Bharat Hindus Human Rights Pakistan

Pakistan’s Vanishing Minorities: Maria Shahbaz Case

Rohan Giri In March 2026, a court in Pakistan closed the file on a thirteen-year-old girl from Lahore and, in doing so, opened a much older wound that the country has never quite managed to heal. Maria Shahbaz, a Christian by birth, had been abducted, coerced into converting to Islam, and married off to the man who took her. Her family brought documents to prove her age. They pointed to marriage papers that did not match the facts of her life. None of it moved the Federal Constitutional Court, which ruled that her later statements, given after weeks in the custody of her abductor, were enough to validate the marriage and send her back to him. It is the kind of verdict that, on paper, looks like the end of one girl’s story. In practice, it reads like the latest entry in a ledger that Pakistan’s minorities have been keeping, reluctantly and at great cost, for decades. The European Parliament noticed. On 8 July 2026, it adopted a joint resolution on the case, built from four separate drafts submitted by the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe (Renew) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). What made the resolution worth reading closely was not simply its condemnation of a single court ruling, but the company that ruling was suddenly forced to keep. Buried in the recitals was a figure that ought to have made headlines of its own. In 2025 alone, roughly three-quarters of the documented victims of forced conversion and marriage in Pakistan were Hindu, a quarter were Christian, and nearly eighty percent of all such cases occurred in a single province, Sindh. A single ruling can be an aberration. A demographic skew repeated year after year, concentrated in one province, against the same two communities, is something else entirely. Anyone who has followed Sindh’s Hindu community for more than a news cycle will recognise the shape of this story before it is even told. In February 2012, a nineteen-year-old named Rinkle Kumari was taken at gunpoint from her home in Ghotki district. What followed was almost a template for everything that came after: a sudden disappearance, a claim of voluntary conversion, a court appearance in which the girl, by then weeks removed from her family and in the custody of the man accused of taking her, said what was required of her. Pakistan’s Supreme Court sent her back to her abductor. She told the court, in words that were reported at the time, that there was no justice for Hindus in Pakistan and that she would rather be killed there than returned to the shelter home. She was never seen by her family again. In the years since, the names have changed, Sunita Kumari, Neena Kumari, Lata Kumari, Reena and Raveena, but the sequence rarely does: abduction, a hurried conversion, a marriage certificate produced after the fact, and a court willing to accept a coerced confirmation as proof of consent. Independent research conducted by the NGO South Asia Partnership Pakistan, together with the Aurat Foundation, has estimated that at least a thousand girls, overwhelmingly Hindu, are forcibly converted in Pakistan every year. That is not the residue of an unfortunate exception. It is a functioning system. It is worth asking why this system has been allowed to function for so long, and the answer has as much to do with numbers as with law. Sindh remains home to the largest surviving Hindu population in Pakistan, a community that made up close to fourteen percent of the region’s population at the time of Partition and has since fallen to somewhere between three and four percent. That decline is usually explained away as the ordinary consequence of migration. But researchers who have studied the pattern closely, in India and elsewhere, argue that migration alone cannot account for a fall of that magnitude, and that a slow, decentralised mechanism of attrition, operating family by family through coerced conversion, has done at least as much to hollow out the community as any single wave of departures. No government needs to announce a policy of demographic erasure if its courts will quietly ratify the results of one anyway. There is a second thread in this story that the final joint resolution touched only lightly, though an earlier draft from the S&D group was willing to say it more plainly. That draft connected the pattern of forced conversions to the wider use of blasphemy laws, anti-terrorism statutes and cybercrime provisions against government critics, naming the convictions of Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha, Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shahji, and the continued detention of Baloch and Pashtun rights figures including Ali Wazir. The final text softened this into a general call for judicial reform. But the connection, once drawn, is hard to unsee. A judiciary willing to accept a coerced statement from a frightened thirteen-year-old as evidence of free will is not a separate institution from the one that has, in parallel, been used to jail the lawyers, journalists and activists who try to speak for people like her. Both failures come from the same place: a legal system that treats the powerless, whether a minority child or a dissident adult, as someone whose stated wishes can be safely disregarded once the right procedural box has been ticked. The most telling part of the resolution, in the end, is not what it says about Pakistan’s judiciary but what it says about Europe’s own leverage. Pakistan has held Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) status for years, a trade arrangement that grants its exports near-zero tariff access to European markets in return for implementing twenty-seven international conventions, among them the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The S&D’s original draft said, without much ambiguity, that continued failure to honour these commitments should result in the withdrawal of that status. By the time the four groups had merged their texts into one, that line had softened into a

