutual agreements, with the inclusiveness of the Indian diaspora in its diplomatic efforts, the global promotion of Yoga, and initiatives such as ‘Destination India’ and ‘Know India’ in advancing the nation’s national interests.

Since 2014, the Indian government under the leadership of our Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested substantial resources to enhance India’s diplomatic capabilities. Embassies across the world have been increased, and higher levels of interactions with regional organizations like ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), has intensified cultural, economic, and diplomatic relationships with its Eastern and South Asian neighbors through the Look–East Policy, the Act–East Policy, and the Neighborhood First Policy, all of which are focused on fostering stronger international ties which would translate into commercial and strategic benefits for India.

“There are three trips you take to India: the one you think you’re going to have; the one you actually have; and the one you live through once you go back home”.

References:

1.      "The End of the Cold War and the United States: Implications for Asia-Pacific Security," by Michael J. Green (International Security, Vol. 14, No. 4, Spring 1990).

2.      "The Rise of China and Its Implications for Asia," by Kishore Mahbubani (The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, Summer 2004).

3.      "The US 'Pivot to Asia' and China's Response," by Yun Sun (The Pacific Review, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2014).

4.      "India's Economic Reforms: A Brief History and Some Lessons," by Arvind Panagariya (Columbia University Academic Commons, 2003).

5.      "Europe's Refugee Crisis: Assessing the Factors that Contributed to the Unfolding of the Humanitarian Catastrophe," by Ana L. Revenga and Maria Luengo-Prado (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7815, October 2016).

6.      "The COVID-19 Pandemic and Global Trade: Systemic Implications of Supply Chain Resilience," by Richard Baldwin and Simon Evenett (Centre for Economic Policy Research, March 2020).

7. India's Diplomatic Policy towards Economically Weak Countries:"New Delhi Declaration" signed by India and Africa: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2008, April 8). India-Africa Forum Summit: New Delhi Declaration. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/30528/IndiaAfrica+Forum+Summit+New+Delhi+Declaration
8. Pan African e-Network project: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (n.d.). Pan African e-Network Project. https://www.mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Pan_African_e-Network_Project.pdf
9. India-Africa Forum Summit 2015: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2015, October 29). India-Africa Forum Summit 2015: Outcomes and Deliverables. https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/26036/IndiaAfrica+Forum+Summit+2015+Outcomes+and+Deliverables
10. India-CARICOM Joint Commission: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2009, May 1). India-CARICOM Joint Commission. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/3987/IndiaCARICOM+Joint+Commission
11. FIPIC: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. (2015, August 14). First India-Pacific Islands Summit: Outcome Document. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/25637/First+IndiaPacific+Islands+Summit+Outcome+Document
12. G20:
1. Official website of the G20: https://g20.org/
2. G20 Principles for Cooperation: G20 Research Group. (2017). G20 Principles for Cooperation. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/cooperation.html
3. G20 Infrastructure Agenda: G20 Research Group. (2016). G20 Infrastructure Agenda. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/infrastructure.html
4. G20 Trade and Investment Agenda: G20 Research Group. (2016). G20 Trade and Investment Agenda. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/trade.html
5. G20 Financial Regulation and Supervision Agenda: G20 Research Group. (2016). G20 Financial Regulation and Supervision Agenda. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/financial.html
6. G20 Green Finance Study Group: G20 Research Group. (2016). G20 Green Finance Study Group. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/greenfinance.html
7. G20 Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance: G20 Research Group. (2016). G20 Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance. http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/connectivity.html
8. G20 Innovation and Digitalization Agenda: G20 Japan 2019. (n.d.). Innovation and Digitalization. https://www.japan.go.jp/g20japan/agenda/innovation_digitalization.html
9. G20 Sustainable Development Agenda: G20 Japan 2019. (n.d.). Sustainable Development. https://www.japan.go.jp/g20japan/agenda/sustainable_development.html
10. G20 Saudi Arabia 2020: G20 Saudi Arabia. (n.d.). G20 Saudi Arabia 2020. https://g20.org/en/g20/Documents/Communique_EN%20(2).pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taliban of the 21st century

