Bharat Business Economy Trade United States USA World

Rubio in India: Why Bharat–US Ties Now Run on Energy and Enterprise

NC Bipindra US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s second visit to Bharat this year was remarkable for its destinations. He landed in Mumbai on October 20, 2026, for talks aimed at easing pressure on global energy markets and External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar greeted him. He never set foot in New Delhi. The itinerary offers Bharat genuine openings, but it also raises a harder question: is the partnership being redefined on terms that suit Washington more than New Delhi? A capital bypassed Rubio was last in New Delhi in May 2026 for the Quad foreign ministers’ meeting. This time the State Department framed the trip around energy and investment and opposition leaders called the arrangements humiliating. No official reason for skipping the capital has been given, so any explanation is interpretation. The backdrop, however, is not in doubt. Ties remain strained over tariffs, immigration policy and US outreach to Pakistan. Boardrooms and a refinery On October 21, Rubio met Adani Group Chairman Gautam Adani and Tata Sons Chairman N. Chandrasekaran in Mumbai and neither side released details. He then flew to Jamnagar. Reliance said the visit covered the global energy landscape and commercial partnerships across conventional and new energy. It was closed to the media. The logic is not hard to read, though it remains analysis rather than announced policy. Rubio said Washington wants to work more closely with Reliance on refining Western Hemisphere energy, hinting at more Venezuelan crude, while US diesel prices climb ahead of the midterms. The complex processes about 1.4 million barrels a day, roughly 1.5 per cent of global refining capacity. Adani’s ports and logistics and Tata’s semiconductor and manufacturing ambitions complete the picture. Bharat’s conglomerates are being treated as nodes in American supply chains. Bharat should welcome the investment, but a relationship that runs mainly through a few corporate groups is narrower than one anchored in institutions, defence-industrial cooperation and technology partnership. The quieter trilateral Potentially more durable was the Mumbai trilateral. Jaishankar, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed and Rubio exchanged views on energy, connectivity and contemporary developments. Officials say they also discussed West Asian security and the economic fallout of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Reports name only foreign ministers at the table, with no finance ministers. The format suits Bharat. Gulf capital, Bharat’s scale and American strategic cover can underpin energy security and connectivity without tying New Delhi to a single supplier or bloc. A trade deal that is “close”, again Trade was the most watched subject. Rubio said the two sides were about as close as one can be without having executed the agreement. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said the first tranche was in its final stages, though Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said earlier this month that talks had plateaued. President Trump said Bharat wants a deal and that it would be “much different” from earlier ones, without discussing Bharat’s tariffs or trade surplus. Caution is warranted. Trump used almost identical language about being close to a deal in November 2025. The phrase to watch is “much different”. It may signal a deal weighted towards energy, defence and technology purchases rather than a conventional exchange of tariff cuts for market access. Russian oil, Pakistan and H-1B Rubio was accommodative about Bharat’s Russian crude purchases and said Trump will weigh the global impact before enforcing a new law punishing them. A Trump–Modi meeting is likely in December. The administration has also entered a 60-day review period following the Russian oil tariff waiver. That is encouraging, but it is not a settlement. On other irritants, Rubio offered explanations rather than changes. He defended engagement with Pakistan because it has nuclear weapons and said H-1B restrictions were not aimed at Bharat, even as Bharat’s IT firms such as Wipro, Infosys and TCS were suspended from a green-card sponsorship programme. Assurances must now become action. On the Quad, Rubio said he hopes a summit will take place before the end of the year. What Bharat should do The Diplomat argues that the relationship is being recast as a transaction built on trade and energy, with Bharat as buyer, refiner and market. That is one analyst’s reading, but the itinerary lends it weight. A confident Bharat should engage on equal terms, welcoming the thaw while measuring it by outcomes such as tariff relief, visa certainty and technology access. It should protect energy sovereignty, because diversification is Bharat’s choice, made on price and security and not a directive to swap Russian barrels for Venezuelan ones. It should keep the state in the lead, since corporate diplomacy is useful but national interest should not be negotiated through a handful of groups. And it should pursue multi-alignment, treating the Bharat-UAE-US format, the Quad and BRICS as complements rather than rivals. Questions that remain Several questions merit scrutiny. What does a “much different” trade deal actually contain? What happens when the 60-day review ends? Was skipping New Delhi a deliberate signal? What did Adani and Tata discuss with Rubio? Will the Quad summit take place this year and will Trump travel to Bharat soon? Conclusion Rubio’s visit shows that Washington needs Bharat’s refining capacity, its market and its geography. That gives Bharat leverage. The task now is to convert it into a partnership that serves Bharat’s interests across trade, technology, security and energy and not only the American agenda of the moment. (Author is Chairman, Law and Society Alliance, a New Delhi-based think tank, and guest columnist with CIHS

