NewSViewS - RacEClasS

Thursday, 7 August 2025

Game of Tariffs - Trump Offensive & India's Passive Response

A Strategic Sabotage: The Tariff Offensive and India’s Mismanaged Diplomatic Script

By Dr. Suresh Deman
Honorary Director, Centre for Strategic Affairs, London

In the turbulent theatre of modern geopolitics, tariffs are no longer mundane instruments of trade policy—they have become strategic weapons of coercion. Donald Trump’s imposition of escalating tariffs on Indian exports—first 25%, then 50%—was not rooted in trade imbalances or economic logic. It was a calculated manoeuvre of economic aggression, aimed at forcing asymmetric concessions while concealing self-interest behind populist rhetoric. It was a textbook case of strategic sabotage disguised as transactional diplomacy.

And India—rather than resisting—played along with theatre and illusion.

From Houston to Ahmedabad: The Optics of Deference

At the “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston in 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi did the unthinkable in modern diplomacy—publicly endorsed Trump’s re-election bid with the slogan: “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar.” Months later, India rolled out the red carpet for Trump in Ahmedabad with a stadium of chants and cultural displays. The diplomatic script was heavy on spectacle but light on strategy.

While the visuals suggested a deepening bond, the reality was far harsher: Trump imposed punitive tariffs, threatened sanctions for oil purchases from Russia, and continued to pressure India to buy American defense hardware—all while quietly expanding his own business interests in Indian cities like Pune and Mumbai. The asymmetry was glaring, yet largely unchallenged.

Game Theory in Geopolitics: A Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma

This imbalance is best understood through the lens of game theory, particularly the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. In this framework, two players (India and the U.S.) repeatedly choose between cooperation (mutual benefit) or defection (one-sided gain).

Trump’s tariffs, demands for defense deals, and threats of sanctions were consistent defections—moves that maximized U.S. gain at India's expense. India, instead of retaliating or leveraging multilateral forums, responded with continued cooperation, hoping to preserve long-term goodwill.

But in repeated games, if one player continues to defect while the other cooperates, it leads to a predictable outcome: the cooperating player is systematically exploited. India’s foreign policy, lacking credible retaliation mechanisms—like China’s critical mineral leverage—left it unable to shift the game dynamic. Trump was betting and bowling, while India was merely fielding, trying not to concede too many runs.

A Deal That Never Was

Trump’s negotiation style—“take my goods at 0%, buy my planes at 30%, invest in America, and shut up about sovereignty”—was not a diplomatic overture but an ultimatum. A deal under such conditions was structurally impossible. It was never about compromise; it was about coercion.

The Modi government, chasing photo-ops and slogans, misjudged this reality. Instead of recalibrating strategy, it continued the charade—burning diplomatic capital and public resources in a game rigged from the start.

Strategic Drift and Eroded Autonomy

India’s once-prized strategic autonomy has been slowly eroded. Its relationship with Russia—a historic pillar of foreign policy—has been reduced to transactional oil and arms deals conducted under U.S. scrutiny. Despite Russia’s willingness to develop new BRICS financial mechanisms and de-dollarised trade, India remained passive, hedging instead of leading.

Meanwhile, China—with its 40% savings rate, dominant state-owned enterprises, and aggressive diversification into Southeast Asia—has built the kind of strategic leverage India lacks. Xi Jinping’s outreach to Vietnam, Indonesia, and even Japan and South Korea shows a multipronged, long-term vision. India, by contrast, has clung to the hope that balancing multiple powers without making commitments would suffice.

U.S. Foreign Policy and Global Risk

The Trump-era U.S. foreign policy was a mix of isolationism and brinkmanship. Nuclear arms control treaties were discarded. Trade was weaponised. Allies were humiliated. This strategy—epitomised by the tariff blitz against India—elevated unpredictability into doctrine.

India, rather than asserting leadership in non-aligned nuclear diplomacy or WTO reform, largely capitulated—reaffirming its role as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker.

