BLS - Republic Day wishes

 

Limiting the Gandhi Family's Role

India's political system is democratic, with no constitutional bar on family involvement in politics. However, the Gandhi family's dominance—spanning Jawaharlal Nehru (first Prime Minister), Indira Gandhi (three-time PM), Rajiv Gandhi (PM), Sonia Gandhi (former INC President), Rahul Gandhi (current Leader of Opposition), and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC General Secretary and MP)—has fueled calls for reform to promote merit over lineage.

The Case for Limiting the Gandhi Family's Role

Dynastic politics, exemplified by the Gandhis, is seen by critics as a threat to democracy. Here's why some argue for parliamentary intervention:

• Entitlement Over Merit: As Congress MP Shashi Tharoor wrote in a November 2025 Project Syndicate essay, the Nehru-Gandhi family's legacy has "cemented the idea that political leadership can be a birthright." This normalizes succession based on surname rather than ability, reducing competition and innovation within parties. Tharoor noted that poor electoral performance (e.g., INC's 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha setbacks under Rahul Gandhi) doesn't dislodge dynasts, eroding accountability.
• Stifled Democracy: Dynasties limit talent pools, especially for youth and marginalized groups. A 2025 analysis in TFI Post argued the Gandhi-Nehru lineage "weakened the culture of merit," setting a precedent that permeates all parties (e.g., BJP's Scindia or Thackeray families in Shiv Sena). Political scientist Kanchan Chandra's research shows dynasts make up 20-30% of MPs, blocking aspiring leaders and reinforcing elitism.
• Broader Impact on Governance: Tharoor highlighted how lineage-driven power leads to "poorer quality governance" by prioritizing loyalty over competence. The INC's reliance on the Gandhis has contributed to its decline, winning only 99 seats in 2024 (down from 44 in 2019), yet family members retain top roles. BJP leaders like Shehzad Poonawalla have used this to mock the INC as a "family business."
• Proposed Limits: Reforms could include:
  • Term Limits: Capping family members' consecutive terms in party leadership (e.g., Rahul Gandhi's multiple stints as INC President).
  • Internal Party Elections: Mandating transparent primaries to select leaders, reducing "high-command" control by the Gandhis.
  • Anti-Dynasty Laws: Banning relatives from succeeding in the same constituency (e.g., Amethi/Raebareli as Gandhi strongholds) or requiring disclosure of family political ties.

These could be enacted via amendments to the Representation of the People Act or new election laws, requiring parliamentary consensus.

The Case Against Limiting the Gandhi Family's Role

Defenders argue that limiting any family would infringe on democratic freedoms and ignore the Gandhis' electoral legitimacy:

• Historical and Electoral Mandate: Congress leader K. Muraleedharan countered Tharoor in November 2025, stating the family's role is "incomparable" and based on public choice—from Nehru's freedom struggle contributions to Rahul's 2024 Raebareli win (margin: ~3.9 lakh votes). Voters, not Parliament, decide; banning them would be undemocratic, akin to targeting any successful politician's kin.
• Dynasties Are Widespread and Voter-Approved: Tharoor himself noted dynastic succession "prevails across the political spectrum," including BJP (e.g., Pilot family in Rajasthan) and regional parties like DMK or SP. A 2021 Gateway House study found dynasties can empower marginalized groups (e.g., backward castes via family networks), acting as an "inclusive paradox" in India's diverse society. Singling out the Gandhis would be partisan, especially since INC's internal democracy allows challenges (e.g., G-23 group's 2020 push against Rahul).
• No Legal or Practical Precedent: India's Constitution emphasizes equality but doesn't regulate family ties in politics. Enforcing limits could spark legal challenges under Article 14 (equality) or Article 19 (free association). The Atlantic (2019) predicted the dynasty's "demise" post-2019 losses, yet Rahul's 2024 Opposition role shows voter resilience—no intervention needed if elections act as a check.
• Risk of Overreach: Parliamentary limits might entrench incumbents elsewhere. Congress MP Udit Raj dismissed Tharoor's critique, saying dynasties exist in business and society too—politics isn't unique.

A Balanced Perspective

Dynastic politics, including the Gandhis', is a symptom of weak party institutions and India's patronage-based system, not just one family's fault. While their outsized role in the INC (e.g., no non-Gandhi president since 1998) warrants internal reform, Parliament imposing blanket limits risks authoritarianism—better addressed through voter education, campaign finance caps, and stronger Election Commission oversight. As Tharoor urged, shifting to "meritocracy" via term limits and primaries could revitalize democracy without targeting individuals.

Ultimately, Indians should decide via ballots. If the Gandhis' influence wanes electorally (as in 2014-2019), no law is needed; if it persists, broader anti-dynasty measures might gain traction. For now, the debate highlights India's evolving democracy: from family legacies to merit-driven futures.

A Stinging Defeat: Bihar Verdict Exposes Deepening Crisis

As the NDA celebrates a landslide, the Congress party's electoral machinery lies in tatters, raising existential questions about its leadership and future.

The 2025 Bihar assembly election results have delivered a seismic shock to the Indian National Congress, with the party's dismal performance emerging as the central storyline of a larger opposition rout. The Congress, part of the Mahagathbandhan (Grand Alliance), contested 61 seats but managed to win a mere six, cementing its status as the weakest link in the coalition and precipitating a fresh wave of internal turmoil.