Bharat Business Cyber Security Defence International Security Technology United States USA World

129

Why Starlink Is Not a Telecom Story Alone

India needs better connectivity. It should not pay for it with strategic independence. Dr. Nitin Sharma India is at a crossroads. It must now take tough decisions and take them without bowing to pressure from anyone. Satellite internet can reach remote villages, mountain regions and underserved communities. But one question has got far less attention than it deserves. Who will control that connectivity? Starlink has secured a key regulatory foothold in India. Commercial services still need spectrum assignment and security clearance. While we wait, the debate is about speed, price and competition. Those matter. They are not the most important issues. India has sensitive borders. It faces complex internal security challenges. Satellite communication cannot be treated as just another telecom service. The real question is not whether Starlink can deliver faster internet. It probably can. The question is whether India should let a strategic layer of its communications depend on a foreign private company. Its satellites, technology and final decisions sit outside our control. We have faced this dilemma before. The lesson of Kargil In 1999, during the Kargil war with Pakistan, India sought GPS data for the region from the United States. USA took the side of Pakistan and refused to make the GPS data available. Indian side was left in dark, and it became even harder for us to win that war. The exact details remain a subject of debate. The lesson was clear. A country cannot assume that technology owned by another nation will be there when its security is at stake. India responded by building its own regional navigation system, NavIC (Navigation with Indian Constellation). That was not just a science project. It was a strategic decision. It was the first step becoming “Atmanirbhar Bharat”. Navigation in war cannot depend on another country’s goodwill. Now the same question arises in communications. We spent years and public money to reduce dependence on foreign navigation. Why should we accept a similar dependence on satellite communication now? Off course this is a different time and different technology, but principle of Self-reliance and sovereignty is still the same. When one company holds the switch Starlink is an impressive achievement. Its low-earth-orbit satellites connect places where ordinary networks are hard to build or easy to damage. In Ukraine, it kept people and forces connected when networks failed. That experience also raised hard questions. Public controversies over coverage near Crimea, limits on military use and terminal activation showed how much power a private provider can hold in a conflict. The point is not that Starlink failed Ukraine. It helped a great deal. The point is who decides. Imagine India’s security relying on a network where a company’s leadership, foreign rules or another government’s interests can shape decisions. Could India guarantee uninterrupted service? Could it stop remote restrictions? If there is a dispute, whose instructions prevail? A commercial contract cannot answer these questions. National security needs real control over critical capabilities. Even Europe wants its own network India is not alone in this thinking. The European Union is close to the United States. Yet it is building its own secure satellite networks, IRIS² and GOVSATCOM. The aim is communications under European control for government and strategic use. Brussels has said the system is “Built in Europe, operated in Europe, under European control.” If allies of Washington want that independence, India has even more reason to examine its own position. Strategic autonomy is not distrust. It is the recognition that national interests are supreme in all situations. Governments change. Policies change. Even commercial ties can become tools of pressure. A mature country plans for that before a crisis. The security risk is real This is not only about future wars. In late 2024, Starlink equipment was recovered in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and in Manipur. Security agencies took notice. India deals with cross-border infiltration, insurgency and trafficking. Unauthorised satellite terminals entering through porous borders deserves serious scrutiny. Elon Musk said Starlink beams were switched off over India. Questions remain unanswered then how these devices found in Manipur actually was working. Some reports suggested they could have connected through services available in neighboring territory. Those claims are not conclusively established. The incidents still exposed a real challenge. A satellite network does not rely only on towers and cables inside our territory. The satellites are overhead. The control systems may be thousands of kilometers away. Software, terminal approvals and service limits can be managed remotely. There is more. Reports said Indian authorities struggled to get ownership details for a seized terminal. In normal times, that is a privacy dispute. In a sensitive border zone, delay can be dangerous. India cannot be unsure who is using a terminal in a border area. India should be able to switch off a rouge device quickly and decision and real control should lie in India. We cannot be unsure about these matters. A license is not control The government has seen these risks. Conditions reportedly include data localisation, lawful interception, local monitoring, terminal identification and limits on sending sensitive data abroad. These are necessary. But rules on paper do not guarantee results. A company can open an Indian office, hire Indian staff and run gateways in India. The satellites, software and final authority can still sit with the parent company abroad. That difference matters. If a security agency needs data on a rogue terminal, will it get it under Indian law, without foreign approval? If connectivity must be cut in a border area, will the restriction hold across the network? If an international crisis pressures the provider, what protection does India really have? Approval should depend on these answers. Declarations of compliance are not enough. In strategic technology, capabilities must be tested independently. A condition is only as strong as the power to enforce it. Policy must not bend to pressure There is another issue. Independent policymaking. Musk recently attacked what he called monopolistic practices in India’s telecom market. The Ministry of Communications immediately rejected the claim. It