Diaspora Mirage and Partisan Traps

The Indian diaspora in the U.S., swayed by identity and visibility, offered vocal support to Trump, mistaking proximity for influence. Their blind loyalty, captured in Modi’s slogan in Houston, overlooked the structural damage Trump's policies inflicted on India’s economy and global standing. Diaspora euphoria replaced strategic clarity.

Institutional Breakdown: Where Is the Foreign Ministry?

Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar—once seen as the brain of Indian diplomacy—has been sidelined. India’s external affairs apparatus has become a stage for statecraft-as-spectacle. Strategic thinking has been replaced with PR management.

The absence of institutional checks and the over-centralisation of foreign policy in the Prime Minister’s Office has eroded India’s credibility. Allies are unsure, adversaries emboldened.

Silence Is Not Strategy

Since 2014, Prime Minister Modi has not held a single unscripted press conference. This isn’t just a political oddity—it’s a democratic liability. In moments of crisis, public accountability is not optional. As tariffs bite, supply chains strain, and alliances wobble, India needs clarity—not charisma.

A press conference is not a threat—it is a necessity. India’s electorate, business community, and global partners deserve real answers, not choreographed monologues.

Time for Strategic Reset

If India is to reclaim agency, it must shift gears:

End passive diplomacy: Recalibrate foreign policy toward Eurasia, diversify alliances, and leverage BRICS platforms to shape global norms.
Play strategically: Use multilateral forums like the WTO to challenge tariff aggression and trade coercion.
Build economic leverage: Invest in critical technologies and supply chains to reduce dependency and enhance bargaining power.
Restore institutional diplomacy: Empower professional diplomats and reduce personality-driven foreign policy.
Demand leadership accountability: The Prime Minister must face the press—and the people—with courage and transparency.

Final Reckoning: Speak or Be Sidelined

Trump’s tariff war was not about trade. It was about testing India’s resolve. India failed that test—not because of weak fundamentals, but because of weak strategy and silence.

In the repeated prisoner’s dilemma of global diplomacy, consistent cooperation without consequences for defection ensures permanent disadvantage. India must break that cycle—not with anger, but with clarity, cohesion, and courage.

The unipolar world is gone. What comes next will be defined not by slogans but by substance.

The time for the theatre is over. Prime Minister Modi must speak—not in applause lines, but in strategy.

Dr. Suresh Deman is Honorary Director at the Centre for Strategic Affairs, London. He has served as a consultant to UNEP and UNCTAD and writes on global economics, diplomacy, and democratic governance.

Monday, 4 August 2025

Jeffrey Sachs and the Search for a Safer World

Jeffrey Sachs and the Search for a Safer World

To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal

By Prof. Suresh Deman*

Centre for Strategic Affairs, London

These chilling words, famously uttered by Henry Kissinger and echoed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, capture the underlying message of one of the most arresting public conversations on geopolitics in recent memory. Sachs, speaking as part of The Saxophone series—an initiative aptly named to give voice to resonant truths—laid bare the state of the world and the crises at its core: U.S. hegemony, democratic decay, environmental peril, and the fracture of global cooperation.

In this wide-ranging, candid exchange, Sachs brought not just knowledge but conviction. His “Sachs Doctrine” stands diametrically opposed to the so-called “Washington Consensus.” Rather than dictate terms from a single capital, Sachs argues for adherence to a global consensus, forged in 2015 through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. But that consensus, he warns, is crumbling, led by the very nation that once claimed to champion international norms: the United States.

America’s One-Man Show: Governance by Decree

The heart of Sachs's alarm lies in what he calls America’s “one-man show.” The U.S. president, through executive orders cloaked in emergency powers, has declared trade wars and foreign policy shifts without debate or Congressional oversight. Sachs notes that the U.S. Constitution’s carefully constructed system of checks and balances is now being bypassed. The result? Governance by fiat. “If we had the Indian Supreme Court,” Sachs quipped, “I wouldn’t worry.” But the American judiciary, in his view, may not have the courage—or independence—to hold the presidency accountable.