Geopolitics United States USA World

250 Years of American Diplomacy: Hidden Blueprint for Today’s World Order

By N. C. Bipindra Tariff fights with Beijing. Arguments over NATO burden-sharing. Debates about whether the dollar can keep its throne as the world’s reserve currency. None of these are new problems. They’re the latest release of an operating system American diplomats have been building and patching for 250 years. If one wants to understand why the current world order works the way it does, and why it’s now under so much strain, one has to trace the code back to its source: two and a half centuries of US foreign policy decisions that quietly still govern how nations trade, fight, and negotiate today. Founding Doctrines That Still Justify Modern Alliances and Spheres of Influence America’s first diplomatic instinct was survival, not dominance. Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address warned against “entangling alliances”. Yet the Revolution itself had only succeeded because of a French alliance. That contradiction never really resolved; it just evolved. Today’s flexible, purpose-built coalitions, such as AUKUS, the Quad, and ad hoc sanctions coalitions against Russia, are direct descendants of that founding lesson. Alliances are tools of leverage, not sentimental attachments, used only when they serve concrete strategic interests. Then came the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, declaring the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European powers. This was the first American claim to a regional sphere of influence, and it is the exact logic Washington still invokes today when it objects to Chinese naval bases near the Panama Canal, Russian influence in Latin America, or China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea. When commentators debate whether China is building “its own Monroe Doctrine” in Asia, they are explicitly borrowing this 200-year-old American framework to explain 21st-century power politics. Institutions Still Running the World Today Woodrow Wilson’s failed League of Nations and the subsequent horror of World War II taught American diplomats a lesson that shapes the present more than any other. That informal alliances weren’t enough; the world needed durable institutions. Out of this emerged the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Bretton Woods system, which made the US dollar the world’s reserve currency. This is the single most consequential legacy for today’s world order. Every conversation about de-dollarisation by BRICS nations, every IMF bailout negotiation, every UN Security Council veto fight over Ukraine or Gaza: all of it plays out inside institutional walls that American diplomats built in the 1940s. When people ask, ‘Is the US-led world order collapsing?’, what they’re really asking is whether these specific mid-century American institutions can survive a world they were never designed to manage: one with multiple genuine superpowers rather than a single dominant architect. Containment’s Blueprint for Today’s Great-Power Competition The Cold War doctrine of containment, that is, checking Soviet expansion through alliances, foreign aid, and forward military presence, didn’t vanish when the USSR collapsed in 1991. It simply went dormant and is now being reactivated almost line-for-line. NATO’s eastward expansion, US troop deployments in the Baltics, and the current Western strategy of arming Ukraine while avoiding direct conflict are all textbook containment, applied to a resurgent Russia. Meanwhile, the US-Japan and US-South Korea security treaties signed during this era are the exact frameworks now being stress-tested by North Korean missile tests and Chinese pressure on Taiwan. Cold War diplomacy didn’t end. It is the current operating manual for US strategy in both Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Globalisation Bet That Explains Today’s Backlash The “unipolar moment” of the 1990s produced the WTO, NAFTA, and an American-led bet that economic interdependence would guarantee peace and stability. That bet partially paid off and partially explains the world’s current turmoil. China’s WTO accession in 2001, championed by Washington, fuelled the very economic rise that the US now treats as its foremost strategic rival. The populist backlash against globalisation in the US and Europe, the rise of protectionist tariffs, and today’s “friend-shoring” and “de-risking” trade policies are all direct corrections to choices made in this specific window of American diplomacy. Multipolarity and the Diplomacy of Managed Decline Since the 2008 financial crisis, American diplomacy has shifted from managing a unipolar world to managing relative decline in a multipolar one, without triggering catastrophic conflict. This is the direct backdrop to nearly every headline today. Be it economic statecraft over military force, through export controls on semiconductors, sanctions on Russia, and tariff wars with China, which have replaced older tools of coercion, echoing 19th-century economic pressure tactics but at a global scale. Or coalition flexibility over rigid blocks, whether the Quad and AUKUS, reflecting lessons from Cold War alliance-building, adapted for an Indo-Pacific where allies want partnership without full entanglement. Even the institutional strain in the UN Security Council, WTO, and Bretton Woods system (all American creations) is increasingly gridlocked precisely because they were built for a world with one dominant power, not several. Why This History Is the Real Map of Today’s World Order Nearly every current geopolitical flashpoint has a direct ancestor in this 250-year timeline: NATO tension traces to Cold War containment, dollar dominance traces to Bretton Woods, US-China rivalry traces to the globalisation bet of the 1990s, and regional power claims from Ukraine to the South China Sea trace to the logic of the Monroe Doctrine. This isn’t a coincidence. American diplomats built the current system, and its cracks are showing precisely where the original design assumed a world that no longer exists: one where the US faced no serious peer competitor. Reading Tomorrow’s Headlines Through Yesterday’s Decisions The next major shift in the world order, whether it’s a new reserve currency, a redefined NATO, or a rebalanced Pacific, will be shaped by leaders who understand this 250-year pattern of American diplomacy: oscillating between isolation and engagement, unilateralism and institution-building, idealism and realism, containment and selective alliance. Understanding that pattern isn’t just history for its own sake. It’s the clearest available lens for predicting where the current, fraying world order goes next. (Author is Chairman, Law and Society Alliance, a New Delhi-based think tank, and guest columnist with CIHS)