Bharat China Economy Geopolitics International Leadership Policy

246

India and the Next BRICS: Turning Diversity into Strategic Influence

Sankalp Singh Chauhan India’s historic BRICS Presidency comes at a defining moment for the global order. Its challenge is not to build another bloc, but to make a more diverse world capable of working together. What began as BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India and China, formally came together at its first summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009, transformed it into BRICS after South Africa’s inclusion. For more than a decade the five-country grouping steadily developed cooperation in finance, development and global governance. The major expansion of 2024 brought Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates into the fold, while Indonesia joined in 2025, taking BRICS to 11 full members. India now assumes the chair at a particularly consequential moment: the grouping has evolved from a compact association of emerging economies into a much broader platform representing a significant voice of the Global South. The world itself is entering an era of profound geopolitical and economic realignment. Wars and conflicts, supply-chain disruptions, economic uncertainty, technological competition and growing dissatisfaction with existing multilateral institutions are reshaping the international system. Against this backdrop, India’s 2026 Presidency is not merely another turn in the rotational calendar; it is an opportunity to shape what the expanded BRICS becomes next. With 11 full members, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, BRICS now has considerably greater geopolitical and economic weight. Its influence is further widened by 10 partner countries viz., Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. This expansion gives BRICS greater reach, but also a harder task: how can countries with different political systems, economic interests and strategic priorities translate diversity into cooperation? That is where India can make a distinctive contribution. From Expansion to Delivery: India’s presidency has an opportunity to move BRICS beyond declarations and towards practical cooperation. The priorities are clear: trade and investment, resilient supply chains, energy and food security, health, climate action, digital public infrastructure, technology, connectivity and reform of global institutions. The test will be whether these priorities produce institutions and mechanisms that citizens and businesses can actually use. India’s experience with digital public infrastructure offers an important model. Greater interoperability of digital payment systems, cross-border transactions and financial technology could lower transaction costs and strengthen economic ties across the Global South. The ambition should be neither isolation from the West nor confrontation with it. It should be strategic autonomy combined with inclusive multilateralism. The Currency Question: Few ideas surrounding BRICS attract as much attention as the possibility of a BRICS currency. Yet credibility requires distinguishing aspiration from reality. A common currency is not an established BRICS policy. The more immediate and practical path is the expansion of local-currency trade, payment-system interoperability and alternative cross-border financial mechanisms. Over time, these could evolve into a broader financial architecture, including a possible common unit of account or other settlement mechanism, without requiring an immediate monetary union. The objective is therefore not simply “de-dollarisation.” It is to create more choice, resilience and efficiency in international finance. BRICS as an Innovation Platform: The next phase of BRICS should also be defined by technological cooperation. Artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology, quantum technologies, space, clean energy, agricultural technology and digital commerce offer areas where emerging economies can move from being technology consumers to technology creators. A BRICS innovation ecosystem, supported by research partnerships, start-up networks, technology funds and easier movement of knowledge and capital, could become one of the grouping’s most consequential long-term projects. Equally important are areas of human security: affordable healthcare, food security, climate resilience, disaster management and sustainable infrastructure. A Wider Global South: The expansion of BRICS has made its relationship with the wider developing world increasingly important. Partner countries and BRICS Plus outreach can give smaller and emerging economies a greater voice without requiring every country to become a full member. This broader architecture could become one of BRICS’s greatest strengths, provided expansion does not overwhelm decision-making. India’s diplomatic challenge is therefore to build consensus without sacrificing ambition. What Success Should Look Like: The success of India’s Presidency should ultimately be judged not by the number of declarations issued, but by what changes after the summit. First, BRICS should deliver measurable progress in trade and investment, including easier market access, stronger supply-chain resilience, greater MSME participation and mechanisms that make South-South commerce faster and less costly. Second, it should advance a genuinely connected digital and financial architecture. Interoperable payment systems, greater use of national currencies and more efficient cross-border settlements could provide an immediate, practical foundation for deeper financial cooperation. Third, success should mean tangible cooperation in energy, food, health and climate security. In a world vulnerable to energy shocks, food disruptions, pandemics and extreme weather, these are not peripheral development issues; they are questions of global stability. Fourth, BRICS should create an innovation and technology agenda capable of connecting universities, researchers, entrepreneurs and industries across member and partner countries. Cooperation in AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, quantum technology, space and clean energy could determine whether the Global South becomes merely a larger market or a major source of future innovation. Finally, India’s Presidency should strengthen the voice of developing countries in global governance. Reform of institutions such as the United Nations, IMF and World Bank should aim at greater representation, legitimacy and responsiveness, not at replacing one hierarchy with another. Perhaps the most important measure of success will be whether BRICS can demonstrate that geopolitical diversity does not have to produce institutional paralysis. Can countries with competing strategic interests still cooperate on issues of common interest? Can BRICS remain economically ambitious without becoming an anti-Western alliance? Can its expanded membership create wider representation without diluting effectiveness? And can India preserve its role as a bridge between competing centres of power? If the answer is yes, BRICS could move from being primarily a grouping of emerging economies to becoming a credible platform for a more balanced international system. India’s role will be central to that transition. India has