Divide, Conquer, and Use: The Empire’s Playbook

Prof. Sachs minced no words in warning India: “The U.S. wants to use India to beat up China.” This, he claims, is the classic imperial tactic of “divide and conquer,” inherited directly from the British Empire. That's how Empires behave, and that's what the US learned from the master Empire of all the British, and we still try to apply it, so the U.S loves for India to be in the QUAD. It wants India to bash China, I heard some Indian politicians recently saying, no, it's not Donald Trump's trade policy. It's all because of China. No, not exactly. It's actually because of Donald Trump, so just be careful not to play the game. This is really a U.S game, India's too big for a U.S game. Anchoring Palki Uppdhayay abruptly remarked, "The advice is well taken. Maybe India also wants to beat up China, but on its own terms." Prof. Sachs responded, "India, the world's most populous country, must resist playing junior partner in America’s geopolitical games. “You are an alliance in and of yourself,” Sachs declared, asserting that India’s civilizational maturity and strategic autonomy must guide its path—not alignment with power blocs.

On Ukraine, Taiwan, and the U.S. War Machine

The war in Ukraine, Sachs argued, was avoidable. It stems, in his telling, not from unprovoked aggression but from decades of NATO expansion right to Russia’s borders. “I was there,” he said, recalling his time as an advisor to President Gorbachev. “The U.S. promised not to expand NATO—and then lied.”

Could Trump end the war? Possibly, Sachs admitted. “If he simply says NATO won’t expand to Ukraine, it’s over.” But the political will for peace, Sachs suggests, is secondary to the U.S. drive for global military presence, from Ukraine to Taiwan. “If Taiwan thinks the U.S. will save it, God help us,” he warned. Echoing the lessons of Ukraine, Sachs described U.S. promises as “fatal” for small nations caught in the crossfire of empire.

India’s Role: From Balancer to Peacemaker

What then is India’s place in this unfolding drama? Sachs sees India as a stabilizing force and a natural candidate for permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council. He has a suggestion—one he offers as a “little secret”: “Ask China to support your seat. It’s good for India, it’s good for China, and it’s good for the world.”

In a time of global volatility, Sachs finds hope in India’s democracy, its peaceful elections, and its message at the G20: “The world is one family.” With 600 million voters participating in a largely peaceful election, India has demonstrated the kind of civic strength that Sachs believes is sorely missing in many Western capitals.

Can Globalization Survive American Neurosis?

Sachs is not anti-American. He is an American who believes his country has lost its way. “The U.S. expected to be number one forever,” he said. “It’s a neurosis. And it will come to resent India too, once you overtake it.” But the rise of Asia, led by India and China, is not a threat—it is the inevitable correction of centuries of distortion. Sachs implores these nations to work together, settle differences, and avoid being drawn into proxy conflicts for declining powers.

On AI, Peace, and the Future

In a final flourish, Sachs even found time to endorse artificial intelligence, specifically for its ability to show both sides of an argument. “ChatGPT,” he said, “would give you a better answer than the U.N. Security Council. At least it shows multiple perspectives. Unlike Washington, where there’s only one narrative.”

This wasn’t just wit. It was a message: If we start by listening to one another, we may yet avoid catastrophe.

The Final Note: A Prescription for a World in Crisis

Jeffrey Sachs is not offering a conspiracy theory. He is offering a deeply informed analysis drawn from decades of experience advising leaders across continents. He is calling for a return to diplomacy, humility, and multilateralism in a time when bombs and executive orders dominate the headlines.

This conversation—this Saxophone—was not just a performance. It was a call to reason and to action.

In a world teetering between cooperation and collapse, Sachs’ message resonates like a clear note in the din of geopolitics: There is still time to choose peace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Artisle is based on Prof Sachs' many lectures and the author's own views. Prof. Suresh Deman is Director of the Centre for Strategic Affairs, London. He has advised governments on economic and geopolitical policy and writes regularly on international relations and political economy.

Saturday, 2 August 2025

India’s Foreign Policy Folly: Learning the Wrong Lessons from the West

By Prof. Suresh Deman

Centre for Strategic Affairs, London

Parliament in Session 2025

In the recent political discourse, the contrast between Priyanka Gandhi (Vadra) and Rahul Gandhi was striking. Priyank’s delivery was composed and substantive; Rahul, on the other hand, came across as angry and overly reactive. His rhetoric, while passionate, seemed to lack strategic grounding, especially on matters as delicate as foreign policy.