Taliban of the 21^st century 

The Taliban’s agility and ability to adapt has been remarkable. Their gradual acceptance to of the fact that unrestricted violence would hurt their quest for popular support, transformed into sophisticated policy planning and implementation of developmental activities. Step -by -step, they revived and re-started parts of their governance, and invented other systems through trial and error. Much of this process appears to be from the ground-up and influenced by popular demand and local experiences. Their leadership also proceeded to correct many of the flaws and shortcomings that undermined their rule in the 1990s. The ban on women and girls attending school has been removed, though most Taliban officials claim that no ban ever existed, and have publicly stated that women should have access to education. The ban on opium cultivation and its trade, which was a disaster during their earlier government times is clearly no longer in place, but the Taliban do not publicizeise this shift in policy and down-play the opium connection in public. Other subtle differences are their stated respect for other ethnic groups and their embrace of technology, limited as it may be. Circumstances have radically changed for the Taliban since 2001, and their policies and goals have shifted accordingly. Far from being a revolutionary movement of the 1990s, prior to 2022, they considered themselves as a deposed government and the main armed opposition fighting the pro-Western government supported by foreign soldiers. The Taliban leadership itself has also been transformed. Circumstances have forced them to travel outside their villages and also outside the country at times, and they have learned from their travels.

The simple fighters of yester-years are worldly trained politicians today,; transforming themselves from being traditional conservatives into modern Islamists. They have also become better at managing external perceptions, having realised that appearing as educated people is an advantage and it is helpful in manipulating the media. They have become sophisticated; with professional-standard glossy publications, a website in several languages, videos made of high-quality production and highly capable spokesmen that respond rapidly to questions and criticism across social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp; even though what is publicized on the social media is vastly different from the ground reality in Afghanistan. What exactly do the changes in Taliban policy means for Afghans and the future of Afghanistan will depend on the critical study and analysis of their on-ground actions. The Taliban are led by the Emir ul-Mumenin (leader of the faithful), currently Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada. The scope and complexity of this position varies according to the person who occupies it, and the current Emir’s functions are more spiritual and political, than as an operational military commander. He is assisted by two deputies, as well as the leadership shura. At the provincial level, there is a governor, appointed officially by the leadership shura. The Taliban now has a quasi-–professional core of individuals who have served for several years across multiple provinces. These governors and local councils / commissions are not completely ‘civilian’, and the governors may serve in a military capacity to varying degrees depending on the context and broader requirements of the office for local governance. Provincial ministers are appointed by the leadership of the relevant council, viz,: education, health and finance; in consultation with the governor of the province. The system has grown more comprehensive over the years, with a dozen committees, some with multiple departments covering a multitude of issues. Significant autonomy is granted to province and district- level officials within the overall framework of the policy.