Bharat Business Economy Policy

630

Modi’s Mandate to Fuel Reforms

Big wins in state assembly polls especially in West Bengal would hasten pace of economic, governance reforms and spreading the growth story. Bharat continues to be brightest star. K.A. Badarinath West Asia conflict, Russia-Ukraine war notwithstanding, Bharat will continue to be the brightest spot globally on economic front. It will continue to be the fastest growing large economy next three years and bring tangible prosperity to Indians and contribute a large chunk to global communities. Thanks to a stable government headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP heading 80 per cent states, union territories, this economic consolidation and expansion will continue into 2029, beyond. A big show of expanding political strength in five states legislative assembly elections would only bolster pace of economic reforms in the country. There’s virtually no stopping despite global uncertainties throwing intermittent challenges to Bharat’s sweepstakes as an economic behemoth. A recent Morgan Stanley report has projected Bharat’s economy to expand beyond US$ 5.7 billion in two years from now. The report released a week ago also talks about continued foreign investment flows during next five years. A whopping US$ 800 billion is expected to be invested in Indian projects, markets and paper by foreign companies spread over 5 years. If we go by the report, at a time when key stakeholders were complaining of uncertainties bogging down the market sentiment, Bharat seems to be the only big exception. What’s more likely is that while domestic demand in India continues its upward swing, export markets may contribute an additional US$ two trillion. Energy, infrastructure, data centres and rural economy will be the biggest drivers of this new growth cycle even as Bharat tests its ‘strategic autonomy’ framework for its global engagement. Till date this framework has delivered handsomely as Bharat continues to carve out its own space internationally without getting bogged down in cliques. For instance, doing energy business with US, Europe, Russia, Iran and engaging both Israel and Palestine have been hallmark of this policy framework. Getting access to energy in gallons of hydrocarbons, Bharat has played its cards deftly to keep its business communication open. Balancing competing forces, holding on its aces and pro-actively pursuing its goals is something Bharat has done amazingly well. It’s not energy front alone. Concluding a raft of free trade and investment agreements with over a countries or unions proves Bharat’s dogged perseverance. From European Union, United Kingdom to signing these agreements with Oman and New Zealand, free trade, investment and economy pacts have demonstrated Bharat’s widest arc of economic engagement. In 2025-26 alone, nine such agreements were concluded while such arrangements are in place with 38 countries. Initial apprehension on such agreements seems to have been set aside while Bharat’s leadership confidently moves forward. Differences notwithstanding, Bharat continues to engage two largest economies internationally, United States and China. Geo-political, border issues, security and perspective continue to be limiting factors. But, that has not stopped Bharat from doing business with these powers that be. Only a couple of days back, companies like Sun Pharma, JSW Steel, Sterlite group and nine others have committed to invest over US$ 20.5 billion in pharmaceuticals, steel, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and infrastructure. At the Select US Invest summit the investments flummoxed markets as it demonstrates the resilience and confidence with which Bharat goes ahead doing business. One would not have imagined targeting US$ 500 billion worth economic engagement between US and Bharat notwithstanding the quixotic Republican White House led by President Donald J Trump. Today, these are the kind of figures being discussed as part of on-going trade talks. Definitely, China is a tricky customer on business front and a difficult northern neighbour from strategic point of view. But, the two uneasy neighbours have been doing business while China has emerged as the largest trading partner for Bharat with bilateral trade of over US$ 151 billion in financial year ending April 1, 2026. There’s no denying the fact that this trade engagement is completely lopsided and in favour of China by many times over. While New Delhi works hard to balance out the trade, go up the value chain and enhance exports to China, the two continue to talk, invest and do business. It does not mean that border disputes with China can be wished away. Out of the US$ 863 billion, services account for about half at US$ 421.32 billion during financial year ending April 1, 2026. Also, the massive trade surplus from services has been making up for huge deficit on merchandise trade. While this anomaly gets corrected, US$ two trillion services exports are something that Bharat is working towards. While there are no shortcuts, artificial intelligence is bound to impact the IT services exports in particular. As the rejig in strategy happens with short term adverse impact staring in the face, Bharat’s biggest bet may be to expand merchandise exports market, go for high value products while retaining the small ticket items. Strengthening agriculture and farm-based rural economy, expanding the allied agricultural services is yet another area that Bharat has been working for long term. Given that economic expansion has shifted to sub-urban, semi-urban and rural areas, the government in Bharat seems to have changed track to capitalize on the opportunities. When the Narendra Modi government announced US$ 26.5 billion credit guarantee fund for micro, small and medium enterprises, it was one way of addressing the West Asia impact on both businesses and jobs. Political stability with the massive mandate that Prime Minister Modi and his party got in West Bengal, Assam, Puducherry, things could not have been better for India. Analysts expect economic reforms apart from politically nuanced policy issues like delimitation of constituencies and bringing in more women into governance would gain pace. While that happens, Bharat continues its economic expansion and prosperity spread drive. (Author is veteran journalist, Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