Rahul’s decision to intertwine China and Pakistan — accusing Beijing of aligning with Islamabad during the recent crisis — was not only diplomatically unwise but factually unsubstantiated. China's official posture was one of neutrality. There’s little evidence to suggest Beijing offered logistical or material support to Pakistan. In fact, Xi Jinping has made overtures toward restoring dialogue with India — efforts that have been largely ignored by both the current Modi government and Congress leadership alike.

Looking back, there is very little to distinguish the foreign policies of the Congress-led UPA and the current BJP administration. Both have been excessively preoccupied with countering China, adopting confrontational strategies that have undercut India's long-term regional interests. India’s active participation in QUAD military exercises and its growing proximity to the U.S. military posture in the South China Sea have significantly eroded the goodwill that once existed between New Delhi and Beijing.

India’s missteps are emblematic of a broader misunderstanding of global power dynamics. During the Biden administration’s intervention in Syria and Iraq, an American analyst famously remarked, “America has no friends, only interests.” This stark realism should have served as a warning. Back in 1991, Noam Chomsky captured U.S. foreign policy with brutal clarity in an article for The Guardian, summarizing it as: “We are your masters. You shine our shoes, and weaker enemies will be crushed so that the right lessons are taught.” India, rather than learning from this, appears to be parroting the same flawed logic.

The Modi government’s approach exemplifies this trend. His extravagant embrace of Donald Trump — including the controversial “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar” endorsement — was a geopolitical gamble that backfired. Trump lost, and India was left diplomatically exposed. The stadium hastily renamed for the visit — from Dhyanchand to “Motera” — symbolised not strength but submission to transient political trends.

Even experienced diplomats like S. Jaishankar, now lauded as a strategic thinker, have failed to shift course. Despite his bureaucratic acumen, he remains more of a pencil-pusher than a visionary leader. What India needed — and still needs — is a foreign policy grounded in realism, self-respect, and strategic autonomy. When President Xi extended a diplomatic hand to Modi to jointly resist Western tariffs, India should have stood firm as an equal, rather than waiting for handouts from Washington.

India must now reassess its global posture. The world is not unipolar anymore. In a time of shifting alliances and crumbling Western dominance, blind alignment with U.S.-led strategies will only constrain India’s options. What’s required is a strategic recalibration — one that respects historical ties, values regional stability, and recognises that sovereignty begins with independence in thought, not just territory

Wednesday, 30 July 2025

A LOVE LETTER AMIDST WAR - INDIA_PAKISTAN

In the Shadow of Mustard Fields: A Love Letter Amidst War!!!

Biswanath Bhattacharya

It was 1971. Although the drums of formal war had yet to sound, Tripura pulsed with the restless heartbeat of conflict. Everywhere, the air shimmered with tension—a tapestry woven from the threads of anticipation and dread. I was then a youth of twenty-one, wandering the familiar lanes of my beloved alma mater, NC Institution, a place as dear to me as the laughter of childhood. The school itself had taken on new life in Madhuban—a name that bloomed poetry on the tongue, promising a sanctuary of beauty. Deep forests pressed close on every side, and the institution, like a crown, rested atop a gentle hillock. But war, ever the thief of innocence, had claimed the hillock for its own. The Indian Army had set up camp there, and suddenly our school grounds became a shared world, where the promise of learning intertwined with the harsh cadence of marching boots.

One afternoon, as golden sunlight filtered through the latticework of teak leaves, I strolled beneath the canopy, lost in thought. The air was perfumed with earth and distant gun oil. A voice beckoned from among the trees—a Sikh 2nd lieutenant, his beard thick and his eyes kind, reclining against the bark as if seeking refuge from the world’s troubles. He was a friend to us, the teachers and the students, and his presence was as reassuring as the steady rhythm of the monsoon. He waved me over and, with a conspiratorial smile, pressed a folded paper into my hand. “Read this, sir,” he urged, his eyes gleaming with something both bright and vulnerable.