The verdict has forced a moment of brutal reckoning for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who acknowledged the outcome as "truly shocking" and alleged that the election was "not fair from the start". However, this fake narative has done little to assuage concerns within a party that appears to be in a perpetual state of decline under his leadership, with the Bihar results marking one of its worst-ever performances in the state .

The Numbers of a Debacle: The statistical breakdown of the Congress party's performance reveals the depth of the electoral collapse. The following table illustrates the stark decline in the party's efficacy within the alliance:

Election Year         Seats Contested         Seats Won         Strike Rate

2020                         70                                 19                     27.14% 

2025                         61                                 6                         9.8% 

This plummeting strike rate—the percentage of contested seats won—was the lowest among all major Mahagathbandhan partners. The party's contested vote share also fell to 34.1%, a significant drop from the 41.2% it recorded in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, indicating a rapid erosion of its voter base.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), in a contrasting display of dominance, secured a thumping victory with 202 of the 243 seats, returning Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for a record term. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) itself won 89 seats, its highest-ever tally in a Bihar assembly election.

A Leadership Under Fire: For Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Bihar verdict is the latest in a long line of electoral setbacks. Since he began influencing the party's decision-making around 2009, the Congress has lost 71 of the 83 state assembly elections held across India, a record that points to a systemic and leadership-driven crisis.

In his initial reaction, Gandhi took to social media to voice his dismay. "I express my heartfelt gratitude to the millions of voters in Bihar who placed their faith in the Grand Alliance. This result in Bihar is truly shocking," he wrote. "We failed to win an election that was not fair from the start. This fight is to protect the Constitution and democracy".

Party president Mallikarjun Kharge echoed the same sentiment, stating that the Congress would "study the election results in depth" and present a detailed account after understanding the reasons for the defeat. He sought to rally demoralized workers, calling them the party's "pride, honour, and glory," and vowed to continue the struggle to "save the Constitution and democracy".

Internal Dissent and Organizational Failure: Beyond the public statements, voices of discontent have emerged from within the party, pointing to profound organizational failures. Senior Congress leader Akhilesh Prasad Singh acknowledged that while Rahul Gandhi had "worked hard" and drew "unexpected crowds" during the campaign, the party machinery failed to convert this energy into votes .

"The responsibility was of the members of the organisation to take that message to the masses, which we failed to do," Singh admitted in a candid assessment. He highlighted that an excessive focus on ticket distribution and internal matters distracted key leaders at a critical juncture. "The Bihar Congress President was also contesting the election. The CLP was also contesting. No one was there to oversee it. It seemed like there was no management of the election at all" .

Another Congress MP, Tariq Anwar, pointed to the public squabbling over seat sharing within the Mahagathbandhan as a damaging factor. "This message should not have gone to the public that there were differences within the alliance over seat sharing, due to which we had to face a loss," he stated .

The Structural Decline of a National Party: The Bihar results are not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of contraction. The Congress party, which once governed a vast majority of India's states, now has a significant presence in only three—Karnataka, Telangana, and Himachal Pradesh. Its total number of MLAs across the country has nearly halved in the past decade, a stark indicator of its withering organizational vitality.

Political analysts suggest the party has failed to articulate a compelling alternative governance agenda or rebuild its grassroots structures, particularly in the politically crucial Hindi heartland. The party's absence in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh is no longer just a strategic deficit but a threat to its very survival as a national force.

The Road Ahead: An Existential Crossroads: The aftermath of the Bihar defeat leaves the Congress at an existential crossroads. The party must confront the uncomfortable truth that its leadership, rooted in the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, may have lost its electoral potency. The brand that once commanded loyalty across castes and regions now seems unable to inspire even its own cadre.

The choice before the party is brutally simple. It can continue its reliance on a leadership that has "presided over its contraction," or it can execute a "clean, unambiguous break" and find a leader who is "hungry, not hesitant; present, not periodic". The Congress must decide whether it will evolve or continue its slide into political irrelevance.

As the dust settles on the Bihar battleground, the resounding defeat is more than a numerical loss; it is a symptom of a deeper malais. For Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, the message from the electorate is clear: the politics of inheritance is no match for the power of a robust organization and a compelling vision. The countdown to redemption—or oblivion—has well and truly begun.

Pakistan–Afghanistan Relations Go From Dependence to Defiance: Implications For South Asia

Mistrust, refugee expulsions, and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan crisis have driven Pakistan and Afghanistan toward confrontation. What do Pakistan’s waning influence over the Taliban, Afghanistan’s outreach to China and Russia, and the growing security vacuum threatening South Asia mean for India’s diplomacy?

By Maj Gen Rajan Kochhar

The Pakistan–Afghanistan relationship has long been a complex tapestry of ethnic, political, and strategic contradictions. Rooted in an artificial colonial border and deepened by decades of mistrust, both nations have oscillated between cooperation and confrontation. While geography binds them, history divides them. The relationship, once revolving around mutual dependence—Islamabad’s influence over Afghan Taliban factions and Kabul’s reliance on cross-border trade—has rapidly deteriorated since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. This has certainly been a Black Swan event for Pakistan.

Growing hostility, marked by border clashes, refugee expulsions, and mutual accusations of harbouring militants, signals a breakdown in ties that extends beyond bilateral irritants. The deterioration impacts South Asia’s overall stability, shaping India’s strategic calculus and the region’s evolving power balance.

Historical Background: An Uneasy Brotherhood

Since 1947, Pakistan and Afghanistan have shared uneasy relations. Kabul was the only capital to oppose Pakistan’s UN admission, citing the controversial Durand Line dividing ethnic Pashtuns. The “Pashtunistan issue” shaped Afghan nationalism and Pakistan’s insecurity for decades.