This flexibility is intentional, in order to accommodate different views and reduce dissent to as little as possible. It also helps to prevent the Taliban from splitting into different factions; since local politics and preferences based on history play a significant role in governance. Some areas might have a higher demand for health services than others, while others might want to give priority to education. The extent to which services have been available in the past also matters.  Areas where customary structures of governance are influential and respected, are in a stronger position to bargain for amenities from the Taliban officials. Individual relationships also influence policies, although the Taliban does not generally welcome individual opinions, since such interactions could be perceived as corruption.  In practice however, the Taliban rely on relationships in every aspect of their governance, due to a lack of trust in general and the widespread suspicion of their motives by the locals and the international interlocutors. Arrangements between the Taliban and civilians are based on a mutual yet unequal exchange, leading to an informal social contract that renders to the Taliban a legitimate authority, and strengthening its credibility as an acceptable form of government; even though it is not a government- based on the choice and free will of the people of Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s agility and ability to adapt has been remarkable. Their gradual acceptance of the fact that unrestricted violence would hurt their quest for popular support, transformed into sophisticated policy planning and implementation of developmental activities. Step -by -step, they revived and re-started parts of their governance, and invented other systems through trial and error. Much of this process appears to be from the ground-up and influenced by popular demand and local experiences. Their leadership also proceeded to correct many of the flaws and shortcomings that undermined their rule in the 1990s. The ban on women and girls attending school has been removed, though most Taliban officials claim that no ban ever existed, and have publicly stated that women should have access to education. The ban on opium cultivation and its trade, which was a disaster during their earlier government times is clearly no longer in place, but the Taliban do not publicize this shift in policy and down-play the opium connection in public. Other subtle differences are their stated respect for other ethnic groups and their embrace of technology, limited as it may be. Circumstances have radically changed for the Taliban since 2001, and their policies and goals have shifted accordingly. Far from being a revolutionary movement of the 1990s, prior to 2022, they considered themselves as a deposed government and the main armed opposition fighting the pro-Western government supported by foreign soldiers. The Taliban leadership itself has also been transformed. Circumstances have forced them to travel outside their villages and also outside the country at times, and they have learned from their travels. 

The Taliban in 2024

Many analysts are of the opinion that the Taliban of 2021 are is different from the earlier Taliban of 2001. While the new leaders are still committed to their traditional ideology, they have learnt new tactics for interactions with the rest of the world, especially the non-Islamic countries. Even today, the command-and-control structure is controlled by the ‘Rahbri Shoora’ (Grand Council of Leadership), and most of its members are veterans of the resistance that battled the Western armies and the Afghan government forces sponsored by the U.S. and NATO. The Supreme leader of the Taliban, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada is the ultimate authority on religious, political and military affairs; and is assisted in his decisions by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a founding member of the modern Taliban who looks after the political branch, Mullah Yaqoob (son of Mullah Omar) who heads the military branch, and Sirajuddin Haqqani (son of guerrilla commander Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani) who looks after eastern Afghanistan. Non-–Pashtuns were a part of the Taliban in the 1990s, but now the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Turkmens have made deep inroads into the Taliban hierarchy. The Tajik leader Qari Deen Muhammed is a member of the Supreme Council while fellow Tajik Qari Fasihudin is the Chief of the General Staff of the armed forces, and Uzbek leader Abdul Salam Hanfi from Faryab is the acting second deputy Prime Minister in the Taliban government.

The Western countries constantly hope for democracy in Afghanistan. However, this is almost an impossibility in an organization like the Taliban who are dedicated to the hardline interpretation of Islamic values. While the Taliban are flexible in the inclusion of ethnic minorities in their government, their views towards women’s empowerment has not changed and women are still denied basic rights to obtain an education or employment. With the passage of time since coming to power, the Taliban have realized that while one generation defeated the Soviet Union and the latest generation defeated the combined forces of the USA and NATO,; administration of a complex country like Afghanistan is extremely difficult. They need international support to assist the people of their country with their basic human needs, and this cannot be achieved through isolation from the world.

Since coming to power, the Taliban has imposed a harsh interpretation of Islamic law in the country, ignoring their earlier pledges to respect the rights of women, and religious and ethnic minority communities. Since regaining control, their actions are reminiscent of their earlier brutal rule of the 1990s, where they are struggling to provide the people of Afghanistan with adequate food supplies and other basic needs. Within a period of just 16 months of forming the government, numerous human rights violations have been recorded against them by the UN mission in Afghanistan. Intimidation of journalists, restriction of freedom of expression, regular suppression of demonstrations and forced disappearance of those who protest against their governance are a regular feature of the Taliban governance. They have re-established the ‘Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice’ to implement Islamic law as defined by the Taliban. Restrictions against women and girls have risen and their access to employment, education, public interactions and other fundamental rights such as access to justice, have been heavily curtailed. Flogging of women for ‘moral crimes,’, physical torture of women’s rights activists, banning them from public parks, limiting their visits to the markets (compulsorily accompanied by a male relative as a chaperone) and requiring women to cover their faces in public,; are contributing to women being erased from public life. According to Mahbouba Seraj, a women’s rights activist, “‘the women of Afghanistan went from being part of the society, being doctors, judges, engineers and officials, to nothing”’ under the Taliban rule. "Even the most basic right, the Right to Education, has been taken away from them" she has stated.