China Economy Hindus International Misinformation Policy World

497

Reject Hindu Label to Slow Growth

Hinduphobia, colonial enslavement led certain intellectuals, socialists to frame Hinduness for tardy progress. Real culprits are socialists and their handlers! K.A.Badarinath It’s a colonial era slur. None has the right to deride about two billion Hindus living in 100 countries on some pretext or the other. Debunking Hindutva as being somehow responsible for Bharat’s tardy progress or sub-optimal GDP growth of 3.5 per cent in 1950s and 1980s era reeks of hatred. At last week’s Hindustan Times annual leadership summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly pointed to colonial mind-set for framing Hindu faith with tardy economic growth. Big question is why does one attribute slow economic progress and development to Hindutva? Why do some scholars make derogatory remarks and prejudiced framework to point fingers at Hindu people? Why do self-proclaimed intellectuals and economists ignore Bharat’s seven to eight per cent growth in last two decades was precisely due to these very Hindus? Colonial overhang and socialist underpinning of some intellectuals may have led to bracket low growth with Hindutva. As per The Oxford Companion to Economics in India, economist Raj Krishna made an attempt in 1982 to link the then 3.5 per cent economic growth to an inherent cultural phenomenon. Raj Krishna, a faculty member with Delhi School of Economics, blamed Hindus for not thinking big, staying reticent sans ambition etc. Well, Raj Krishna or his disciples’ arguments are not tenable. He may have grossly erred on intent and by design. Economic progress and development models hitherto adopted during Smt Indira Gandhi or Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru were largely socialist in orientation and governance. Till, economic reforms were unveiled in 1991, state controls were overbearing and stifled growth. In pre-liberation era, strangulating free enterprise, spirit of Bharat’s businesses and individuals was the norm. Even the governance model was socialist in nature with most power concentrated in Prime Minister like the communist oligarchy. Most annoying was accusing Hindus of strangulating socio-economic development in Bharat and slowing down fight against poverty. It’s rather well documented that economist Raghuram Rajan had revived the debate on linking Hindutva to slow growth rates in 2023. In last quarter ending September 2025, Bharat’s economy reported an expansion of 8.2 per cent with about 65 crore people going to work. Similarly, Bharat was the top major economy to report growth of 7.3 per cent globally, highest amongst G-20 nations with China and Indonesia at second and third position with 5.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent respectively in 2024-25. Countries like Italy and Canada reported contractions in their economies during some quarters. Germany reportedly was at bottom of the pyramid with a feeble 0.2 per cent growth. Stellar economic performance by Bharat was not given a cultural, civilizational or Dharmic label? If it’s not Hinduphobic mind-set, why did self-proclaimed intellectuals bring in Hindu angle to lack of or slow economic progress? Consequence of this Hinduphobic mind-set was that ‘Hindu rate of growth’ gained credence internationally amongst academics and audience thereby driving wrong notion and reinforcing that Bharat and Hindus was incapable of development. Attaching a civilizational label or wrongly portraying Hindus as lethargic or not being innovative may be rejected lock stock barrel. In fact, socialist policies adopted in first four decades put Bharat’s economy on a slumber. Unleashing the potential in a free, flexible and predictable policy paradigm would allow Bharat to realize its potential and emerge the ace. Getting out of colonial mind-set and rejecting out-dated socialist doctrines is pre-requisite to further hastening growth the Bharatiya way. (author is Director & Chief Executive at New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Economy Election Geopolitics Human Rights Leadership News Politics Uncategorized

725

Get Economic Governance Model right!