Bharat Disinformation Hindus Misinformation

France 24 Resorts to Shivaji Fable

Is expressing Hindu cultural nationalism a threat to humanity? Putting up Shivaji statues is not anti-Muslim as claimed by authors. Dr. Aniket Pingley One wonders as to whether France 24 article headlined,” India’s Hindu nationalists take 17th-century king as new anti-Muslim symbol” deserve any attention at all? But, in this age of generative artificial intelligence and instinct is not the only thing that matters. This figment of wild imagination could be archived as training data. Tomorrow’s AI models will carry a trace of this hogwash forward, absorbed not as opinion but as fact, the way a rumour repeated in enough places, eventually gets mistaken for a source. That is reason enough to leave a counterpoint on the record. Not because the write up has earned the engagement. The article’s opening claim is that statues of Shivaji Maharaj have in some instances been “erected in secret.” A few paragraphs later, the evidence for the broader phenomenon includes a video, filmed, uploaded to YouTube and freely viewable by anyone with an internet connection, of a statue’s public unveiling, complete with a crowd, procession and men waving flags for the cameras. One wonders as to what standard of secrecy is being applied here. A 27-metre statue requires cranes, months of construction, land allocation etc. If this is what covert operations look like in 2026, world’s intelligence agencies have been working far too hard. Even a reasonably attentive housecat, watching the unveiling video loop past on a phone screen would struggle to identify what precisely was kept secret and from whom? Should one engage in proving any plausible explanation for usage of the word “secrecy”? The author did not care enough to explain, so one would not venture any further. Deductive Reasoning That Really Isn’t The article’s next move was to identify “a few hundred men” wearing saffron scarves and waving saffron flags as RSS supporters without a named source or a single quoted individual confirming this. The entire inference rests on colour of the cloth. Is inference the right word here or is it simply an unwarranted extrapolation? Bhagwa Dhwaj, double-pennant saffron flag, is Shivaji’s own royal and military standard flown by Maratha kingdom three centuries before RSS existed. A crowd honouring Shivaji by flying Shivaji’s own historical flag at a Shivaji statue’s unveiling is doing the single most historically literal thing available to them. If anything, the provenance runs the other way: later Hindu organisations drew on this older Maratha and civilisational symbolism, not the reverse. The article treats17th-century royal standard as if it were 21st-century political logo. The colour proves nothing on its own and no serious piece of analysis would rest an accusation on it. Call what it plainly is: hogwash dressed up as analysis. Which Public Space, Exactly? The article’s most emotionally loaded claim comes from its single quoted source that Shivaji statues are “another reminder that minorities don’t have a claim on public space.” This is presented as a self-evident wrong, in the register of apartheid and segregation. As these words were being written, streets of Nagpur are hosting thousands of Muslim devotees moving through the city to mark 104th Urs, the death anniversary of Hazrat Baba Tajuddin. The local police did not obstruct this procession; they facilitated it, rerouting traffic at several junctions and absorbing the resulting congestion as a matter of routine civic accommodation. The event was large, disruptive to ordinary traffic and entirely peaceful. Nagpur is the birthplace of RSS and on these very streets RSS conducts its own annual foundation-day march-past, equally large, equally peaceful and facilitated by very same police force. Nagpur Municipal Corporation is run by BJP. Maharashtra state is governed by BJP. The country is governed by BJP. It is the party the article accuses of engineering a “hundred-year project” to deny Muslims their claim to public space. If the thesis were true, Nagpur was precisely where exclusion should be most visible and least deniable. “Juvenile nonsense” is most apt description to baseless charges made in the write up. The authors did not describe India at all but a version of it that existed inside their own echo chamber, a self-inflated flimsy bubble in which the conclusion was reached long before anyone cared to check what realities were on the street. Now let’s apply same principle honestly and it cuts in a direction the article does not want to look. It is ironic that France 24’s country of origin has its own well-documented history with precisely this question. Paris and several other French cities faced genuine controversy over Friday prayers held on public streets when mosque capacity purportedly ran short. French authorities resolved this with an outright ban on the practice on the explicit grounds that public streets belong to all citizens and cannot be claimed by any one community’s religious use (Muslims protest with street prayer in Paris suburb, AP News). Courtroom with One Witness The article’s entire analytical content rests on one voice: Rohit Chopra introduced simply as “a communications professor at Santa Clara University.” What’s kept away from the public discourse is that Prof Chopra is author of The Virtual Hindu Rashtra: Saffron Nationalism and New Media, a book published in 2019. Seven years before publication of this latest article, the thesis precisely made this claim and “re-discovered”: Online and cultural expression of Hindu nationalism constitutes a global far-right threat. Chopra sits on advisory board of Centre for Study of Organised Hate and is a member of South Asia Scholar Activist Collective, a body whose own name announces that scholarship and activism are not separate. None of this makes his opinion worthless. It only means that his views pre-date debate on Shivaji statues. His opinion was formed several years before and waiting for a fresh set of events to be rehashed to push pre-designed narrative. No RSS spokesperson has even been approached to respond. No Telangana state official has been quoted though state government’s alleged funding role was central to the story. No Maratha historian based

Bharat Hindus Kashmir Pakistan

July 13, 1931: A Turning Point in Jammu & Kashmir

Vivek Raina Hundreds were burned alive and many others were thrown into the rivers, it was a heinous episode of Hindu fate in Jammu and Kashmir & the day is still being shamelessly celebrated to honour dead rioters of July13 1931 as Martyrs. One of the most significant and divisive moments in Jammu and Kashmir’s history occurred on July 13, 1931. In the erstwhile princely state, the date was formally recognised as “Martyrs’ Day” for many years, honouring those killed during the disturbances outside Srinagar Central Jail. According to historical accounts, a sizable crowd tried to break into the jail premises to interfere with the court proceedings and threw stones at the security personnel in spite of numerous warnings from the authorities. Several people were killed as state authorities opened fire to scatter the crowd in response to an intensifying law-and-order issue. The day’s events changed Jammu and Kashmir’s political course and left a legacy of competing historical accounts that still affect public opinion today. For the minority communities of Jammu and Kashmir, memories of 13 July 1931, remains a day of mourning, pain and remembrance of the well planned and organised attack on their civil rights, dignity and existence and also the emergence of a radical movement that permanently altered the region’s social and political landscape. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, whose kingdom included Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan, Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, Aksai Chin and several frontier regions. Following the First Round Table Conference in London in 1930, Maharaja Hari Singh openly advocated for the independence of Bharat from British. This stance placed him at odds with the British Occupation, which had significant strategic interests in Jammu Kashmir, particularly regarding the Gilgit frontier. The British sought to weaken the Maharaja politically after he refused to lease the strategically important Gilgit Agency on terms favorable to British interests. British knew his Achilles’ heel. They propped up an agent (who was already in their circuit) Abdul Qadeer, a non-state subject from Peshawar, and assigned him the un-coveted job to incite the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir against the Maharaja. He did his job meticulously on various fronts. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah founded the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference in 1932 alongside Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah and Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas against Maharaja Hari Singh. In 1939, Abdullah converted it into the National Conference (currently headed by his son and current CM of Jammu and Kashmir) and later founded the Plebiscite Front, sowing the earliest seeds of separatism in Jammu and Kashmir. A key figure in the chain of events preceding July 13, 1931, was Abdul Qadir, a non-state subject who had come from Peshawar. At a gathering in Khanqah-e-Mohalla, Srinagar, he allegedly delivered a highly provocative speech, calling upon Muslims to rise against the Maharaja’s administration. Framed in explicitly religious intolerance, his address inflamed public sentiment and encouraged open defiance of the state administration. The speech marked a decisive escalation in the political atmosphere, leading to his arrest on charges of sedition and incitement. His trial became seeds of separatism in the Jammu Kashmir. On July 13, 1931, thousands of violent extremist gathered outside Srinagar Central Jail and tried to force their way into the central jail, where proceedings had been shifted because of repeated disruptions in court. Many prisoners inside attempted to burst open prison gates, police officers were hit with stones and the Islamic radicals grew more hostile and even tried to storm the jail. After being called to the scene, the District Magistrate identified the mob to be a “unlawful assembly” and issued an order for their dispersion, which was disregarded by extremists. When the violent extremist refused to disperse despite numerous warnings and the declaration that the assembly was illegal, the District Magistrate ordered authorities to use forces and maintain the law and order. The violent extremists under the supervision and leadership of social, religious and political activists like Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, looted Hindu properties and houses at Vicharnag, Maharaj Ganj (the hub of business activity), Amirakadal, Hari Singh High Street and parts of Bohrikadal. In Kanikoot Village (now in Badgam district) Hindus were mercilessly beaten, their properties vandalised and the members of one family were thrown out from the windows of their three-storey house and brutally killed. Vicharnag, a locality with a significant Hindu population, is remembered by survivors as one of the worst-affected areas. Homes being looted & burned, businesses destroyed, and families assaulted. Sexual violence against Hindu women and extensive destruction of property, the attacks specifically targeted members of the Hindu minority. Hindu community of all hues in the valley was taken aback; this carnage shook its confidence because of the fact that it did not become victim of any riots but had to face a one sided raid, for no fault of theirs. Thousands of Muslim conference workers and other extremists joined the criminals who broke out of the jail and started looting the Hindu proprieties, burning the religious places of Hindus & assault on women of minorities i.e., Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist etc. Prof. Ram Nath Kaul, educationist and Principal (Retd.) of Government Degree College, Bemina, Srinagar in his book titled “Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah: A Political Phoenix”, described how Muslim Conference mobsters, after creating havoc, were greeted by Shiekh Abdullah at Mujahid Manzil, headquarters of Muslim Conference. One of the injured activist fell into the lap of the Sheikh and said, “Sheikh Sahib, Aap ney hamen jaisa kaha tha, humney vaisa kar diya” (whatever you had told us, we did the same), and with this he breathed his last in the lap of the Sheikh. This persecution of Hindus, Sikhs & Buddhists spread beyond Kashmir valley into areas such as Rajouri, Kotli, Mirpur, Khui Ratta, Seri, Dhana, Panjera and other parts of Jammu. Hindu and Sikh homes, temples, and gurdwaras were allegedly attacked, looted, or burned. Refugee families from these regions which are presently living in the Jammu district have preserved memories of the