The new power structure has wiped out the gains in the standard of living that were achieved over twenty years of the Western powers’ presence in Afghanistan, with almost all of the population now living in poverty. Most of the people are suffering from some form of food insecurity and the situation is becoming more critical with the stoppage of foreign aid. Violence remains wide-spread with the increased attacks of Taliban by members of the Islamic State of Khorasan, that add to the public suffering. There is a rising concern among international observers that the Taliban’s support to al-Qaeda will pose a continued threat to regional and international security. Despite the Taliban’s publicly stated policy that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for global terrorism, their policy of offering safe haven and increased freedom to the al-Qaeda has not changed. The United Nation’s April 2024 report states that “al-Qaeda is likely using Afghanistan as a friendly environment to recruit, train and fund raise,”, and is suspected to be re-establishing a strong presence in Afghanistan. 

Why the Western Nations are Against the Idea of a Rising Bharat

Fascists! Neo-Nazis! Patriots in Bharat (known to the world as India) are being labeled and branded by the so-called intellectuals of the western world as the ‘next danger to global peace’; while in reality, they have not even understood the issue that they are criticizing through the medium of innuendo and outright false-hood.

The very definition of politics as left-wing, centralist, right-wing, etc.; is very much a narrow western concept that is unable to cover the socio-political nuances of the oldest civilization of the world. Western politics has always been defined through the lens of religion. Almost all Western countries have their democracies formulated on the basis of religious tenets, with Christianity being the bedrock of all their values. Being cultureless since their very existence, the Westerners are unable to reconcile the Bharatiya (Indian) concept of political thought, where patriotism is the spark that drives all social behavior. The west, due to its very narrow ideas of translation, equate the word Dharma to religion; not understanding that the very idea of Dharma is much larger than their capability of perception and that Dharama encapsulates various other factors of responsibility, honor, pride, duty and empathy. To the westerners, each of these qualities are separate and co-exist; while in Bharatiya sanskriti (culture) they form an amalgamation of all into one, the Dharma. And, due to their inability to understand this complex, yet simple aspect of our culture, they pervert the definition of Bharatiya patriotism into something that should be unacceptable and a potential danger to the world.

So, let us correct the record for posterity. Bharatiya patriots are not fascists, neither are they neo-Nazis. They are simply people who are loyal to their Nation, and the values that define this nation; equality, freedom, and the right to merit-based success. It is the last value, the “right” to meritocracy, that defines the “right-wing” political forces of Bharat. The country known as India was ruled and destroyed by the Europeans for over 200 years, primarily by the British. Being a cunning, vicious and moral-less community of scavengers, they were able to establish their rule by force over most of the world; replacing the equally moral-less but less militarily powerful Islamic Mughal empires.  But they were never able to conquer the Nation of Bharat, the idea that defined the culture and identity of those who emerged from the land of Bharat. During the period of their conquest and rule, they introduced the concepts of communism and socialism, in addition to their ancient concept of imperialism. With the advent of technology, all concepts were strengthened by the forces of capitalism, and these narrow definitions are the root cause of all global conflict. Regardless of the political ‘isms’, countries and their societies are fighting for financial supremacy and are severely against any entity that poses a threat to their financial powers. 