Taking off from Bihar debate, centre has to balance welfare pitch with sustainable development, reverse migration & make prosperity inclusive K.A. Badarinath Two simultaneous developments have had happened. Both these, though unconnected, have a linkage of sorts. Our most vibrant state, Bihar has gone to polls and a new government will be in place few days from now. On the other end, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman has begun a mammoth exercise to present her next federal budget on February 1, 2026. One could be wondering as to what’s the linkage between the two albeit even indirectly. This budget will have to put together a new model for socio-economic development taking on board political freebies that are promised in state legislative assembly elections or Lok Sabha polls. Freebies, Revdies & Social welfare Not many socio-economic analysts or thinkers would support the idea of a welfare state in a globally inter-connected world of markets, investments and trade that’s fiercely competitive. Ahead of state elections, Nitish Kumar led BJP – JDU alliance with splinter parties in tow announced two big projects. Through Mukhya Mantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (MMRY), Rs 10,000 was given to each of 1.5 crore women through direct benefits transfer (DBT). About 1.1 crore elderly women, widows and disabled were given enhanced pension of Rs 1100 from earlier Rs 400 per month. The two schemes alone added an extra outgo of Rs 14240 crore that constitute about six per cent of total revenue expenses of Rs 252,000 crore for 2025-26. Over and above, BJP – JDU led National Democratic Alliance has promised free power, water supply, one crore jobs, higher support to farmers etc in its bid to return with a thumping mandate. Some bracket these freebies as tools for socio-economic empowerment while others call them ‘Revdis’ or vote doles’, the sweet snack made out of sesame seeds and jiggery. Well, the debate is not about direct benefit transfers which have been refined by Narendra Modi government as surest way of reaching benefits to the needy, eliminate inefficiency and pilferage of funds. Larger question is what’s the sustainable model of economic governance that Bharat should adopt to expand, deepen her growth story and spread prosperity? Cash doles can at best act as booster dose for economic empowerment on temporary basis but unsustainable in the long run as experienced in several states including Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and now Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra. Skilling and competencies, creating work opportunities for goods and services, low-cost credit support to making large chunk capital investments that create jobs may be sustainable. No two economists agree on either of the models for development. A blend of these two approaches may be workable in the medium to long term. Taking Bihar as latest to join the bandwagon of states on the cusp of economic development, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman would do well in providing clarity on approach to economic development. For several years, NDA, BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi resisted temptation of going populist through their campaigns in states and centre. But, competitive populism practiced by its political rivals has pushed NDA to rethink on ‘freebies’ or cash doles as a ‘winning formula’ and ‘economic empowerment’ tool. Both, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh states have been pushed into economic chaos or deep debt burden by respective Congress governments that promised the moon in their political campaigns drawing inspiration from Aam Admi Party’s manifestos in Punjab and Delhi. Therefore, big question to be addressed by finance minister Sitharaman was salience of freebies. Mirgration & Economic Empowerment Both NDA and opposition parties led Maha ghatbandan have made huge promises on jobs to win votes in Bihar. One crore jobs have been promised by NDA and one government job in each Bihar family is what Rashtriya Janata Dal has promised. Jobs creation, investments and migration have direct and intricate linkages in Bihar and elsewhere. As per New Delhi based Institute for Human Development, over 65 per cent households in Bihar cutting across caste lines have at least one migrant each. Their remittances constitute at least 50 per cent of a household’s income. Outward migration from Bihar tripled rural wages centred in construction and agriculture sectors. The data suggests manufacturing employs a measly five per cent people. It’s near impossible to provide jobs to growing youth population. As per the institute, in 2025, 12.8 lakh youngsters completed secondary school education and over 27 per cent of state’s population was aged below 15 years. For different states, these numbers may differ. But still, youngsters below 15-years age would constitute a whopping 15.6 per cent of total population in Bharat. Creating opportunities in manufacturing, services and agriculture apart from exports from rural India is relatively more sustainable to tackle migration. A comprehensive survey on opportunities, jobs, industry, agriculture and exports in each state should dictate our policy priorities. Sridhar Vembu of Zoho Corporation has demonstrated that he could lead a global corporation even while being in a remote Tamil Nadu village. Remote working by professionals across sectors has allowed them to move out of cities while they discharged job related tasks. Huge network of roads, rail, ports, airports infrastructure, data and telecom connectivity in semi-urban and rural areas should come handy in formulating a policy against migration. First step will be to stop this migration out of villages. Secondly, reversing the migration back to villages and finally reversing brain drain from the country should be an economic priority. Re-modelling our economic development paradigm with migration at centrality of policy making should be attempted. Ultimately, economic growth should be sustainable in long run, translate into prosperity for last man standing in the spirit of Antyodaya, make welfare and opportunities inclusive while expanding global linkages. Getting the economic governance model right is the challenge. (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat Disinformation Election Geopolitics Hindus International Kashmir Misinformation News Politics United States USA