During the Soviet invasion (1979–89), Pakistan, backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, channelled support to the Mujahideen through the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban’s later rise in the 1990s initially gave Pakistan “strategic depth,” but after 2001, relations soured as both sides traded accusations of terrorism and interference. The Taliban’s 2021 victory rekindled Pakistan’s hopes—only to end in disillusionment.

The Current Deterioration: From Strategic Allies to Hostile Neighbours

The TTP Factor: The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from eastern Afghanistan, remains the biggest flashpoint. The Taliban refuses to act decisively against the group, citing it as an “intra-Pakistani issue.” Airstrikes by Pakistan in Khost and Kunar have worsened tensions.

The Refugee Expulsion Crisis: In October 2023, Pakistan announced the expulsion of 1.7 million “illegal” Afghan refugees, alleging links to smuggling and militancy. Kabul called the move “inhumane,” and border crossings at Chaman and Torkham have since faced repeated closures.

The Durand Line Dispute: Afghanistan refuses to recognise the Durand Line, viewing it as an artificial division of Pashtun and Baloch tribes. Frequent skirmishes and resistance to Pakistan’s border fencing projects have heightened tensions.

Shifting Regional Alignments: The Taliban’s growing ties with China, Iran, and Russia—alongside Kabul’s participation in Beijing’s Belt and Road forums—have sidelined Pakistan, undermining its earlier influence.

Underlying Causes of the Breakdown

Strategic Miscalculations: Pakistan overestimated its leverage over the Taliban.

Ideological Contradictions: Pakistan’s state-centric outlook clashes with the Taliban’s theocratic nationalism.

Internal Instability: Political and economic crises weaken Islamabad’s diplomatic posture.

Regional Power Vacuum: The US withdrawal left Afghanistan seeking legitimacy from China, Russia, and Iran, reducing Pakistan’s relevance.

Implications for South Asia

Rising Regional Instability: A resurgent TTP, coupled with Islamic State–Khorasan Province (IS-KP), risks transforming the borderlands into a new jihadist hub.

Economic Fallout: Bilateral trade—once over $2 billion—has collapsed, replaced by smuggling and narcotics flows.

Strategic Reorientation: Afghanistan’s pivot to China and Russia alters South Asia’s balance, potentially sidelining Pakistan.

Implications for India

Diplomatic Openings: India can leverage Kabul’s frustration with Pakistan by expanding humanitarian aid and soft-power outreach.

Security Risks: The fragmentation of counterterror coordination increases threats from TTP, AQIS, and IS-KP.

Connectivity Challenges: Instability endangers India’s trade routes via Chabahar and the International North-South Transport Corridor.

Strategic Advantage: Pakistan’s loss of “strategic depth” weakens its capacity for adventurism along India’s borders.

Broader Regional Implications

Shifting Power Balance: New alignments—China–Afghanistan–Iran versus India–Iran–Central Asia—are redefining South Asian geopolitics.

Connectivity in Jeopardy: Projects like CASA-1000 and TAPI face renewed uncertainty.

China’s Expanding Role: Beijing’s economic diplomacy in Afghanistan boosts its regional footprint but carries security risks from local militancy.

Humanitarian and Ideological Dimensions: Refugee suffering, divided Pashtun families, and fading Islamist unity illustrate how nationalism now supersedes religion in Afghan politics.

Pakistan’s own exported radicalism has begun to rebound domestically, as the TTP’s escalating attacks show.

Conclusion

The Pakistan–Afghanistan rupture marks a decisive shift from dependence to defiance. The Taliban’s assertion of sovereignty and Pakistan’s rigid response have pushed both toward confrontation. For South Asia, this means instability—but also an opportunity for India to project stability and leadership. The region stands at a crossroads: integration or implosion, cooperation or chaos. How its leaders respond will define South Asia’s future.

Indo–US Relations: Coping with Strategic Strains

A series of economic and diplomatic flashpoints have exposed the fragility beneath the Indo-US partnership. From tariffs and visa restrictions to the Chabahar sanctions issue and renewed American engagement with Pakistan, the equation is being recalibrated in real time.

Over the past year, the strategic embrace between the United States and India has become unmistakably more complex. Cooperation in defence, technology, and energy has been advancing, but so too have tensions — particularly on trade, visa policy, sanctions, and regional alignment. Policies such as sweeping US tariffs on Indian imports, the revocation of the waiver on Chabahar port sanctions, steep H-1B visa fee hikes, and increasing US engagement with Pakistan have raised questions about the durability and direction of the bilateral relationship.

India now finds itself navigating a strategic landscape where opportunities abound — but so do trade-offs. The key questions are: Why is the US doing this now? What are the implications for India’s strategic autonomy, economic interests, and foreign policy? And how can India respond so as to preserve and enhance its long-term national interest?

What Has Changed — Key Flashpoints

Tariffs and Trade Levers: One of the most immediate sources of friction is US tariff policy. India has been hit with “reciprocal tariffs” and penalty tariffs tied to its ongoing purchases of Russian oil. In some cases, US duties on Indian exports have reached 50 per cent. These trade measures are part of a broader effort by Washington to use trade policy as a lever of foreign policy, especially in its strategy to isolate Russia economically. These tariffs are not just economic punitive measures; they signal a broader expectation: that India align more closely with US positions on energy sanctions, supply-chains, and global norms. The tariff measures affect export-oriented sectors in India — textiles, gems and jewellery, seafood, dairy products, farm sector etc. — and also put pressure on India to modify its broader external policy.