And there-in lies their animosity towards Bharat. They are unable to understand, and unwilling to accept, that the residents of Bharat as fore-going the western values that were forced onto global societies during the age of imperialism, and returning to accept the ancient value systems that were prevalent before the Islamic and the British rule over India. The true, undisputed and ever-existing concepts are defined by the ‘Sanatan Dharma’, where sanatan means eternal and dharma means responsibility. In Bharat, the essence of being alive is defined and determined by the parameters of Sanatan Dharma. These parameters include patriotism, pride, self-determination and immersive religious activities. As the popularity of Sanatani religious activity has grown in Bharat, alarm bells have rung in the Vatican. This Church-based state used to control and dominate global politics and geo-political strategy. Being replaced by the Sanatan Dharma is unacceptable to the Church. Therefore, there is the concentrated and wide-spread effort to defile the name and nature of the forces of change that are being recognized and in many cases being accepted as an alternate to the Western value eco-system. The systematic attacks on the character of Bharatiya patriots comes in various forms, the most frequent being through the media. There is no doubt that Westerners are adept at the using the media in all its forms to define and drive global public opinion. Since every attack requires a target, the westerners are quick to focus their attacks on two entities; the Prime Minister of Bharat (India) Mr. Narendra Modi, and the Rashtriya Svyamsevak Sangh (RSS). The western media is quick to define the RSS as a “fascist para-military” organization; quite forgetting the fact that the very definition of fascist means ‘tyranny of an individual ultra-nationalist despot’, since the word itself was used to define Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy. It is said that words carry meanings. However, there is no clear acceptable definition of an ultra-nationalist. To describe somebody as a ‘nationalist’ is a complete definition in itself. A person is either a nationalist or not, there is no in-between or excess. In Bharat, just as in any other country, nationalists are people who strongly identifies with their own nation, vigorously support its interests to the exclusion of the interests of other nations. As the support for all the ideals of Bharat grows exponentially, it weakens the outside forces of the Church, the Western influencers and the radical Islamists. None of these want a Bharat that is powerful and impervious to their influences. As the people of Bharat exert upon their right to be truly independent, self-sufficient and self-reliant, the anti-Bharat forces use every strategy they can to halt this geo-political change. Their efforts to demean a person or an organization are bound to fail since the grass-root people identify and trust the person and the organization.

 

 

Emerging Khalistan: A Potential Danger to Free Societies and Western Countries

Emerging Khalistan: A Potential Danger to Free Societies and Western Countries

Over the past four years, the resurgence of the Khalistan movement, which is an idea that advocates for an independent Sikh state through the partition of the Republic of India, has gained unforeseen traction in certain Sikh diaspora communities across Western countries. While the movement itself is not new, its re-emergence in free societies like Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and more recently in Australia and New Zealand poses political and social challenges that extend beyond its historical and regional roots. This raises critical questions about national security, social cohesion, and the abuse of democratic freedoms.

The Background of the Khalistan Movement

The Khalistan movement, seeking to establish a separate Sikh state originated in the Punjab region of India during the 20th century, especially the pre and post partition periods of 1947 when Greater India was partitioned by the British and their lackeys into Pakistan and India.

Although rooted in cultural and religious identity, the demand for Khalistan as a separate and independent state took a violent turn during the 1980s. The period was marked by militant uprisings, terrorism, the very foolish Operation Blue Star attack on the Golden Temple in 1984, and the subsequent political turmoil. While the Indian state quelled the violent insurgency by the 1990s, the idea of Khalistan persisted, largely among a segment of the Sikh diaspora, both in India as well as in foreign countries, specially the UK and Canada.

For decades, this movement remained a dormant ideological pursuit. However, with the advent of digital platforms and the growing influence of diaspora groups in Western democracies, Khalistan advocates have found new arenas to propagate their message, often framing it as a fight for "human rights" and "self-determination."

