A “Don” in the White House

Donald Trump, the past and current President of the United States of America is in the daily global news headlines for his tendency to stoke controversies, browbeat opponents and allies in equal measure, and create an atmosphere of fear, resentment and uncertainty across the world. However, he uses this to distract his critics and detractors from the big policy changes that he is making, literally on a daily basis.

 During his first presidential term from 2017 to 2021, the world’s focus was on what he was saying and not on what he was doing, as is today during his second term. As Trump carries forth in public from one self-inflicted crisis to the next, in reality he seems to be having a positive effect on the American people’s lives in the areas of safety from criminals, illegal immigration, judicial activism, economy and business, trade policies and foreign policy, among others.

He has put China in his gun-sight, challenging its position as the second largest economy of the world. Trump is clamping down on China by imposing the tariff on Chinese goods, and this escalating trade war between the two countries has created an uncertainty resulting from the enormous taxes levied on each other’s imports with the tariffs often costing more than the price of goods itself. While the U.S. tax structure varies according to the goods, from zero percent on books to 20% on smartphones, it goes up to 245% on syringes and needles. These increased tariffs (or import duties) have a 20% tax component classified a “Fentanyl” tax as a punishment to China for its high-level flow of this powerful synthetic opioid drug that is lethal even in small doses, causing over 75,000 deaths due to overdose in the USA last year (2023-24).

Trump’s tariff wars on countries across the world are not without its failure. When he initially announced the tariffs, describing them as a “Liberation Day” for Americans, he destroyed the global economy by causing a massive collapse of the financial markets, pushing them almost to the brink of complete disaster. Initially he assured everyone that his tariffs were all part of a master-plan and suggested that he would negotiate tariff arrangements with the affected nations. The hugely negative market response and a loss of over a trillion dollars when the markets crashed, forced him to abandon the plan within days, admitting publicly that he had reversed his decision due to market panic.

Trump’s policies on immigration has spread fear among the undocumented migrants in the USA. His actions have effectively overhauled parts of the U.S. immigration system, including the processing and deportation of people. His administration publicized videos and photos of deportation flights with its occupants tied-up in chains, causing a global outrage and condemnation. But, by putting out videos of people being deported in military aircraft, his has created the myth of being a strong President who is unrelenting and tough on illegal immigration, while hiding the fact that his predecessor Joe Biden had deported 271 migrants to 192 countries in 2024, and over 1.5 million deportations during his four years in office. However, unlike Biden, Trump has suspended the entry of all undocumented migrants to the USA and is turning them away without granting them any asylum hearing.

His complete support for Israel in their war against Hamas in the Gaza, even with Israeli attacks leading to the death of 50,000 Palestinians is now affecting the status of legal migrants into the USA, especially those who took part in the pro-Palestine gatherings on campuses. The Trump administration is now using its immigration enforcement powers to suppress the activities of international students and scholars who participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations or criticized Israel over its military actions in Gaza. Accusing the protestors of being supporters of Hamas, a globally designated terrorist group, the administration is using a rarely invoked statute to authorize the Secretary of State to expel non-citizens from the U.S. citing their presence as a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. Some have been taken into custody and deported, some fled the country when their visas were cancelled and some have taken their cases to court to seek justice and justification.

So, the question is, why does Trump behave irrationally? Some observers say that he is playing the much used ‘madman’ theory of global politics. The key principle of the madman theory is to convince opponents that a leader is unpredictable and potentially irrational, willing to undertake actions that defy conventional norms or expectations. This psychological tactic relies on the belief that uncertainty and fear can alter the decision-making calculus of adversaries, leading them to make concessions or adopt more conciliatory positions. However, this requires a delicate balancing act, where the leader’s public image has to be carefully managed to maintain that very thin distinction between calculated unpredictability and a genuine threat to international stability.

Trump uses his own version of this theory, where he praises dictators and alienates allies, using chaos to create uncertainty in geo-politics. Today, Canada is in an economic trade war against the U.S., while Denmark is in the process of preventing the promised takeover of Greenland by the Trump administration, even if it means using its military to defend Greenland. Trump seems to be using the ‘theory of chaos’ more than anything else. The Chaos Theory is based on the premise that while chaotic systems display unpredictable behaviour, the hidden side of the systems are a well defined and perfectly determined set of equations that work with high precision. Trump’s daily announcements has thrown the world into uncertainty. While his tariffs on China was expected, his imposition of tariffs on Canada and other friendly states, his refusal to send  any more military equipment to Ukraine, and his disregard for the mediation efforts by the French and the British shocked the Western world, especially the NATO countries.