The letter was a whisper from another world—neat, feminine handwriting, delicate as the veins of a leaf. It began, “My dearest Harjeet,” and was signed with all the tenderness of a spring breeze: “Your Paramita.” Embarrassment flickered in my chest, chased by curiosity—why offer up one’s private heart to another, unless the burden of love was too heavy to bear alone?

“It is from my fiancée,” he explained, his voice a river running deep with longing. “She lives far away in Punjab. Our wedding was meant for this year, but war has shuffled the cards of fate. Each week she writes, and I answer. She is the sun to my sky, sir—the kindest, wisest soul I know. A teacher, like those of NCI, she brings English to the lips of little girls and poetry to their hearts. She is music itself, sir, and I am hers.”

His words spilt forth, bright as fireworks against the night, and I found myself swept up in their light. Here was a man in love, yet shackled by the demands of duty—a soul straddling two worlds: one built of devotion, the other of danger. In the crucible of war, Paramita’s letters were his amulet, casting a circle of hope against the encroaching darkness.

“She sent me this, too,” he said, producing a wristwatch as if unveiling a relic. The leather strap was supple as devotion, the silver dial gleaming with promise. On the back, a tender engraving: “To Harjeet, with love, Paramita.” Tears threatened my composure—a lump blooming in my throat like a stone dropped into still water. The watch was more than metal and glass; it was a timekeeper for their hearts, ticking away the moments until reunion, or perhaps until farewell.

“She writes that she loves me more than life itself,” he breathed, voice trembling between pride and sorrow. “She prays for me, waits for me, trusts me. Every day, she hopes.” His face was a canvas of contradictions: happiness and grief, gratitude and anxiety, hope and dread—a man balanced on the sharp edge of fate.

“Sir, if I fall—should I not return—promise me you’ll write to her. Tell her I loved her, till the very end. Tell her I died for her, for our land. Tell her I am sorry, and that her happiness is my last wish. Promise you’ll carry my words to her heart.”

His eyes, wide as dusk, searched mine for the assurance he needed. The oath I swore then was forged in the quiet forge of friendship, hammered by empathy and respect. “Yes, Harjeet,” I whispered, “I give you my word. But I pray you will need no messenger. I hope you return, marry her, and wrap the years around you both like a silken shawl. May peace return, and may you walk together in sunlight once more.”

His smile was a sunrise, fragile and luminous. He embraced me, urging me to watch over the school, the teachers, the children, the trees—all the little worlds that war threatened to swallow. “I will come back, sir. For her. For you.”

Fragments of Paramita’s letter floated through my mind—stories of running together through mustard fields, memories like sheets of gold unfurling beneath the June sun, the air a river of molten honey. The thrill of it rang through me like the clear note of a flute. She spun tales of sugarcane groves where ghosts wandered the wind, spirits caught in the sweet cages of stalks, tallying their silent numbers against the living—souls weighed down by the laws of men, by the unseen hands of distant emperors.

By the end, my cheeks were damp with tears that shimmered like morning dew. The officer, too, was weeping quietly—two hearts adrift on tides of longing and fear. I was young then, scarcely beyond the threshold of adolescence, and in that hour I learned the true shape of love—a force that could make the bravest warrior weep.

I promised to meet him again the next day. But when I arrived, he was gone, swept away with his unit toward the border, into the maw of uncertainty. I watched them vanish, each step echoing into the unknown. Night fell, and with it, the thunder of artillery—a requiem for dreams left unfinished. Perhaps our young Lochinvar had been summoned to the final field, his fate sealed by the indifferent dice of war.

In the quiet that followed, I found myself wishing for Paramita’s next life to hold him close once more. For isn’t life the blossom, and love its honey? To be loved deeply is to find strength; to love deeply is to discover courage. Love is the pulse that grants us true life, the only treasure we never tire of giving or receiving.