Khalistan proponents abuse the freedom of expression in Western countries to gain political traction. Western societies, with their strong protections for freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, have inadvertently provided fertile ground for Khalistan ideologues. These militant individuals often exploit these liberties to spread divisive narratives under the pretext of activism. The main reasons for the increased activities of these groups in the Western nations is due to Diaspora advocacy where second and third-generation Khalistan loving Sikh communities, removed from the realities of Punjab, have started to idealize the concept of Khalistan without fully understanding its historical and socio-political consequences. This advocacy is fuelled by digital propaganda where social media platforms amplify extremist narratives, often through disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric which leads to the exploitation of multiculturalism, where western countries' commitment to diversity and inclusion allows such groups to position themselves as representatives of Sikh identity, despite the fact that the majority of Sikhs worldwide reject Khalistan.

This gives rise to the potential dangers to free societies, and while western democracies pride themselves on safeguarding civil liberties, the misuse of these freedoms by radical elements are creating significant risks where the emergence of the current Khalistan movement’s activities poses potential dangers.

The Khalistan movement heavily relies on narratives that vilify Indian institutions and, by extension, certain ethnic or religious groups. This rhetoric can foster divisions within multicultural societies, as seen in violent clashes between pro-Khalistan supporters and other community members. The glorification of militancy also risks alienating moderate voices within the Sikh community, further polarizing the diaspora, and leading to the erosion of social cohesion.

The rise of Khalistan propaganda has been linked to incidents of violence and vandalism targeting Indian diplomatic missions and community centres, leading to National Security concerns. With verified reports of fundraising for extremist activities including support for militant organizations, and their connections to criminal activities like illicit drug trade and human trafficking, have highlighted the activities of these groups, to be conduits for terrorism and organized criminal activities. Intelligence agencies in India, as well as in the UK and Canada have raised concerns about individuals radicalized in western countries planning or supporting violent acts in India, and have strained international relations between countries, as can be seen in the current situation between Canada and India.

The misuse of democratic freedoms to promote a separatist agenda poses a paradox for free societies, and undermines democratic principles. While supporting human rights is a cornerstone of democracy, the allowing of unchecked hate speech, disinformation, and incitement for violence, are undermining the very values these societies uphold. The challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate advocacy and extremist propaganda without eroding constitutional freedoms.

The unchecked activities of the Khalistan movement have had a negative effect in the Western countries. In 2023, tensions flared between the Indian and Canadian governments after allegations surfaced about foreign interference linked to pro-Khalistan activities. Vandalism at Hindu temples and calls for violence against Indian officials raised alarm about the growing radicalization in some Sikh diaspora segments in Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has chosen to not only ignore these dangers to Canadian society, but has staked his political career on supporting the Khalistan movement. This has led to his drop-in popularity among the Canadian voters and has encouraged the Khalistan movement proponents to now start claiming that they are the rightful owners of Canada, and that the white people should go back to Europe and UK. Sounds hilarious, but it is not. With these outlandish claims, the leaders of the Khalistan movement are planting the seeds of a future revolt of their supporters against the elected Government of Canada.

In the United Kingdom, protests outside the Indian High Commission in London, that included the vandalism of the Indian flag, have highlighted the disruptive potential of Khalistan supporters in the UK. The British authorities have expressed concern over the movement's extremist agenda, but have failed to take any action. Maybe the UK politicians hope that the growing violent activities of the Khalistan will not affect their society. However, in reality, it will definitely bring about deep divisions in their society that will lead to increased violence on the streets of that country.

In the United States, the vandalism of the Indian consulate in San Francisco has sparked a debate about whether sufficient measures are in place to curb extremist activity in America. Law enforcement agencies there have warned of online radicalization efforts targeting younger members of the Sikh diaspora.