827

Mayor Mamdani: Socialist agenda in Capitalist New York

India-Focused Rhetoric Risks Splitting New York’s Diaspora, Straining US-India Ties and Fueling Political Firestorms N. C. Bipindra Zohran Mamdani’s victory marks a striking moment in New York politics: a young, Muslim, democratic socialist, son of filmmaker Mira Nair and Mahmood Mamdani, will lead US largest city at a time of heightened identity politics and global polarization. His biography helps explain ferocity of the debate around him. It’s his stance on India-related issues, Kashmir, Palestine, criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and pointed public comments about Gujarat that has transformed what might otherwise be a municipal governance story into a transnational political flashpoint. This is not just about ideology; it is about how rhetoric issued from City Hall can fracture diaspora coalitions, complicate diplomatic ties and provide political fodder for opponents at home and abroad. Mamdani’s critics, ranging from conservative commentators to influential diaspora organizations argue that some of his statements are one-sided, factually shaky and politically inflammatory. Misinformation on Gujarat Row over his remarks about Muslims in Gujarat is instructive. Opponents in India and beyond called out a claim he made suggesting a dramatic demographic or social shift in Gujarat’s Muslim population; fact-checkers and Indian commentators quickly disputed that account, saying it mis-states census data and on-ground socio-economic diversity of Muslims in the state. Whether these were careless rhetorical flourishes or substantive errors, they gave immediate ammunition to critics who charge Mamdani with repeating misleading narratives about India. No Sympathy for Israelis, Kashmiri Pandits On Palestine and Kashmir, Mamdani’s record reflects unmistakable activism. His vocal support for Palestinian rights, his positions on settlement funding and public statements criticising Modi government’s purported human rights record have resonated with some New Yorkers particularly youngsters and left leaning advocacy networks. But these positions have alarmed others. Jewish social groups and centrist constituencies have warned that his rhetoric can blur lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and statements that some interpret as insufficiently condemnatory of extremist violence; that perception has hardened a political fault line in a city with world’s largest Jewish population outside Israel. Jewish Reactions to Mamdani Several mainstream Jewish organizations issued cautious, measured statements after the election, underscoring their vigilance about anti-semitism while also acknowledging internal divisions over Israel policy – a reflection of broader tension Mamdani now inherits. Importantly, most stinging critiques do not simply target Mamdani’s policy preferences; they attack his credibility. Opponents say his India-related assertions sometimes rely on sweeping narratives rather than granular, verifiable evidence. In public fora and on social media, detractors frame those statements as kind of moralising shorthand that, in a globalised information environment, can be magnified into misinformation or selective history-telling. Indian Americans Call Him Biased For New York’s diverse South Asian community that encompasses people with attachment to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and beyond: such simplifications risk alienating those who do not see their lived realities reflected in Mamdani’s public claims. The result is a fractured coalition: socialist base that propelled him to victory and diaspora groups who feel caricatured or dismissed. Another dimension is geopolitical optics. Mayors generally have limited formal capacity to change US foreign policy, but New York’s Mayor remains a global figure whose words carry diplomatic weight. Misinformation as a Weapon Critics warn that incendiary or ill-substantiated claims about India could complicate US–India municipal and cultural ties, from sister-city arrangements to trade and philanthropy, and could be seized upon by political actors in New Delhi eager to paint American democrats as biased or hostile. That risk is magnified because India has a politically active and often transnational diaspora that reacts swiftly to public statements by prominent figures; controversy can therefore ripple back to New Delhi and become a bilateral talking point. Indian American community in New York has sharply criticised his comments on India, as “bigotry and bias” against Indian communities, and called him “divisive, discriminatory, and unbecoming.” Fanning Domestic Polarisation Domestically, Mamdani’s India-focused controversies also feed a very immediate vulnerability: nationalised political polarisation. President Donald Trump and conservative pundits have already shaped a narrative casting Mamdani as dangerously radical, a framing Trump used in the campaign to argue that federal funds should be withheld should Mamdani assume office. That nationalisation of a municipal election transforms local disputes over housing and transit into existential fights over patriotism, security and cultural loyalty. In a hyper-partisan media environment, claims about “misinformation” on issues like Gujarat riots or about Pakistan/India politics can be weaponised to de-legitimize policy initiatives, no matter how pragmatic their intent. Keeping Governance Promises Policy implications matter. If Mamdani wants to deliver on his agenda, rent stabilisation, transit relief, childcare expansion, he must secure broad administrative cooperation, funding and buy-in from constituencies that feel threatened by his rhetoric. That requires the kind of political translation that sanctified rhetoric rarely achieves: careful, evidence-based communication; clear sourcing for claims about international events; and consistent, unequivocal condemnations of violence and extremism coupled with nuanced critiques of state policies. Failing that, even feasible policies will be cast through the prism of identity and foreign-policy controversy, making compromise harder and governance costlier. Gujarati Muslim Father, Punjabi Hindu Mother There is, however, an opening: Mamdani’s background and family story provide him with a platform to reframe the debate. His parents’ Indian origins, public intellectualism, and filmmaking sensibility give him rhetorical gifts that could be used to de-escalate rather than inflame. By commissioning independent fact-finding on contested claims, clarifying past statements and engaging directly with South Asian and Jewish community leaders not as adversaries but as partners in city governance, he could shift the narrative from cultural combat to municipal competence. That won’t please hardliners on either side, but it could blunt attacks that center on his credibility rather than his policies. Fueling Identity Politics Finally, case of Zohran Mamdani is a cautionary tale about modern urban leadership: global identity politics are now inseparable from municipal governance. Mayors must navigate local service delivery while managing transnational reputations and diaspora sensibilities. For Mamdani, pragmatic path is clear even if politically costly: root his public statements

Bharat Business Economy Policy

1.01K

Tax Reforms Ahoy!