As I pen these words, my eyes are once again pools of memory, brimming with tears that catch the fractured light. The eyes—those fathomless oceans—harbor stories too sacred for the tongue, tides of longing swirling in their depths. Every tear, a pearl cradling the universe in its fragile curve, glimmers with the ache of absence and the radiance of love cherished. These tears, these silent jewels, are born of agony and hope, binding together what was lost and what endures.

And so, in the shadow of mustard fields and the echo of promises, this story drifts—an unspoken letter, folded within the heart, waiting for peace, for reunion, for dawn.

Monday, 28 July 2025

THREE TRILLION ECONOMY – YET MONSOON FLOODS UNCONTROLLED!

HEADLINE: THREE TRILLION ECONOMY – YET MONSOON FLOODS UNCONTROLLED!

India’s Development Tale Drowned in Drain Water – Jagatpura a Case in Point

By Prof. Suresh Deman

Centre for Strategic Affairs, London

JAIPUR | SPECIAL REPORT – India boasts a $3.7 trillion economy, rockets into space, builds bullet trains, and signs mega defence deals. Politicians from both the Congress and BJP thump chests over GDP growth numbers — from 9.5% highs in 2009 to current IMF forecasts painting India as a global growth engine. But come monsoon, this ‘rising superpower’ collapses under rainwater and neglect

Welcome to Jagatpura, Jaipur — a rapidly urbanising neighbourhood that resembles a war zone every July. Incessant rains have flooded over 37 homes, drowned vehicles, cut off access to basic services, and forced children and the elderly to wade through knee-deep sewage. “Every monsoon, we relive the same nightmare. We pay taxes, but the roads pay us back with broken promises,” says a frustrated resident.

Despite decades of alternating Congress and BJP rule, and despite India's celebrated economic leap, the lived reality for ordinary citizens has changed little. Jagatpura is not an isolated case — it is the mirror India must dare to face.

GDP Rises, But So Do Waters

The 2004–2014 UPA era was celebrated for growth, but ended with GDP dipping to 4%. BJP, since 2014, has continued the rhetoric, garnished with global praise from the IMF and World Bank, partly to project a counterbalance to China. But on the ground, the floodwaters speak a different truth. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen once called India’s growth “jobless” — but he may as well have called it “hopeless” for those who drown in preventable disasters.

A "Hell for the Poor" – Broken Promises, Broken Roads

The Jagatpura catastrophe exemplifies what many Indians experience every monsoon: poor planning, blocked drains, and negligent urbanisation. A cluster of 12 newly built skyscrapers for railway employees, dangerously close to the railway platform, now poses a risk of collapse in heavy rains. Despite court stays, media coverage, representations to JDA, Chief Ministers, and ministers, the response from the authorities has been a resounding silence.

“It’s not waterlogging — it’s State apathy flooding our lives,” a resident laments, pointing toward overflowing drains and cracked roads. The area has turned into a breeding ground for disease, and the safety of children and elderly is severely compromised.

China Fixed It in the 70s – Why Can’t India in 2025?

India-China comparisons are misleading. While India struggles with drainage, China conquered natural disasters, achieved mass literacy, and provided free healthcare fifty years ago. Today, India builds smart cities — but can't build drains in a posh Jaipur locality.

In response to an American friend’s query — "How is life in India?" — my honest reply was, “Heaven for the rich, hell for the poor.” That line may now need updating: It’s hell even for the middle class when the skies open.

Enough is Enough – Time to Drain the Corruption

What keeps Jagatpura underwater is not rain but systemic corruption and official inertia. Nothing moves without “material incentives,” say residents, and the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) has allegedly turned a blind eye to repeated pleas and protests.

The government must act now. Urban planning cannot be a joke in the age of climate change. Safety is not a privilege — it is a right. If a $3 trillion economy cannot ensure drainage and basic infrastructure, what is the growth for, and for whom?

Call to Action:

Prime Minister Modi, Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma, JDA officials — are you listening? Before another child slips, another wall collapses, or another home becomes a pond, it’s time to act. A flood is coming — not of water, but of public outrage.

For further updates, photos, and citizen videos from Jagatpura, follow our special coverage on social media @IndiaUndrenched.