Trump’s erratic behaviour revolves around two main factors; short-term gains for the U.S. treasury and the containment of China, economically and militarily. He has a transactional approach that gives priority for immediate profit over long term strategic alliances and he treats geopolitics as business deals. He wants to break the growing Russia–China alliance and has the opinion that ending the Ukraine–Russia war quickly would lead to better relations between the U.S. and Russia, while securing economic advantage by acquiring Ukraine’s mineral resources and potentially restarting the Nord Stream pipelines. In this plan, the American interests are predominant and those of traditional allies are secondary. Since Russia seems to be struggling economically, it might keep a distance between itself and China should the U.S. overtures offer tangible financial benefits. China has little to offer Russia apart from ideological solidarity, and pragmatism carry’s more weight than ideology in international politics where financial benefits are prominent.

Trump’s tariffs on various nations, including his neighboring nations of Canada and Mexico are harsh. However, the Indo-Pacific nations of India, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and Australia, have been treated mildly. It might be because these countries form a strategic perimeter around China and Trump needs these countries to support him to contain China. His view of the world seems to divide nations into two categories; those that are necessary to contain China and those who are irrelevant to this goal. It can be jocularly said, that had Canada bordered China, it might not have been targeted with punitive tariffs.

Trump essentially behaves like a crafty mafia don. While in public, he is belligerent, appears reckless and announces grandiose plans to annex Canada and Greenland; his private decisions are very clearly focused on reducing the financial burden of hosting illegal migrants, growing the U.S treasury through tariffs, forcing manufacturers to restart factories inside the U.S. and generate local employment, weaken the leftist–liberal political establishment, combat violent crime, and overall increase the confidence of his supporters and those who voted him into power. And if this means he has to bend and ignore the accepted rules of domestic and international political engagement, so be it. His flip-flops on policy matters is no joke, even though his new nick-name is "TACO" = Trump Always Chickens Out. 

Regardless of whether Donald Trump will go down in history as a 'President who changed the USA' or just a vain and mentally afflicted person - to his MAGA supporters he will always be the Don.

The “Don” rules

 

Understanding the Middle East Crisis: Key Issues and Challenges

The Middle East crisis has been a complex and longstanding issue, rooted in deep political, religious, and territorial disputes. However, the current conflict in the region has taken on new dimensions, making it more intricate than before. In this article, we will analyse four critical aspects of the ongoing crisis: how it differs from earlier conflicts, its long-term economic implications, the reasons for its spread, and the possibility of restoring peace.

1. Why is the Current Conflict Different from Earlier Ones?

While the Middle East has experienced conflicts for decades, the current crisis stands apart due to several significant factors. Unlike earlier wars, which were primarily local or national in nature, the current conflict is more regional and global. One key difference is the involvement of non-state actors such as militias, insurgent groups, and extremist factions like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; which play pivotal roles alongside traditional state actors.

Additionally, technological advancements have altered the nature of warfare. Cyber warfare, drones, and missile technologies have transformed how battles are fought, making the consequences more devastating. This conflict is also unfolding in an era of heightened social media use, where misinformation, propaganda, and real-time updates fuel emotions and political actions far beyond the immediate region.

The geopolitical landscape is more fragmented than before, with shifting alliances among regional and international powers like the U.S., Russia, and China; each pursuing their own strategic interests. These changes make the current conflict more volatile and unpredictable.

2. Long-term Economic Impact on the Region and Globally

The economic ramifications of the Middle East crisis are expected to be profound and far-reaching. Within the region, conflicts have caused significant destruction of infrastructure, resulting in long-term damage to local economies. Nations such as Syria, Yemen, and Iraq have experienced dramatic declines in their gross domestic product (GDP) due to ongoing conflicts, leaving millions displaced and economies in tatters.