Artificial Intelligence Bharat Defence Economy Education Geopolitics Policy Security Technology Trade World

Civilizational Continuum to Strategic Delivery

Bharat and Indonesia’s relationship is defined beyond BrahMos, Astra missiles and port development deals. It’s a defining moment. Dr Gautam Kumar Jha Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to Indonesia last week marks a defining moment in evolution of Indo – Indonesian relations. More than another successful diplomatic engagement under Bharat’s Act East Policy, the visit marks beginning of operationalizing one of India’s most consequential strategic partnerships in Southeast Asia. While global attention has understandably focused on Indonesia’s proposed acquisition of BrahMos and Astra missile systems, conferment of Indonesia’s highest state honour, Bintang Adipurna, and fourteen agreements spanning defence, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, higher education, maritime cooperation and food security should not be viewed in isolation. Collectively, these pacts signify something far more profound: transition of the Bharat – Indonesian Comprehensive engagement from political aspiration to strategic delivery. One of Asia’s oldest civilizational relationships only separated by waters of Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea, Bharat and Indonesia have often fallen short of realising full potential of their partnership. This paradox has long puzzled scholars, raising a fundamental question: why have two major democracies, bound by centuries of shared civilizational memory and ethos, failed to transform this inheritance into a deeper cooperation? Throughout this period, however, both countries continued to celebrate their common civilizational inheritance through Prambanan, Borobudur, Ramayana, Nalanda and enduring spirit of Bandung. These historical symbols sustained political goodwill and reinforced perception that India and Indonesia were natural partners across the Indo-Pacific. However, history alone cannot sustain bilateral relationship; rather, it should be transformed into institutional cooperation, policy coordination and long-term implementation. Prime Minister Modi’s visit represents a defining transition in bilateral ties between India and Indonesia to a partnership driven by concrete cooperation. Rather than interpreting individual agreements separately, they should be understood as components of a coherent strategic architecture built upon three interconnected pillars: civilizational capital, strategic trust and strategic delivery. Reinterpreting Indo – Indonesian Relations Evolution of Indo – Indonesian relations can broadly be understood through three historical phases. First phase emerged during the struggle against colonialism and continued through Cold War. Guided by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno, both countries championed Afro-Asian solidarity, Bandung Conference and Non-Aligned Movement. Political cooperation during this period was driven primarily by anti-colonial ideals and principle of sovereign equality. Second phase started following India’s Look East Policy, launched in 1991 and Indonesia’s democratic transition in 1998. During this period, maritime cooperation expanded, defence dialogues became institutionalized, ASEAN assumed greater prominence in India’s regional strategy, and bilateral relations reached a new milestone with elevation of ties to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first official state visit to Indonesia in 2018. However, CSP largely remained an institutional framework awaiting substantive implementation. Modi’s visit marks beginning of a third phase. Unlike previous engagements, this visit demonstrated collective progress across defence, maritime cooperation, higher education, artificial intelligence, digital technologies, food security, critical minerals and cultural diplomacy. Rather than announcing new intentions, both governments began operationalizing existing strategic understandings. The defining feature of this phase is therefore implementation. Civilisational Capital: Invisible Foundation Strategic relationship is explained in terms of power, geography, or economics. Indo – Indonesian relationship demonstrates importance of an additional variable—civilizational capital. This refers to accumulated knowledge, shared historical memory, and cultural inheritance that have evolved over centuries of interaction and mutual adaptation. Diffusion of Sanskrit learning, Hindu-Buddhist philosophy, maritime commerce, and literary traditions transformed Java, Sumatra, Bali, Sulawesi and Kalimantan without erasing their indigenous identities. Monuments such as Prambanan, Borobudur and Muaro Jambi continue to symbolise not foreign influence but Indonesian civilisation itself. Ninth century Prambanan built under Sanjaya (Mataram) dyansty is often described as Indonesia’s largest Hindu temple complex. While factually correct, such a description understates its contemporary significance. Together with Borobudur, Prambanan has become an icon of Indonesian national identity. It represents remarkable ability of Javanese civilisation to absorb external ideas while creating a distinctly indigenous cultural expression. Bharat’s commitment to restore the Shiva shrine at Prambanan goes far beyond a simple archaeological conservation project; it reflects a shared responsibility for preserving a common civilizational heritage. Prime Minister Modi’s assurance that he would return to Prambanan once restoration is completed underscores India’s long-term commitment to engaging with Indonesia through culture, education, heritage, technology and strategic cooperation alike. Civilizational capital thus became contemporary diplomatic capital. Strategic Trust: Political Transformation Conferment of Bintang Adipurna, Indonesia’s highest state honour, upon Prime Minister Modi reflects precisely this political confidence. State honours are frequently interpreted as ceremonial gestures. In reality, they function as strategic signals. Indonesia’s decision acknowledged not merely Prime Minister Modi’s personal leadership but Jakarta’s confidence in India as a reliable partner in long-term engagement. Trust becomes particularly valuable in sectors involving advanced technology, defence manufacturing and long-term institutional dependence. This explains why cooperation has simultaneously expanded into defence production, maritime security, artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Trust reduces political uncertainty; reduced uncertainty enables technological cooperation and technological cooperation, in turn, strengthens enduring partnerships. BrahMos, an Outcome Proposed expansion of BrahMos cooperation has understandably attracted considerable international attention. However, interpreting the visit solely through lens of missile diplomacy overlooks the broader strategic transformation underway across Southeast Asia. BrahMos should be viewed not as the cause of closer India–Indonesia relations but as one of the consequences. Indo-Pacific security environment has undergone profound change during past three decades. China’s remarkable economic rise has been accompanied by expanding naval capabilities, an increasing maritime presence, underwater surveillance and more assertive behaviour in the South China Sea and beyond. Artificial island construction, militarisation of disputed maritime features, fictitious interpretations of Nine – Dash Line and repeated encounters within neighbouring Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) have altered regional threat perceptions. Stephen Walt’s Balance of Threat theory provides an appropriate analytical framework. States respond not merely to concentrations of power but to perceived threats generated by geographical proximity, offensive capability and long-term behavioural patterns. Indonesia’s strategic choices should therefore be understood within this broader regional security environment. At the same time, Jakarta