The recent activities by the leaders of the Khalistan movement in Australia and New Zealand, where they held a “referendum” of their supporters for creating a Khalistan state in India should have been an eye-opener for the governments of these countries. The public calls by the Khalistan leaders to “Kill Modi”, a call to assassinate the democratically elected Prime Minister of India, have not been prosecuted by the governments of Australia and New Zealand, which is a clear indication that these, mostly leftist–liberal governments, are encouraging and maybe even supporting the idea of Khalistan, in the hope to destabilize the nation of India.

It is crucial to emphasize that the Khalistan movement represents a fringe ideology and is rejected by the mainstream Sikh community. The vast majority of Sikhs worldwide, including those in Punjab and the diaspora, are proud Indians and value their cultural and spiritual identity within the framework of a unified India. Sikhism, a faith rooted in principles of equality, service, and communal harmony, is often misrepresented by extremist narratives that use religion as a tool for political agendas. Prominent Sikh leaders and organizations across the world have consistently distanced themselves from the Khalistan movement, highlighting its divisive nature. Moreover, the state of Punjab today enjoys peace and prosperity, a testament to the resilience of its people in overcoming the dark period of militancy.

Unless it is the political geopolitical agenda of the ‘Five Eye’ countries; the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; to avoid any confrontation with the Khalistan movement and allow it to grow without any challenges in the hope that this will create obstacles for the economic growth of India, they will have to take strong steps to find a balance between protecting free speech and curbing the misuse of these freedoms by extremist elements. While free societies must uphold their commitment to civil liberties, they cannot afford to ignore the potential dangers posed by extremist ideologies that exploit these freedoms.

For their own protection, they will require to be vigilant, commit themselves to community engagement, and act strongly to protect democratic values and social harmony. Western democracies must ensure that their freedoms are not weaponized to propagate hate or disrupt peace within their own societies. The one realistic fact is that Khalistan will not be created in the country that is today the strong and vibrant nation called the Republic of India. However, if the countries of Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand ignore the dangers posed by the Khalistan movement, their own countries will soon face civil war from these very terrorists. The USA, being a country of daily violence through its very nature of a society that freely carries firearms and is willing kill to protect its society, will not face too much danger from Khalistan proponents.

 

Proportionate Response to terrorism, or overkill? - West against Middle-East

On 11^th September 2001, 19 Islamic terrorists divided into four teams carried out a targeted attack against the United States of America that killed 2,977 people immediately and thousands suffered health disorders due to the toxic dust spread from the debris of the attack sites. In retaliation, USA invaded Afghanistan to hunt down the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who they had identified as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Afghanistan invasion by the USA and its allies led to other conflicts worldwide and the total fatalities of this 22 years War-on-Terror is estimated by the ‘Costs of War Project’ is over 4.5 million. [Let that number sink into our minds – 4.5 million dead over a period of 22 years].

Not satisfied with the invasion of Afghanistan, the USA, under then President George W. Bush began actively motivating their leadership and their allies for a military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. In the lead-up to the invasion, the United States and the United Kingdom falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, covertly supporting al-Qaeda and that he presented a threat to his neighbours and to the world community. Throughout the years of 2001 to 2003, the Bush Administration worked to build a case for invading Iraq, and the Iraq War officially began on 20 March 2003, when the US, joined by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, launched a "shock and awe" bombing campaign. Shortly following the bombing campaign, US-led forces launched a ground invasion of Iraq.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, and the British M.I6 publicly discredited the evidence related to the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which never existed) as well as Iraq’s alleged links to al-Qaeda. At this point George W. Bush and his co-conspirator Tony Blair (the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) shifted to secondary rationales for the war, such as Saddam Hussein’s human rights record, and as per GW Bush, the holy crusade of the West to promote democracy in Iraq. There is no doubt that the vast reserves of highly pure crude oil did set the stage for the Western armies’ invasion of Iraq, greatly increasing the incentives to take over Iraq by any means possible. In this political greed for controlling the oil reserves in Iraq, the USA lost 4,507 soldiers, the UK lost 179, and other countries that comprised the ‘coalition of the unwilling’ lost 139, bringing the invading forces total to 4.825 lives sacrificed.  On the other side, the Iraqi forces lost 17,690 soldiers, and over 100,000 civilians were killed.