On a global scale, the Middle East is home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and any escalation in conflict threatens the stability of global oil supplies. Disruptions in oil production or transportation could lead to price shocks, affecting industries and consumers worldwide. Furthermore, global supply chains, particularly in energy and trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz, could be impacted, creating ripple effects in markets from Europe to Asia.

Reconstruction efforts after the conflict, whenever they begin, will likely require significant international aid, which will put further strain on global financial resources and increase tensions over foreign investments and interventions.

3. Reasons for the Conflict's Spread to Lebanon and Iran

The spread of the conflict towards Lebanon and Iran stems from both historical grievances and contemporary strategic concerns. Hezbollah, a powerful Shiite militia based in Lebanon and supported by Iran, has become deeply involved, viewing its role as part of a broader resistance against Israel and Western influence in the region. Lebanon’s fragile political system and Hezbollah’s militarization make it a likely battleground, as seen in previous conflicts involving Israel and Lebanese forces.

Iran’s involvement is equally significant. As a regional power with ambitions to expand its influence, Iran provides financial and military support to proxy groups across the region, including Hezbollah and other militias in Syria and Iraq. The sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims also plays a major role, with Iran positioning itself as the leader of the Shia bloc in opposition to Sunni-dominated states such as Saudi Arabia.

The conflict’s spread is further exacerbated by the shifting alliances and rivalries between regional powers, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, all of which have vested interests in either containing or expanding the conflict based on their national security and political agendas.

4. Possibility of Peace Restoration and Global Solutions

Restoring peace in the Middle East remains a daunting task, but it is not entirely impossible. Achieving long-lasting peace will require a multifaceted approach, involving both regional and global stakeholders. Diplomacy will play a key role, and it is essential for the global community to encourage direct negotiations between conflicting parties. International organizations such as the United Nations must take a more proactive stance, facilitating peace talks and ensuring compliance with ceasefire agreements.

Economic incentives can also be leveraged to promote peace. Initiatives aimed at rebuilding war-torn nations and reviving economies could serve as motivation for warring parties to seek resolution. Regional cooperation on issues like water security, infrastructure development, and trade can help reduce tensions by fostering economic interdependence.

Moreover, external actors, including the U.S., Russia, and the EU, must refrain from exacerbating the conflict by supporting opposing sides. Instead, they should focus on diplomatic efforts and reducing arms proliferation in the region. Mediation by neutral states like India or international organizations could help bridge the divides between major regional powers.

While the road to peace is fraught with challenges, including deep-seated mistrust and unresolved political grievances, a concerted global effort that is focused on dialogue, economic recovery, and the de-escalation of military tensions, can help set the stage for a more peaceful and stable Middle East.

 

The Violent History of the USA

Many geopolitical observers and “experts” in my country India; are giving close attention and undue importance to the 2024 Presidential Elections in the USA. India being a large mix of quasi–socialist, communist influenced left–wing intellectuals on one side of the political spectrum and with the currently very vocal Nationalist-pride infused influencers on the opposite side; is forecasting how bi-lateral relations between India and the USA will develop or deteriorate, based on whether the Republican or the Democrat candidate wins this election. The reality is that neither candidate is going to favour India, beyond the commercial and political requirements of their own country. As history is witness, the foreign policy of the USA is immoral, unethical and prone to violence since their very existence, as can be noted from the synopsis below.

The history of U.S. foreign policy, including military and covert actions, spans a wide range of events where the country has used its power to influence or destabilize other nations. Here, I will outline key periods and incidents with historical backing, focusing on those that involved direct or indirect use of violence or economic destabilization.

1. Early Years and Expansionist Policies (1776–1800s)

• War of Independence (1775–1783): While the American Revolution was a war for independence, it set a precedent for military action as a means to achieve political ends.
• Manifest Destiny and Displacement of the Natives of the Land: Throughout the 19th century, the U.S. pursued aggressive westward expansion, leading to wars and forced removals of Native American tribes, resulting in significant loss of life and cultural destruction.