Bharat Education Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

Familial Values as Foundational Core to Bharatiya Society

As part of its centennial events, RSS has begun a campaign to revive the robust family system that’s focal to a cohesive society. Vinod Kumar Shukla Bharat has historically been a tightly knit society where Kutumb or family served as foundational unit of existence. It is very essence of this nation’s civilizational ethos. Bharatiya scriptures suggest that alongside origin and evolution of mankind, first social institution to emerge was Kutumb referred to as Kul in Vedic literature and Srimad Bhagavad Gita, conceived specifically for sustenance, harmony and development of society. A Kutumb provides more than just a shared identity; it acts as an anchor and robust social security net for vulnerable children and elderly members alike. It offers individuals a sense of purpose, meental strength, economic stability and a nurturing environment for personality and social development. Most importantly, it establishes and safeguards core cultural values. The catastrophic impact of compromising these household values and principles is vividly illustrated in the Srimad Bhagavad Gita: कुलक्षये प्रणश्यन्ति कुलधर्मा: सनातना: | धर्मे नष्टे कुलं कृत्स्नमधर्मोऽभिभवत्युत || 1:39|| “With destruction of family, eternal family traditions are vanquished, and remaining family becomes entangled in irreligion.” (1) Social Continuity & Ancestral Debt Family serves as an individual’s primary school for human relations, acting as a bridge that keeps society cohesive and culture vibrant. Beyond immediate emotional bonds, it connects individuals to a broader social architecture, facilitating distribution of nourishment, nurturing children, instilling civic sense in youth and caring for the elderly and infirm. In Bharatiya worldview, concept of family is also intricately tied to redeeming ancestral debt (Pitri Rin) through one’s progeny. Putting it simply, an individual owes his or life, physical form and cultural heritage to their parents and ancestors. This debt is honoured by raising a family, continuing the lineage, caring for elderly and living righteously in accordance with family traditions. Deep respect for living elders, alongside commemorative rites like Shraddh and Tarpana (offering food and water), particularly during annual Pitri Paksha, are vital facets of this familial duty. A poignant medieval anecdote beautifully highlights this cultural contrast. When the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb severely restricted the water supply to his imprisoned father, Shah Jahan, the deposed emperor lamented: ऐ पिसर तू अजब मुसलमानी, ब पिदरे जिंदा आब तरसानी आफरीन बाद हिंदवान सद बार, मैं देहदं पिदरे मुर्दारावा दायम आब “O son! You are a strange Muslim, making your living father yearn for water. Praise be to the Hindus a hundred times, who offer water even to their departed ancestors.” Modern Crisis of Disintegration Regrettably, a fractured mind set has begun creeping into many contemporary Hindu households. Over time, the institution of family and its core values have faced severe disruption, largely due to isolating influence of modern Western materialism. Families are disintegrating and foundational values are being compromised. There are many couple (Dampatti) who have decided not to have children even after entering into matrimony and despite not having any medical issues. This erosion manifests in trends like Double Income, No Kids (DINK) phenomenon where couples consciously choose global consumerism over parenthood, detached from ancient purpose of family life. Furthermore, a weakened family structure and a deteriorating value system have left individuals vulnerable to large-scale religious conversions, often driven by misinformation campaigns targeting Sanatan Dharma. These shifts run entirely counter to Sanatana ideals. Today, it is common to find elderly parents and their adult children living separately within the very same locality. Conversely, Vedic scriptures envision multi-generational joint families living under one roof. For instance, a newlywed bride was traditionally welcomed into her new home with the blessing: स॒म्राज्ञी॒ श्वशु॑रे भव स॒म्राज्ञी॑ श्व॒श्र्वां भ॑व । नना॑न्दरि स॒म्राज्ञी॑ भव स॒म्राज्ञी॒ अधि॑ दे॒वृषु॑ “Be a queen to your father-in-law, be a queen to your mother-in-law, be a queen to your husband’s sister, be a queen to your husband’s brother.” (2) This blessing reveals two profound truths: first, a woman in the household held a position of high dignity and was never subservient; second, it assumes a household where at least three generations coexisted harmoniously. Similarly, mutual respect and harmony under head of the family are emphasized in Atharva Veda: “अनु॑व्रतः पि॒तुः पु॒त्रो मा॒त्रा भ॑वतु॒ संम॑नाः। जा॒या पत्ये॒ मधु॑मतीं॒ वाचं॑ वदतु शन्ति॒वाम् ॥” “May the son be devoted to his father and be of one mind with his mother. May the wife speak sweet, gentle and peaceful words to her husband.” (3) These social norms evolved over millennia. Scriptures carefully outlined responsibilities, code of conduct and divine qualities required of family members. As Lord Krishna instructs Arjuna in Srimad Bhagavad Gita: अभयं सत्त्वसंशुद्धिर्ज्ञानयोगव्यवस्थिति: |दानं दमश्च यज्ञश्च स्वाध्यायस्तप आर्जवम् ||अहिंसा सत्यमक्रोधस्त्याग: शान्तिरपैशुनम् |दया भूतेष्वलोलुप्त्वं मार्दवं ह्रीरचापलम् ||तेज: क्षमा धृति: शौचमद्रोहो नातिमानिता |भवन्ति सम्पदं दैवीमभिजातस्य भारत || “Fearlessness, purity of heart, steadfastness in knowledge and yoga, charity, control of senses, sacrifice, study of scriptures, austerity, straightforwardness, non-violence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, tranquillity, absence of malicious talk, compassion for all beings, non-covetousness, gentleness, modesty, absence of fickleness, vigour, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, absence of hatred and absence of pride, these belong to one born with divine qualities, O Bharata.” (4) Kutumb Prabodhan: Six Pillars for Revival To arrest and reverse this cultural degeneration, protect and nourish family as foundational institution of Bharatiya society, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has begun Kutumb Prabodhan (Family Enlightenment) as a socio-cultural intervention within its centennial campaign. Kutumb Prabodhan operates on conviction that a family is not merely a group of people sharing a roof, but primary school where values, culture and national consciousness are instilled from childhood. The initiative encourages families to actively integrate Six Essentials (The Six ‘Bs’) into their daily lives: Bhasha (Language): Conversing in one’s mother tongue within the home. This preserves local dialects, idioms and unique regional cultural traditions that are lost when a language dies. Bhoosha (Attire): With a diverse society like Bharat, wearing traditional, culturally rooted Bharatiya attire must be encouraged at family gatherings and get-togethers to begin with. While modern life has displaced traditional wear, people have almost relinquished wearing traditional attire. This can be started at