H-1B Visa Fee Hike and Immigration Policy Shifts: Another major recent development is the US decision to impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, effective from a certain cutoff (after September 21, 2025). Existing visa holders or those whose petitions had been filed before that threshold are not immediately affected. But for new applicants which includes many Indian nationals in the tech and services sector, this is a dramatic increase in cost.  This policy forms part of a broader US move to restrict immigration related to skilled foreign workers, to respond to domestic political pressures over job competition, outsourcing, and immigration. It also serves as a tool to force India to localise more of the value — by increasing the cost of sending Indian workers abroad.

Chabahar Port and Sanctions Waiver Revocation: For many years, India has invested in Chabahar port (particularly the Shahid-Beheshti terminal) in Iran as a strategic asset: to provide connectivity into Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan, and to facilitate regional trade corridors (including parts of the International North-South Transport Corridor). Because of that strategic value, India was granted a US waiver under certain Iran sanctions so that its operations in Chabahar would not come under US penalties.  In 2025, the US has announced that it will revoke this waiver effective around September 29, 2025, meaning that operations, funding, or investment connected to Chabahar could face sanctions under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA). This move disrupts India’s connectivity and energy ambitions in West and Central Asia. It also raises questions about India’s ability to pursue independent foreign and regional policy when expectations from Washington on sanctions compliance become more rigid.

US Engagement with Pakistan: While India and the US have increasingly aligned in many strategic ways — Indo-Pacific Strategy, maritime security, critical technology cooperation — US foreign policy continues to maintain ties with Pakistan, particularly in counterterrorism and regional stability contexts. Recent US statements and diplomatic gestures suggest that the US is hedging: not disengaging from Pakistan, but trying to ensure that Islamabad doesn’t fully drift into adversarial blocs. This is a long-standing US approach of balancing its South Asia policy, but in the current environment of pressure on India over trade and sanctions, such outreach to Pakistan can be perceived and used as leverage in the larger US strategy.

Why is this Happening Now?

There are several interconnected drivers pushing the US towards these policies at this time. Understanding them helps explain whether these are temporary irritants or indicators of a deeper shift.

US Domestic Politics and Protectionist Pressures: Heated concern over job losses or wage stagnation in key US sectors has driven administrations of both parties to adopt tougher trade and immigration policies. The H-1B visa crackdown responds to American political constituencies who argue that foreign skilled workers are undercutting US labour. Congress and interest groups exert pressure on the Executive to tighten trade norms, impose reciprocal tariffs, and enforce sanctions strictly, particularly in light of the war in Ukraine, competition with China, and domestic economic anxiety.

Strategic Foreign Policy Objectives: US strategy toward Russia and Iran is central. The US wants to reduce the ability of Russia and Iran to finance their operations, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukraine war and rising tensions in the Middle East. India’s continued energy trade or connectivity with these countries complicates US sanctions strategy. The US sees India as a crucial strategic partner in balancing China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. But strategic partnership doesn’t mean complete alignment. Washington expects India to take clearer positions or actions that support US goals — and uses economic tools to motivate that alignment.

Global Supply Chain Reordering and Tech Competition: The US is placing great emphasis on securing supply chains for semiconductors, critical minerals, and technology infrastructure. This includes using export controls, investment restrictions, and incentives for “trusted partners.” Immigration policy (like H-1B) becomes part of this calculus: talent is a strategic resource. By making immigration costlier or more restricted, the US aims to domesticate more parts of the tech value chain and reduce dependence on imported labour.

The Russia-Ukraine War and US Energy/Policy Coercion: Sanctions on Russia are now central to US foreign policy. US sees trade with Russia (especially energy) as a means by which adversaries can evade sanctions. India’s purchases of Russian oil are now a leverage point used by Washington to push for policy changes. Similarly, the Iran sanctions posture is tightened, especially under “maximum pressure” policies. The Chabahar waiver revocation falls in line with that.

Implications and Risks for India

These developments pose several immediate and long-term risks to India’s strategic and economic interests. At the same time, they open up new opportunities if India adapts smartly.

Risks

Economic stress on export sectors & services. Tariff hikes can severely damage competitiveness in labour-intensive, export-oriented sectors. Service-exporting firms from India (especially in tech) are vulnerable if H-1B restrictions limit their ability to send talent to the US or participate in US customer-facing projects.

Strategic and policy constraints. The revocation of the Chabahar waiver constrains India’s ability to pursue independent foreign policy, especially in West and Central Asia. It can force India into more binary positions in sanction regimes.

Erosion of Trust and Diplomatic Goodwill: Abrupt policy shifts (tariffs, visa fee hikes, sanctions retractions) can be experienced in Delhi as slights or lack of respect for Indian priorities. Over time, this could reduce India’s willingness to align with US policy on critical global issues when Washington demands it.

Industrial dependency and tech limbo. If access to talent, tech, and investment gets conditioned heavily on political alignment, India may find its industries constrained in supplier choice, IP access, or technological autonomy.

Regional balance disruption.     US outreach to Pakistan coupled with pressure on India could embolden Islamabad’s strategic posture. It also complicates India’s regional connectivity and counterterrorism efforts.

Opportunities

Leverage for stronger trade deals. The current frictions give India stronger bargaining power — Washington is keen to show that the alliance is not frayed. India can negotiate more favourable trade terms, clearer market access, dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Push for genuine ToT and co-production in defence & tech. With US needing India as a strategic partner, New Delhi might extract more substantial technology transfer, joint R&D, and manufacturing roles.