2. 19th Century Foreign Interventions

• Mexican-American War (1846–1848): The U.S. invaded Mexico, leading to Mexico ceding large territories (present-day California, Nevada, Utah, etc.) under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
• Spanish-American War (1898): The U.S. intervened in Cuba's fight for independence from Spain. This conflict resulted in U.S. control over former Spanish colonies like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

3. Early 20th Century: “Banana Wars”

• Central America and the Caribbean: The U.S. military intervened in countries such as Nicaragua (1912–1933), Haiti (1915–1934), and the Dominican Republic (1916–1924). These interventions were largely aimed at protecting American commercial interests and maintaining regional stability.
• Philippine-American War (1899–1902): Following the Spanish-American War, the U.S. fought against Filipino independence fighters, leading to significant casualties and widespread destruction.

4. Cold War Era (1947–1991)

• Korean War (1950–1953): The U.S. led a United Nations coalition to repel North Korean and Chinese forces, creating a longstanding division of Korea.
• Vietnam War (1955–1975): The U.S. engaged in a prolonged conflict in Vietnam to counter the spread of communism, resulting in millions of deaths and widespread devastation.
• Coup in Iran (1953): The CIA orchestrated Operation Ajax to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstate the Shah, driven by concerns over oil nationalization.
• Guatemala (1954): The CIA-backed Operation PBSUCCESS overthrew President Jacobo Árbenz after he sought land reforms affecting American business interests (e.g., United Fruit Company).
• Chile (1973): The U.S. supported the coup that ousted President Salvador Allende, leading to the establishment of Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship.
• Nicaragua and the Contras (1980s): The U.S. funded Contra rebels in their fight against the Sandinista government, which involved significant human rights abuses.
• Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961): An unsuccessful CIA-sponsored attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba.

5. Post-Cold War and Modern Interventions

• Iraq (1991, 2003): The U.S. led a coalition during the Gulf War in 1991 to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, leading to prolonged conflict and instability.
• Afghanistan (2001–2021): The U.S. invasion was a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, initially targeting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but resulting in a two-decade-long war with significant casualties and an eventual U.S. withdrawal.
• Libya (2011): U.S.-led NATO forces conducted airstrikes that contributed to the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi, leaving the country in a state of ongoing conflict.

6. Economic Sanctions and Covert Operations

• Sanctions on Cuba (1960s–present): U.S. sanctions aimed at isolating Cuba economically following the Cuban Revolution.
• Iran Sanctions: Various economic sanctions to curb nuclear capabilities have impacted the Iranian economy.
• Interventions via Covert Operations: The CIA and other agencies have engaged in numerous operations to sway elections or destabilize governments, such as those in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. 

The U.S. has utilized a combination of military might, covert operations, and economic measures to influence global politics and economics. Each of these actions seem to have complex motivations, including political, economic, and ideological interests. However, in reality, the USA geopolitics is never about winning a conflict, as can be seen that over the years the USA has faced political and military defeat in almost every war that they started.

The reality is that the President of the USA is not really a ‘leader of the free world’, a myth that has been propagated over the past few decades by a continuous and effective public relations strategy. The President of the USA is not the only power center of that country. There are three centers of power that heavily influence the foreign policy of the USA.

The first is the military arms manufacturing lobby that has the backing and support of the military bureaucracy of the US government, and who in turn are heavily favored by the military lobby with regular and mostly immoral gifts. Corrupt money can be tracked and used in legal prosecution of the bureaucrats, but moral corruption in the form of easy access to contraband pharmaceuticals, illegal narcotics and sexual playmates (of all types) is part of a regular menu of favors in their politics.

The second center of power is the military–intelligence agencies mafia. With an annual budget of over a Trillion dollars (12 zeros after the initial digit), these agencies prepare “threat reports” for the political class and create a sense of constant insecurity among the members of their Congress and the people of their country. The intelligence agencies have no real audit or over-watch over their actions and have been caught many times in spreading misinformation and lies, but high-ranking members of their organizations or the American military have never been investigated, prosecuted or punished for illegality.

The third center of power is the cabal of the leaders of the two political parties. This cabal comprises of former Presidents (and in some cases their wives and mistresses), former high-ranking officials of past administrations, political financiers, and political lobbyists. In many cases, some individuals are a mixture of some or all of the above defined roles.

The President of the United States is nothing more than a puppet of these three power centers; from the time they decide on the candidates for the election to controlling the winning candidate for the subsequent four years in power. And repeat every four years. That is the reality of American politics, and instead of the overused cliché ‘God Bless America’ the people of that country should say: “God Save Us from America”.  

 

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?