Why Global Peace Eludes Us in the Nuclear Age

A Dangerous Imperial Hangover: Why Global Peace Eludes Us in the Nuclear Age

By Prof. Suresh Deman, Centre for Strategic Affairs, London*

Professor Jeffrey Sachs is one of the most popular speakers among the audience, transcending boundaries, due to his deep insight into current geopolitical and economic issues that impact people worldwide. He does not hesitate to express concerns and forewarn countries to avoid being sucked into China-bashing by the United States. Prof. Sachs is a Professor at Columbia University and the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The list of his engagement in Russia, Ukraine and other countries following the collapse of the USSR is well-known. He is also an intellectual fighter and speaks out against Injustice and evil wherever they emerge. He, indeed, is awesome, loud, articulate and highly reasoned voice for the collective conscience of those who cannot sepak for themselves. A voice of the last, lost and the least.

In January 2024, the Doomsday Clock moved to just 89 seconds before midnight—the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe. This isn't hyperbole. With nine nuclear powers and escalating conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and East Asia, we are sleepwalking toward disaster. The world is gripped by a systemic crisis rooted not in military necessity but in the persistent imperial mentality of the Western world, particularly the United States.

After the Cold War ended in 1991, we had an extraordinary chance to build a peaceful, cooperative world. The Soviet Union dissolved peacefully. Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, sought Western friendship. China opened its economy and began the most spectacular economic transformation in modern history. The world could have chosen partnership.

Instead, Washington chose dominance.

Rather than diplomacy, it expanded NATO to Russia’s doorstep. Rather than embracing China’s rise, it launched a trade war. Rather than promoting a just peace in the Middle East, it doubled down on military support for Israel—even as it commits what many international lawyers are calling a genocide in Gaza.

The Crisis Is Not Just Regional—It’s Systemic

Each of today’s crises is interlinked by a single thread: an unwillingness by the U.S. and its allies to accept a multipolar world. From Ukraine to Gaza, from Iran to Taiwan, Washington behaves not as a cooperative leader, but as a global enforcer—using economic pressure, military alliances, and covert operations to maintain supremacy.

This is not a new story. The U.S. inherited the tools and tactics of empire from Britain. The 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the Balfour Declaration that gave rise to Israel-Palestine conflict, and the dozens of regime-change operations that followed throughout the Cold War—these are not anomalies. They’re part of a pattern: if a government does not serve Western interests, it must be overthrown, contained, or destabilized.

As the former U.S. General Wesley Clark famously said, shortly after 9/11, the U.S. had plans to “take out seven countries in five years,” including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Two decades later, most of these countries lie in ruins, with ongoing civil wars, foreign occupations, and collapsed economies.

A Nuclear World Cannot Be Ruled by Imperial Instincts

The U.S. is, by geography, one of the most secure nations in the world. It is flanked by friendly neighbors and vast oceans. Its only real existential threat is nuclear war—yet its policies are making that risk worse.

Russia and the U.S. are already in direct conflict via Ukraine. China and the U.S. are heading toward confrontation over Taiwan. Israel and Iran are edging closer to war, drawing in nuclear-capable Pakistan. How many red lines must be crossed before miscalculation leads to catastrophe?

What’s striking is that none of this is necessary.

China, for example, poses no military threat to the U.S. It simply developed faster than Washington expected. Its “Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative and “Made in China 2025” technological drive were seen as threats not because they were aggressive, but because they were successful. Economic insecurity, not military aggression, fuels U.S. hostility.

An Opportunity Still Exists—But Time Is Short

The world desperately needs a new mindset—one that sees development, not dominance, as the goal of global affairs.

We have enough technology, knowledge, and resources for all regions—from Africa to Latin America—to experience decades of economic growth, just as China did from 1980 to 2020. But this requires a turn away from militarism, regime change, and ideological arrogance.

Unfortunately, every U.S. administration since 1991—from Clinton to Biden—has continued the imperial tradition, bringing us ever closer to “midnight.” This is not a partisan issue; it is systemic.

As an economist, I know that shared prosperity is possible. As a geopolitical analyst, I know that peace is achievable. But only if we abandon the fantasy of unipolar dominance and accept that cooperation, not coercion, is the only path forward.