Accelerate domestic talent and innovation ecosystems. The visa and talent restrictions may incentivise India to invest more heavily in its own education, tech R&D, startup ecosystem and retain domestic talent.

Diversify Partnerships: The pressures from the US may encourage India to double down on its ties with other countries — EU, Japan, Middle East, Russia — to avoid overdependence, and to build counterweights in both trade and strategy.

 What Should India Do? A Strategic Response

To navigate this fraught terrain, India needs a coherent strategy that both mitigates risks and seizes opportunities. Below are strategic recommendations.

Diplomacy and Negotiation: Be Proactive, Not Reactive

High-level dialogues: Use bilateral summits, MEA-State Department talks, trade delegations to keep channels open. The meeting between Foreign Minister Jaishankar and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York (UNGA) is one example of signalling continuity despite conflict.

Linkage diplomacy: When discussing trade and visa issues, India should link them to cooperation areas it cares about (defence, critical minerals, climate, Indo-Pacific security). This gives Delhi more bargaining levers.

Multilateral engagement: Bring in third parties and multilateral institutions for issues where US policy is unilateral (e.g., Chabahar, sanctions). Engaging with EU, Japan or UN frameworks can reduce isolation and increase legitimacy.

Trade Strategy: Targeted Adjustments and Diversification

Assess tariff exposure: Identify which export sectors to the US are most vulnerable, and prioritise protective or compensatory support (for example, subsidies, alternate market access, or product upgrading).

Selective tariff reduction and concessions: Where possible, India might be willing to adjust or reduce tariffs in US-sensitive goods (e.g. autos, liquor, medical devices) if this is traded for US concessions on visa, technology access or sanctions waivers.

Strengthen regional trade ties: Expand exports to alternative markets (ASEAN, EU, Middle East, Africa) so dependence on the US is moderated. Negotiating preferential trade or FTAs with such partners will help.

Tech, Talent and Immigration Policy

Talent home-shoring / domestic capacity building. Given rising costs / barriers for sending skilled talent abroad, Indian firms should increasingly invest in domestic skills, R&D, and encourage reverse brain drain. Emphasis on improving STEM education, labs, AI, quantum etc.

Advocate for rational visa regimes: Through diplomacy, legal channels, and multilateral forums, India should push for visa regimes that are fair, transparent, predictable. The $100,000 fee hike for H-1B may be legally challenged or negotiated down.

Build alternative institutions for talent exchange: Bilateral fellowships, joint research centres and centres of excellence can mitigate the impact of stricter US immigration/visa norms.

Chabahar and Connectivity Policy

Lobby for carve-outs or waivers: Engage US Congress and relevant departments to argue that Chabahar is essential for humanitarian and regional stability purposes (e.g., Afghan transit, Central Asia trade), not enabling Iran’s sanctioned operations. Indian arguments should emphasise non-alignment and development focus.

Multilateralise Chabahar: Bring in partners (EU, Japan, UN) to share investment, operation, or oversight of Chabahar. This raises its profile not just as India’s project but a shared regional connectivity node.

Build parallel corridors: To reduce vulnerability, build multiple connectivity routes (e.g. via the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, even through Russia etc.). Invest in infrastructure, transport, logistics to reduce single-point dependencies.

Defence and Strategic Cooperation

Insist on technology transfer & co-production: Use procurement deals as leverage. When procuring US systems, ensure clauses of IP ownership, local manufacturing, skill transfer are not token but enforceable. Delivery timelines matter.

Deepen interoperability & foundational agreements: Agreements like BECA, LEMOA/LEMOA, COMCASA etc already help. Continue building trust through joint exercises, shared standards, dual use logistics.

Strategic autonomy as policy: Be clear that India will not be forced into binary blocs. This preserves credibility at home and flexibility abroad. Articulate India’s policy convictions rather than reacting passively.

Domestic Policy Adjustments

Boost competitiveness. Improve ease of doing business, regulatory clarity, infrastructure (port, transport, power). This helps Indian firms adjust to higher costs imposed by tariffs or visa restrictions.

Support export and services sectors. Provide targeted credit, insurance, risk mitigation for sectors exposed to US tariffs; foster greater value addition so that India moves up the global value chain.

R&D, innovation, education. Scale up tech incubators, AI labs, semiconductor missions. Encourage domestic research and align with global norms of data governance, cyber security to make India an attractive “trusted partner.”

Takeaways

It is appropriate to conclude with a SWOT Analysis of Indo-US relations and the opportunities identified could be explored.

Maj Gen Rajan Kochhar

-The author retired as Major General, Army Ordnance Corps, Central Command, after 37 years of service. A management doctorate and expert on defence modernisation. He is affiliated with several leading defence and strategic studies institutions in New Delhi. The views expressed are of the writer.