Bharat China Geopolitics Kashmir Pakistan Terrorism

100

Explainer: Pakistan Occupied Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh

India’s case admits no ambiguity. The accession of 1947 was absolute: a lawful, unconditional and final transfer of the whole State to India, made by its sole competent authority and ratified by its elected assembly, and its integration into the Union is complete and irreversible. The boundaries are not vague or negotiable; they are the defined limits of the former princely State, every square kilometre of which, from Jammu to Gilgit, from the Kashmir Valley to Aksai Chin, is Indian territory in law. Within those boundaries there is one sovereign and only one. What Pakistan calls “Azad” Kashmir and the “Northern Areas,” and what China holds in Aksai Chin and Shaksgam, are not disputed lands of open ownership but Indian territory under foreign occupation, taken by force or ceded without title and held against the law. The question, correctly stated, has never been to whom Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh belong. It is when the occupying powers will leave.

Bharat Technology

127

Desi Gagan to Power Bharat’s Aviation

GAGAN marks a decisive stride to aviation sovereignty strengthening safety, efficiency and global leadership in space enabled navigation. Vivek Raina Bharat’s journey towards self-reliance or Aatma nirbharta is increasingly being defined by its ability to develop and deploy world-class technologies in strategically critical sectors. From space exploration and digital infrastructure to defence and aviation, indigenous innovation is emerging as cornerstone of national resilience and technological sovereignty. Successful landing of an IndiGo Airbus A 320 using India’s indigenous GAGAN (GPS Aided GEO Augmented Navigation) created history. The system has been jointly developed by Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and Airports Authority of India (AAI). It marks more than technological achievement and represents a strategic milestone in Bharat’s quest for technological self-reliance, aviation safety and critical infrastructure resilience. As Bharat evolves as one of world’s fastest-growing aviation markets, this achievement demonstrates that the country is capable of building and deploying sophisticated navigation technologies that meet international standards while reducing dependence on foreign systems. For decades, global aviation relied primarily on satellite navigation signals such as United States’ GPS, Europe’s Galileo, Russia’s GLONASS and China’s BeiDou. While these systems transformed aviation, dependence on foreign-owned navigation infrastructure carries inherent strategic and operational vulnerabilities. GAGAN changes this equation by giving Bharat an indigenous edge and system capable of providing highly accurate navigation services over Indian airspace and adjoining regions. GAGAN is not an independent navigation constellation like NavIC or GPS; it is a Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) that strengthens GPS performance by correcting errors arising from atmospheric disturbances, satellite clock drift and orbital deviations. By delivering higher levels of accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity, GAGAN enables precision approach and landing operations, significantly improving aviation safety and operational efficiency, particularly during adverse weather conditions. Its interoperability with international SBAS networks such as WAAS, EGNOS and MSAS integrates India into the global aviation navigation framework while preserving technological self-reliance. Operating through ISRO’s GSAT- 8 and 10 satellites, GAGAN exemplifies how Bharat is leveraging space technology not merely to achieve navigation autonomy but to provide globally compatible, high-precision navigation enhancement that supports safer skies, modern air traffic management and the nation’s growing aerospace ambitions. GPS on a smartphone is typically accurate within a few metres more than sufficient for everyday navigation. However, such precision falls far short of the exacting standards required to safely guide a commercial aircraft weighing over 70 tonnes during approach and landing, particularly in poor visibility or adverse weather conditions. Rather than replacing GPS, GAGAN enhances its accuracy by continuously correcting errors in satellite signals before they are used for aircraft navigation. The ionosphere, an electrically charged layer of earth’s upper atmosphere that delays and distorts satellite signals, is a significant barrier to GPS accuracy. Because of its location beneath Equatorial Ionisation Anomaly (EIA) where ionospheric conditions are extremely changeable and can change minute by minute, this effect is particularly severe over India. In order to maintain precision needed for aviation, especially during crucial flight phases like approach and landing, such quick changes require constant real-time adjustments. The successful landing of an IndiGo A320 using GAGAN marks a watershed moment in India’s aviation and space technology landscape, signifying the transition of an indigenous innovation from experimental validation to routine commercial operations. Scheduled passenger flights represent highest benchmark of operational reliability and GAGAN’s use in a commercial landing underscores the confidence of airlines, regulators, aircraft manufacturers and pilots in the system’s precision and dependability. By enabling a Localiser Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approach, GAGAN provides pilots with highly accurate lateral and vertical guidance comparable to the Instrument Landing System (ILS), but without the need for costly ground-based navigation infrastructure. This capability is particularly transformative for India’s rapidly expanding network of regional airports where deploying ILS at every location is neither practical nor economical. Beyond supporting safer landings, the system continuously monitors GPS accuracy and immediately alerts users to any degradation, ensuring the integrity required for critical aviation operations. GAGAN Transforming Indian Aviation GAGAN in Global Context Comparison of GAGAN with Leading SBAS Systems Worldwide SBAS System GAGAN WAAS EGNOS MSAS SDCM BDSBAS KASS Country India United States Europe Japan Russia China South Korea Coverage India & adjoining region North America Europe Japan Russia & CIS China & Asia-Pacific South Korea Key Strength Designed to operate in the challenging Equatorial Ionosphere; ICAO certified precision navigation Most mature SBAS with extensive operational experience Dense aviation network and high certification standards Reliable navigation for Japanese airspace GLONASS augmentation Supports BeiDou and multi-constellation navigation New-generation SBAS supporting Korean aviation Comparison with GAGAN Superior in equatorial ionospheric correction; among