As the world knows, the USA and its allies had to vacate Iraq by 2011; losing men, materials and any semblance of honour, having handed the country of Iraq to a local government supported by Iran. In 2014, with the rise of the Islamic State in that region, the USA sent in 5,000 troops to “assist” the Iraqi government, however the Iraqi parliament voted to have the US military presence removed in 2020.

In an almost identical fashion, the USA vacated Afghanistan in a hurry on 30 August 2021, a withdrawal that was seen across the world in the media. In the early hours of 31 August, the Taliban (whom the US had declared as terrorists in 2001 and had tried hard to defeat for 22 years) marched unopposed into Kabul and declared that Afghanistan was finally free of the invaders.

Coming to the present war of Israel against HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Yemen Houthis and Iran itself.

The war began on 07 October 2023, when Hamas–led terrorists groups launched an attack that breached the Gaza–Israel barrier, attacking Israeli civilian communities and military bases. During this attack 1,139 Israeli and foreign nationals were killed and 251 were taken hostage and kidnapped into Gaza. In retaliation Israel invaded Gaza on 27 October 2023 and to date, their military campaign has killed over 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza. Exchange of strikes between Israel and Lebanese militant group Hezbollah have been occurring along the Israel–Lebanon border and in Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights since 8 October 2023. It is currently the largest escalation of the Hezbollah–Israel conflict to have occurred since the 2006 Lebanon War. Significant escalation in this conflict occurred in Sept 2024 with the Hezbollah being targeted by Israeli air-strikes and targeted assassinations of Hezbollah commanders. More than 1,000 people have been killed in the last two weeks of September in Lebanon and more continue to die as Israel keeps up its assault.

So, the moot question is: How many lives being destroyed can be defined as a “proportionate response” to terrorism? The USA’s war-on-terror killed over six million civilians, the current Israel–Hamas war will claim many thousands more. It is very clear to any geo-political observer that Israel will not stop till it runs out of money or military munitions, or both. Unlike the USA, UK or EU countries that have faced terrorist attacks, Israel is fighting for its very existence as a country and a negotiated peace with terrorists is not on their agenda. The Israeli Prime Minister has been very clear in his recent address to the United Nations. Only the complete surrender of Hamas (and possibly Hezbollah) will bring this conflict to an end, and there might – just might – be a fractured peace.

What lessons can the Govt of India take from the actions of Israel to counter and destroy the terrorist activities that are being constantly financed and promoted by Pakistan. There is no doubt that the funding for Pakistan’s terrorism activities comes from Qatar and to a large extent from the USA. While Qatar wants to impose Islamic influence on Indian continent, the USA wants to destabilize this region. The current forced change of government in Bangladesh is a clear example of the American strategies in the region. Well, our government can no longer afford to be either a neutral observer or respond passively to threats to our unity and democracy.

There is an urgent need for a three-fold strategy to secure our region from these influencers. The first is a precision armed strike on Pakistani Army formations. The second is the targeted assassinations of all Pakistani senior officials who are associated with or have been associated with the Pakistani ISI. The third strategy is to have a squadron of the Indian navy’s missile cruisers patrol the international waters close to Qatar, with a clear diplomatic message to the ruling al-Thani family. “Sponsor terrorism at their own risk.”

However, the above will remain nothing but flights of fancy if the Government of India does not act. The ‘bear-hug’ diplomacy is meaningless if it gives a clear message that India is afraid of conflict, which many observers like me believe to be true. And finally, Government officials, especially from the MEA should stop taking about Pakistan on public forums. It is our Babus who are giving more importance to Pakistani leaders, than the Pakistani people themselves.

So, we must ask this crucial question. 

Is overkill a proportionate response to terrorism?