किसानों के मुद्दे पर कोई समझौता नहीं करेंगे : मोदी

 अमेरिका के साथ अगले दौर की वार्ता को लेकर अनिश्चितता के बीच प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने शुक्रवार को कहा कि वह किसानों और मछुआरों के हितों की रक्षा के लिए दीवार की तरह खड़े रहेंगे। भारत उनके हितों से कभी समझौता नहीं करेगा। यह टिप्पणी इसलिए महत्वपूर्ण है, क्योंकि अमेरिका, दोनों देशों के बीच प्रस्तावित द्विपक्षीय व्यापार समझौते (बीटीए) में कृषि और डेयरी क्षेत्रों में भारत से शुल्क में रियायत की मांग कर रहा है। अमेरिका ने भारत पर भारी टैरिफ लगाए हैं। ट्रंप ने भारतीय वस्तुओं पर टैरिफ बढ़ाकर 50 प्रतिशत कर दिया है। बढ़ा हुआ टैरिफ 27 अगस्त से लागू होगा। वर्तमान में अमेरिकी बाजार में प्रवेश करने वाले भारतीय सामानों पर 25 प्रतिशत टैरिफ हैं।

अमेरिका और डोनाल्ड ट्रंप की ओर दी जा रही टैरिफ की धमकियों और व्यापार समझौते को लेकर दबाव की रणनीति के बीच प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने भारत का रुख साफ कर दिया है। स्वतंत्रता दिवस के मौके पर लाल किले की प्राचीर से पीएम मोदी ने अपने संबोधन में दो टूक शब्दों में कहा कि हम खेती के मामले में वे जिले जो दूसरों से पीछे रह गए, जहां खेती अपेक्षाकृत कम है। इसके लिए हमने पीएम धनधान्य कृषि योजना को आरंभ किया है। हमने ऐसे 100 जिलों की पहचान की है, जहां खेती कमजोर है। इस योजना के जरिए हम उन 100 जिलों में खेती को बेहतर कराने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि भारत के मछुआरे, पशुपालकों से जुड़ी कोई भी अहितकारक नीति के आगे मोदी दीवार बनकर खड़ा है। भारत अपने किसानों अपने पशुपालकों और अपने मछुआरों के संबंध में कभी भी कोई समझौता स्वीकार नहीं करेगा।

लाल किले की प्राचीर से दिए गए अपने 103 मिनट के स्वतंत्रता दिवस भाषण में पीएम मोदी ने ट्रंप के टैरिफ का कोई सीधा जिक्र नहीं किया, लेकिन इशारों-इशारों में उन्होंने साफ किया कि भारत किसी के सामने भी अपने हितों से समझौता नहीं करेगा। 7 अगस्त को भी अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप को संबोधित एक संदेश में मोदी ने कहा था कि भारत अपने किसानों, मछुआरों और डेयरी क्षेत्र के हितों से कभी समझौता नहीं करेगा। उन्होंने कहा था कि यदि आवश्यक हुआ तो वह व्यक्तिगत रूप से बड़ी कीमत चुकाने को तैयार है।

प्रस्तावित बीटीए में अमेरिका मक्का, सोयाबीन, सेब, बादाम और इथेनॉल जैसे उत्पादों पर कम टैरिफ और अमेरिकी डेयरी उत्पादों की पहुंच बढ़ाने की मांग कर रहा है। हालांकि, नई दिल्ली इन मांगों का कड़ा विरोध कर रही है, क्योंकि इससे छोटे और सीमांत किसानों की आजीविका प्रभावित होती है।

एसएंडपी ने भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था की रेटिंग को बढ़ाकर 'बीबीबी' किया

 वैश्विक रेटिंग एजेंसी एसएंडपी ग्लोबल ने गुरुवार को भारत की साख को एक पायदान बढ़ाकर 'बीबीबी' कर दिया है। एजेंसी ने महंगाई पर अंकुश लगाने वाले बेहतर मौद्रिक नीति उपायों के साथ मजबूत आर्थिक वृद्धि का हवाला देते हुई रेटिंग बढ़ाई है। भारत की रेटिंग को निम्नतम निवेश स्तर 'बीबीबी-' से बढ़ाने वाली एसएंडपी पहली वैश्विक रेटिंग एजेंसी है।

एसएंडपी ने अपने बयान में कहा, "भारत राजकोषीय मजबूती को प्राथमिकता दे रहा है। यह मजबूत बुनियादी ढांचा तैयार करने के अभियान को बनाए रखते हुए, स्थायी सार्वजनिक वित्त मुहैया कराने के मामले में सरकार की राजनीतिक प्रतिबद्धता को दर्शाता है।" एसएंडपी के अनुसार भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था पर अमेरिकी टैरिफ का असर प्रबंधित किए जा सकने वाले दायरे में होगा। भारत व्यापार पर अपेक्षाकृत कम निर्भर है और इसकी लगभग 60 प्रतिशत आर्थिक वृद्धि घरेलू खपत से आती है।"

इस रेटिंग अपग्रेड के बाद वित्त मंत्रालय ने ट्वीट किया, "भारत सरकार एसएंडपी ग्लोबल रेटिंग्स द्वारा भारत की दीर्घकालिक सॉवरेन क्रेडिट रेटिंग को 'बीबीबी-' से 'बीबीबी' और अल्पकालिक रेटिंग को 'ए-3' से 'ए-2' करने के निर्णय का स्वागत करती है। इसमें स्थिर दृष्टिकोण शामिल है। एसएंडपी ने पिछली बार जनवरी 2007 में भारत की रेटिंग को 'बीबीबी-' किया था, इसलिए यह रेटिंग अपग्रेड 18 साल के अंतराल के बाद आया है।

Are Indian regulatory bodies pettifoggers?

Observers and common public in India seem to be gradually inferring that regulatory/ guiding/autonomous/high powered bodies appointed by the Government of India, are not as effective as they are purport to be.  DGH, PESB, PNGRB, CERC, DGCA el al are powerful bodies created to fulfill specific purposes, address particular issues and regulate various sectors. But are they really serving their purpose? Are they not missing the forest for the trees? Today’s Economics has selected these bodies merely as examples without any intended or unintended malice. No aspersions are being cast nor should be taken. Sources have been approaching to voice concern on the current ecology of regulatory bodies. A healthy democracy, should in fact be strong enough and morally courageous enough, to take stock when it is necessary.  