the world’s most advanced SBAS for tropical regions Superior in operational maturity, user adoptionand airport coverage Superior in deployment scale and integration across Europe Comparable, but GAGAN offers wider coverage and more advanced equatorial corrections Comparable, but GAGAN has broader international civil aviation certification Comparable; BDSBAS has wider domestic deployment, while GAGAN has a longer operational record Too new for direct comparison; GAGAN has greater operational maturity Concluding Observations GAGAN-guided landing of an IndiGo Airbus A320 should be seen not as the culmination of a technological project but as the beginning of a new era in Bharat’s aviation ecosystem. Next phase will require broader airline adoption, expanded pilot training, integration of more airports with LPV procedures and deeper incorporation of GAGAN into Bharat’s evolving air traffic management architecture. While passengers may never directly notice the satellite-based technology guiding their aircraft, they will experience its benefits through safer landings, fewer weather-related disruptions, improved fuel efficiency, enhanced operational reliability and greater connectivity across the country’s expanding regional airport network. More importantly, this milestone symbolises convergence of indigenous space technology, aviation engineering and strategic national vision, reaffirming India’s ability to build and operationalise world-class critical infrastructure. (Author Vivek Raina is Manager, Outreach & Dissemination at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies) Reference:

Bharat Geopolitics

Japan, India Unite for Prosperity

Millennial linkages fortified by Shinzo Abe move forward for economic security, deals in critical minerals, AI & energy resilience. Takaichi Sanae Prime Minister, Japan I am delighted to visit New Delhi for the Japan-India Annual Summit at the invitation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This visit to India, my first as Prime Minister, coincides with the 20th anniversary of the first of a series of annual alternating visits the leaders of Japan and India have been making to each other’s country. Frequent exchanges between the leaders not only serve to reinforce the robust bilateral relationship but also provide an opportunity for candid discussions on how to address the challenges facing the international community in these uncertain and testing times. It is a great honour to carry forward this baton, following Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Japan last August. Since Japan and India elevated their bilateral relationship to a “Special Strategic and Global Partnership” in 2014, concrete cooperation has progressed across a wide range of fields including security, the economy, and people-to-people exchanges. As former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once stated, “A strong India is good for Japan and a strong Japan is good for India.” I am firmly convinced that, by leveraging each other’s strengths and becoming “more resilient and prosperous together”, we will serve the interests of both nations. It is here in India that the very concept of today’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” first took root. “The different streams, having their sources in different places, all mingle their water in the sea.” Prime Minister Abe, in his speech to the Indian Parliament, quoted these words of Swami Vivekananda in declaring that we should view the Pacific and Indian Oceans as one and that it is our shared responsibility to pursue freedom and prosperity by cooperating with like-minded countries. This vision remains as relevant as ever and there is a compelling need for Japan and India to cooperate in realising this goal. One of the areas to which I attach particular importance at this summit is the strengthening of the strategic relationship between our countries. I wish to deepen cooperation in the field of security and strengthen our capacity to navigate the uncertain international landscape. In addition, we must work together to enhance the autonomy and resilience of countries in vulnerable positions so that they are never forced into choices under coercion from other states. This is the essence of the “Updated FOIP” I set forth in May. A genuinely free and open region is not one where only the great powers enjoy freedom but one where every nation is able to chart its own course of its own free will, unswayed by external coercion. This is the true nature of FOIP. I am convinced that this vision resonates profoundly with India’s MAHASAGAR initiative. This initiative, advocated by Prime Minister Modi, regards the ocean not as an arena for hegemony but as a shared commons that underpins the stability and growth of the entire region. India is a maritime nation that has taken concrete action to provide regional stability and support the resilience of countries in the area. It is for this very reason that India is an indispensable partner for Japan in the joint realisation of FOIP and I look forward to shaping together an international order founded upon these principles. Cooperation grounded in FOIP, India’s Indo-Pacific Oceans’ Initiative (IPOI) and MAHASAGAR is already in evidence. The “Industrial Value Chain” concept, for instance, seeks to enhance connectivity from Assam to various parts of North-East India and Bangladesh, thereby enabling access to the Indian Ocean. Through Japan’s ODA, infrastructure developments such as regional roads and bridges, including the Dhubri – Phulbari Bridge, as well as Matarbari Port in Bangladesh will extend industrial value chains not only within North-East but also across India and onward to ASEAN and beyond. Our valued friends like Nepal and Bhutan will benefit as well. When Prime Minister Modi visited Japan last August, both countries announced the “Japan-India Joint Vision for the Next Decade”. As we work toward the realisation of this vision, and taking full account of the international situation that has unfolded over the past year, I intend to put forward concrete cooperation initiatives, especially in the pressing areas of economic security, energy security, and emerging technologies such as AI. Cultural and people-to-people exchanges, rooted in the historical and cultural ties between Japan and India are equally important. In my hometown of Nara, Buddhist culture, which traces its origins to India, still vividly lives on. I trust the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and India next year will serve to give further impetus to such exchanges. The relationship between Japan and India is now a strategically aligned trusted partnership. I look forward to wide-ranging discussions with Prime Minister Modi on how best to advance our relationship for future generations as we aspire to become “more resilient and prosperous together”. (The write up first appeared in Times of India)