If we fail, we may soon discover that in the nuclear age, imperial arrogance is not just immoral—it’s suicidal.

Saturday, 26 July 2025

HERO TO GROUND - JAGDEEP DHANKER, EX-VICE PRESIDENT

HERO TO GROUND - JAGDEEP DHANKER, EX-VICE PRESIDENT

The Resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and the Crisis of Constitutional Autonomy in India. Once a Hero, PM Modi appointed him the Governor of West Bengal to tackle one of the most powerful CMs of the Eastern State.

The resignation of India’s Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, on 21 July 2025 at the end of the first day in the upper house of parliament, represents a critical inflexion point in the country's democratic trajectory. More than a routine political development, it signals a profound institutional crisis—one that calls into question the balance of power between constitutional authorities and an increasingly dominant executive.

Dhankhar’s departure reportedly stemmed from persistent frictions with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), particularly over his inability to exercise independent authority as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. While the Vice President's role in India is largely ceremonial, his function as presiding officer of the Upper House carries procedural significance. Dhankhar’s bid to assert this role autonomously appears to have met stiff resistance, revealing the limited tolerance for dissent—even within the upper echelons of the Indian state. He felt humiliated when the treasury benches' MPs failed to show up for the twice-rescheduled meeting of the Parliamentary Committee, which was last scheduled at 4:00 pm.

Throughout his tenure, Dhankhar made several attempts to demonstrate institutional independence. Notably, he challenged the government’s position on the farmers’ protests, offering forthright criticism of the Agriculture Ministry. He also resisted party pressure in contentious matters such as the judicial pronouncements of Justice Shekhar Yadav and the breach-of-privilege allegations against opposition MP Raghav Chadha. In reopening debate on sensitive issues like "Operation Sindoor," Dhankhar positioned himself as a proponent of deliberative democracy—a stance increasingly at odds with a governance style marked by executive centralisation.

The final rupture reportedly occurred when Dhankhar approved an impeachment motion against a sitting judge, Justice Yashwant Verma, without consulting the PMO. While such a move falls within his constitutional remit, it was interpreted as an assertion of authority that breached the informal norms of executive supremacy. The retaliatory response was swift: BJP parliamentarians were summoned in small groups to sign a counter-impeachment motion, and Dhankhar resigned within hours.

This episode invites comparison to the 1979 B.D. Jatti controversy—the last major crisis involving a Vice President. However, the present context is more alarming, situated within a broader erosion of institutional autonomy across the Indian state apparatus. Under the current administration, several constitutional offices—from the Election Commission to the judiciary—have faced scrutiny for perceived alignment with executive preferences. Dhankhar’s ouster suggests that even individuals with ideological proximity to the ruling party, such as his former association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), are not immune if they assert independence.

Ironically, there has not been any manifestation of sympathy, let alone any outrage, either in the Congress or the BJP, not even from his own community in Rajasthan, for Dhankar's ouster, although the Congress has 18 MLAs and the BJP 16 MLAs, 6 MPs and 4 ministers in the 200 Assembly from his Jat community.

His resignation also exposes deeper questions about the status of parliamentary democracy in India. The orchestration of the impeachment motion, the absence of transparent deliberation, and the informal mechanisms of political coercion all suggest a procedural hollowing-out of democratic institutions. The episode underscores how constitutional offices, once intended as bulwarks against majoritarian overreach, are being transformed into instruments of executive consolidation.

In conclusion, the resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar should be read not as a singular event but as a symptom of a larger structural transformation. It exemplifies the diminished space for institutional autonomy in India's constitutional architecture and raises urgent questions about the health of its parliamentary democracy. As India approaches its next general election, the implications of this crisis will reverberate far beyond the confines of the Rajya Sabha.

It is a matter of concern that Jagdeep Dhankhar, despite appearing bold, ultimately bowed down to PM Modi’s overriding power. In contrast, Somnath Chatterjee, as Speaker of the House of Parliament, showed broad shoulders, refusing to resign when his Party, the CPM, asked him to do so. This is where ideology, not body size, matters?