DGCA is currently in news, among other acts for having ordered AI to sack officials for serious lapses. DGCA has done this only after the recent, unfortunate crash of AI Aircraft at Ahmedabad. But may say there were earlier aberrations but strict action was not imposed. Airlines were let off with warnings and fine. PESB if more in news for rejecting candidates for PSUs, rather than selected them. Of late, it has been suggesting for a rather curious route of “Search Committee” for selecting PSU heads. Many candidates feel that their deserving candidature was rejected without citing specific reasons, leading to questions on ab initio laying down of job descriptions and specifications. They want more transparent guidelines and procedures.  

DGH had no comments to offer on the recent, prolonged ONGC Gas leak in Assam.  It was left to the Minister to step in and assuage the feelings of an enraged local community. Sources state that claims/reparations often get stalled indefinitely. Even prominent Legal Firms are wary of it. PNGRB is known to pass pronouncements which seem to somehow be in favour of private players, rather than promoting Government PSUs. Recently its in in the process of making Government mineral oil Pipelines a common usage property. However, no such Pipeline in Private Sector has been proposed. Strictly speaking it may mean renting out the property of the Government of India but no action under the ToP Act,1882 seems to have been contemplated.  CERC has often passed orders which have been challenged in court leading to wastage of time and money. Electricity Litigation now features prominently in most lawyers’ area of practice. These are but few illustrative examples, from the world of regulatory bodies which observers cite, to claim, that maybe all’s not well.

The role of regulatory bodies is often the subject matter of controversies. Although some do carry statutory powers, most lack the strict set of rigorous conduct/procedures akin to CPC/CRPC. Their decisions can be said to be more akin to executive/administrative diktats. They appear to have an affirmative orientation towards one or another party.  No doubt, a particular case or issue is always debatable and facts and law come into play. But the maxim, justice should not only be done but appear to have been done is equally important. More so as it is one of the founding principles of natural justice and goes even beyond man made laws.  Laws have to adhere to this important tenant. Many experts who have more privy to facts, have of late, started opining, that such bodies should also function as ombudsmen who are not swayed by official dictates. Fair play should never be given a by-pass. But they also point out an unmissable fact that many such bodies are often headed by retired bureaucrats/ex PSU executives. They in their long career, in a particular environment and hereinbefore used to particular structured approach, chain of command, need to know principles etc. may not be ideal material to carry out independent, quasi-judicial functions. Their credentials should be commensurate with the exalted position they hold. And the public outcry re affirms the dictum that Caesars wife should be above suspicion. Today’s Economics does not want to cast any aspersions on these hallowed bodies or the incumbents but it’s also true that the increasing clamor cannot be ignored.

Experts feel that the person(s) heading such bodies should have the necessary background and wherewithal to resist pressures and carry out a more comprehensive job which is acceptable to all. Simultaneously, Rules & Procedures should be more robust, transparent and with due notice to public. Model Rules should be available not only to parties or arguing lawyers but even to the general public since it ultimately impacts them. In camera deliberations should be minimum and ‘open courts’ should be the norm. There should be an audit on the working of these bodies which is not restricted merely to financial aspects. In fact, many experts state that after many decades of working of these bodies, time has come for India to have a regulatory body to regulate the regulatory bodies.

AI: Rough Carrier

Aircraft Maintenance has come into sharp focus after the crash of Air India Boeing 787- 8 Dreamliner, operating as Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, on June 12. A total of 241 passengers and crew on board the Boeing Dreamliner and 29 people on the ground lost their lives. The London-bound aircraft had crashed into a buildingof BJ Medical College campus, moments after it took off, from the SardarVallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad. One passenger,Vishwas Kumar Ramesh, seated on the now famous and much sought after seat -  11 A seat, survived the disaster. He is a 40-year-old British businessman from Leicester. He was discharged, after recovery, from Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, only to be carrying out the funeral rites of his cousin, who also had died in the same air accident. Such isthe irony and human misery being faced by many. Today,s Economics pays tribute to all those who lost their lives as well as those who survived the ordeal.