Geopolitics Policy Security United States USA War World

Managed Unstable Equilibrium?

After US-Iran Peace Deal, West Asia continues to burn. India has to devise long term tactics to tide over uncertainties in the region. N. C. Bipindra The ink had barely dried on Bürgenstock framework before bombs started falling again. Four months after US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 29, 2026, and weeks after Washington and Tehran sat across the table in Switzerland to sign a memorandum of understanding meant to end the fighting “on all fronts,” there’s uncertainty all over. Lebanon is still burning, the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint and peace deal that was supposed to calm the region has instead exposed how far apart its core players really are. US – Iran interim agreement was billed as the moment the wider war finally ended. Iran agreed to stop blocking the Strait of Hormuz; Washington lifted its naval blockade of Iranian ports and both sides committed to 60 days of follow-on talks over Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions relief. On paper, it looked like off – ramp the world had been waiting for since oil tankers first started getting stranded in the Gulf back in March 2026. The problem is that MOU’s very first clause calls for a permanent end to hostilities in Lebanon, a country that was never at the table. Iran insisted on this because Hezbollah, its most important regional proxy, has been devastated by months of Israeli ground operations and airstrikes that have killed more than 4,000 people and displaced over a million Lebanese. For Tehran, protecting what’s left of Hezbollah isn’t a side issue; it’s the price of the peace deal itself. Iran has repeatedly said Israeli strikes on Lebanon “blatantly violate” the ceasefire it signed onto. Israel sees it completely differently. Israeli officials have said openly that they view Lebanon’s inclusion in the MOU as a major concession Washington’s envoys’ handed to Iran, one Israel never agreed to. Defence Minister Israel Katz has said Israeli forces would keep operating in what he calls the “security zone” regardless of what any memorandum says and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has separately negotiated a bilateral framework with the Lebanese government, bypassing Hezbollah entirely. That bilateral Israel-Lebanon framework signed in Washington just days ago, ties an Israeli troop withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament, something Hezbollah has rejected outright. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem called the agreement “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” and his supporters have taken to the streets of Beirut, burning tyres in protest. Even as the ink dried on that deal, an Israeli strike killed a civilian in southern Lebanon, the first casualty since the signing. This is the trap Lebanon is caught in: its own government wants out of a war it never chose, but doing so on Israel’s terms means publicly disarming Hezbollah which Hezbollah says it will never accept “unconditionally” without an Israeli withdrawal first. Meanwhile, Israel says it won’t withdraw until Hezbollah disarms. It’s a circular standoff, and Lebanese civilians are paying for it with airstrikes that haven’t actually stopped despite three rounds of declared ceasefires since April this year. Fragility of all this became impossible to ignore over past few days. An Iranian attack on a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz triggered fresh US airstrikes on Iranian targets. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responded by hitting American sites in the Gulf, warning that “if the aggression is repeated, our response will be broader.” Vice President JD Vance, who had just left Switzerland after peace talks, declared bluntly that “violence will be met with violence.” Israeli drones continued striking southern Lebanon’s Nabatieh area even as Netanyahu was publicly hailing his Lebanon framework as “a historic achievement.” In other words: the deal exists, the signing ceremonies happened and the shooting never really stopped. For countries like India, this war was never an abstract geopolitical drama; it hit the fuel pumps and the kitchen stoves directly. Roughly 41per cent of India’s crude oil imports, 55 per cent of LNG and an extraordinary 88 per cent of its LPG normally transit the Strait of Hormuz. When Iran effectively shut the strait in late February, India’s oil flow through that route collapsed from 2.8 million barrels a day to under 250,000, forcing New Delhi into a frantic scramble for alternatives. India responded the way it usually does in a crisis: pragmatically, and on multiple tracks at once. It ramped up Russian crude purchases, competing head-to-head with China for cargoes. It diversified toward Angola, Venezuela, Brazil, and the UAE. It even resumed direct oil and LPG purchases from Iran after a seven-year gap, betting that Washington wouldn’t punish it too harshly for doing so. The Indian Navy launched “Operation Urja Suraksha,” escorting Indian-flagged tankers through the Gulf rather than joining US-led naval coalition, a calculated act of strategic non-alignment. The payoff: by June, India’s crude imports had climbed back above 5 million barrels a day, roughly back to pre-war levels, even as the geopolitical map of its suppliers shifted dramatically. But the cost was real: a weaker rupee, an Indian crude basket that spiked from $ 69 to over $113 a barrel at the worst of the crisis and inflationary pressure that touched everything from fertilisers to transport. The deeper lesson for India and other import dependent developing economies is about exposure. A conflict thousands of kilometres away, between countries India does not quarrel with, was enough to threaten cooking gas supplies for hundreds of millions of households. That vulnerability is now feeding into longer-term decisions: faster EV adoption, push for piped natural gas over imported LPG and a renewed urgency around energy diversification that outlasts this particular war. Is peace tenable and everlasting: not yet and maybe not soon. US -Iran deal solved the problem the world cared most about: the global energy chokepoint. But it left the problem the region cares most about — Lebanon and Hezbollah — essentially unresolved. Iran needs Hezbollah alive enough to claim it didn’t abandon its allies; Israel wants Hezbollah disarmed before it ever

Blog Post