Whereas there is much discussion with experts in the media, regarding the cause of the crash,it is yet to be officially announced. Whether it is due to the aftermath, rigorouschecks or the ensuing Iran-Israel War, many flights have now been cancelled by Air India. These cancellations have reached hitherto unseen proportions leading many air travelers to point at maintenance issues. While debates rage on the most probable reason of the crash, aircraft maintenance seems to be taking center stage. Today's Economics, wishes to bring its readers afeature which is not commonly known. When Air India was sold to Tatas in year 2021 for US $ 2.44 Billion, some of the subsidiary companies of Air India were not acquired.In Aviation Sector, experts reveal there is a popular practice of bigger companies having their own maintenance set ups. Such maintenance unit(s) are not small garage like outfits. These arespecialized arrangements with expert manpower and sophisticated machinery. They can carry out extensive short term and long term maintenance activities. One such maintenance company of Air India was Air India Engineering Services Limited (AIESL). A CAR 147. & EASA PART 147 APPROVED organization.It was a fully owned subsidiary of Air India,dedicated to providing world-class Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) services for aircrafts. Established with the goal of offering specialized engineering solutions,AIESLclaims to have become one of India’s leading MRO serviceproviders, ensuring the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of a wide range of aircrafts. AIESL leveraged its legacy to serve both domestic and international airlines with the highest standards of aircraft maintenance and engineering services. It has the capacity for MRO services for both Wide Bodied and Narrow Bodied Aircrafts. At one point of time the key MRO locations of AIESL included Indira Gandhi International Airport (Delhi): One of the largest hubs for AIESL, ChhatrapatiShivajiMaharaj International Airport (Mumbai), one of the company’s most advanced MRO centers, the Mumbai facility specializes in heavy maintenance services, engine repairs, and component overhauls. Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (Hyderabad): a key location for line maintenance and heavy checks, particularly for Airbus and Boeing aircrafts. Kempegowda International Airport (Bengaluru)-: This facility offers comprehensive maintenance services for wide-body aircraft and narrow-body jets. It is known for providing advanced avionics support, catering to the growing demands of modern aircrafts.Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport (Kolkata): The Kolkata MRO center is a full-service facility offering maintenance and repair services to domestic airlines as well as international carriers.Cochin International Airport (Kochi): A key center in Southern India, this facility focuses on engine maintenance and repair for regional aircrafts. SardarVallabhbhai Patel International Airport (Ahmedabad), a facility specializing in line maintenance services for narrow-body aircraft and serves a significant portion of the regional airlines operating in Western India.Thiruvananthapuram International Airport (Trivandrum), this facility provides routine maintenance, repair and overhaul services, especially for wide-body aircrafts. Nagpur International Airport (Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar),  a dedicated MRO center for cargo planes and business jets, it playsa crucial role in maintaining the operational efficiency of freight and private aircrafts. Readers will notice that the organization has wide spread network and appears to have extensive facilities. AIESL has an Attach and Detach Shop. It also is said to have a Full Thrust Workshop in Terminal 2 of Palam Airport.The Aircrafts serviced by AIESL are also myriad, the company’s comprehensive expertise in handling multiple aircraft types makes it a key player in India’s aviation MRO sector. In the Commercial Aircraft Sector, it services: Airbus A320 Family: Including models like Airbus A320-200, A320neo, A319, and A321, Boeing 737 Family: Models such as Boeing 737-800, 737-900, and the Boeing 737 MAX. Boeing 777 Family:- Boeing 777-200, 777-300, and 777-300ER.  Boeing 787 Dreamliner Series: The company is also experienced in handling Boeing’s advanced Dreamliner series, including Boeing 787-8 and 787-9 models.ATR Series: The ATR 42/72 regional turboprop aircraft are also supported by AIESL. In the Cargo and Special Aircraft, it Services:Boeing 747 Series: maintenance services for Boeing 747-400 and 747-8 freighters. Key services include:Line Maintenance, Base Maintenance, Engine Overhaul,Component Overhaul and Repairs: Servicing,Avionics Services, Aircraft Painting and Livery,Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), Interior Refurbishment: Full cabin refurbishment services,CAMO Services (Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization). AIESL at one point of time employed approximately 5,000 highly skilled professionals, making it one of the largest MRO service providers in India.  Well, why this rather elaborate discourse on one particular company? For one, we are discussing Aviation Maintenance but more importantly we already have a Make in India organization which we should be making full use of. (These details have been obtained from the Website on Internet. Readers are requested to verify from original source). Today Economics is not in any way tying to campaign for the company nor criticizing the actions of the house of Tatas& Government.

Fine, this particular company was not acquired by the Tatas. Maybe in their scheme of things, outsourcing the maintenance ofAircrafts, rather than carrying it out in-house, made for greater economic sense. Of course, maintenance activities, experts say, traditionally means getting ‘your hands dirty’ in cluttered, greasy, labour intensive activities. So many airlines prefer to outsource this bothersome, unglamorous undertaking. Howsoever important it may be. Tatas collaboration with Singapore Airlines for Vistara could have also played a role. In any case, an opportunity of acquiring a Value organization was lost. Often immediate concerns can overshadow long term perspectives in businesses, though it is not being suggested in this particular case atall.AIESL could have lost some of its market and patronage, we are not aware. But then many would say there are collateral impacts of Privatization. Economists say hard money, rather than immediate value realization is seen as the ultimate objective of privatization. ITDC, STC etc. are a case in point; wheremany state that intrinsic value and brands got diminished. Air India somehow is proving the point that all out privatization of PSUs may have its own limitations. Some eminent people have even started questioning the Air India privatization. Of course the accident could have happened any which way and Tatascertainly cannot to be blamed for it. Many observers feel that the Oil & Gas Sector could be next in line for total privatization. It’s after all,the duck which laysgolden eggs. Already, the existing Indian private players have already made a nice buck. Of late they have even overtaken the PSUs in domestic market share. Remember they already made a killing in exports,prompting windfall taxes for the first time in India! But with the world in a flux, sceptics insist that a fall back arrangement has to be in place especially when the push becomes a shove. Readers will do well to recollect the time when the Oil Companies in India, owned by the so called Seven Sisters, Oil Multinationals, had to be nationalized? One of the reasons was their being neutral at a time when India was at war. Wars are suddenly becomingquite frequent and somewhat prolonged!The oft quoted words of Indian business housesthat they are there to do business not charity, needs to be kept in perspective. Occasionally, there may be requirement of charity at home so that the nation is able totide over grim times.  But let us not divert from our topic of Aviation Maintenance. Aviation veterans have a saying – Every engine has its own mind, and surely minds should be currently at work in India!

TE conveys its heart felt condolence to all who have been impacted by AI crash.