Modi government’s GST 2.0 reforms would make taxation more compliant, leave more money with people, take Bharat into a different league. K.A.Badarinath Goods and Services Tax was once sold as ‘one nation one tax’ by Narendra Modi led NDA government when it was first introduced on July 1, 2017 in Bharat. After 13-years of painful and protracted negotiation with states led by different political formations, multiple taxes at different levels were subsumed into this federal tax aimed at easing burden on businesses, taxpayers and reduce evasion. This single biggest tax reform brought in by Modi government was however seen with apprehension by a few stakeholders and several opposition parties that headed state governments. Today, most Indians are convinced that the reform path laid down by Narendra Modi government was firm, forward looking and easy to comply with. As on date, about 160 countries implement the GST or Value Added Tax (VAT) in some form or the other beginning with France in 1954. Though, India has been a late entrant into this taxation regime, it matured fast, compliance improved and held the tax mobilization campaign in last eight years on an even keel without disturbing the delicate applecart with 29 states and eight union territories. Revenue neutral rates for GST report put together by then Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian, in December 2015 ahead the rollout studied Canada, European Union, China, Australia and Indonesia to make his recommendations. Subramanian had pointed to challenges in implementing a ‘dual rate structure’ in a federal system like ours. Similarly, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) report of 2017 had emphasised on big implementation risks faced by sovereign governments globally while implementing the GST. From evasion, under-reporting, cash deals, unregistered businesses, splitting invoices to making false claims, RBI flagged several issues in the implementation. World Bank that tracked initial years of GST implementation in India had underscored huge risks given the complexity of Bharat’s markets driven by states and local governments. But, the political leadership under Prime Minister Modi took a conscious call to implement GST, ease out the taxation burden on the system and get into the global league of ‘best compliant nations’. There were several naysayers across the spectrum. Prime Minister Modi and his economic ‘A’ team did not relent. It went ahead with roll out and implementing the dual GST with multiple rates akin to Canada which is the nearest in comparison. And, it’s for everyone to experience the impact and resultant taxation regime that delivered in eight years. Value Added Tax, State and Central Sales Tax apart from a multitude of imposts were replaced by the unified GST. This successful model served as a big trigger for Modi government to take up the next big reform measure and ring in the GST 2.0 regime beginning September 22 this year. On Wednesday, GST Council headed by Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, went into ten hour marathon huddle to thrash out two rate structure replacing the multiple slabs, provide massive relief to the hoi polloi. More than reworking the GST slabs to two at five per cent and 18 per cent, the biggest move was to do away with the12 per cent and 28 per cent slabs that were huge on revenue earnings for the government. One estimate suggests that by moving 99 per cent goods and services from 12 per cent to five per cent bracket or completely exempting daily use items from tax impost, Modi – Sitharaman played big by foregoing Rs 48,000 crore revenues in next two quarters of this fiscal. If one were to factor in the huge tax concessions of Rs 100,000 crore announced in Union Budget on February 1, 2025 and GST rate cuts as well as exemptions, middle-class and salaried classes gain substantially. Exempting both life and non-life insurance products from levy of GST is yet another big reform measure given the social security gaps prevalent across sections. Big gainers in this GST reform are farmers, women, youth and vulnerable sections that feel the pinch of high taxation. Most daily use items have been taken away from GST ambit with nil taxes. From bread, channa to paneer, all these come without taxes. Latest round of GST reforms have a serious socio, economic and political messaging as well. Leaving more money with the people that would widen and deepen the consumption basket would also push up economic growth from expected 6.5 per cent this fiscal. If one were to take exempted items, ‘sin’ and ultra-luxury goods rate of 40 per cent that include tobacco products, the two trick-ponies would partly offset the impact of US tariffs at 50 per cent and trigger economic growth. These tax reforms have not come in without adequate confabulation and computation by the economic managers. This was coming! Prime Minister Modi himself had hinted at GST reforms from ramparts of Red Fort in his Independence Day speech last month. It’s not fait accompli or desperation. It’s a well thought out reform measure that would lay an important brick in the foundation for developed Bharat. It’s early Deepawali for all! Companies, service providers – both domestic and foreign – are bound to rejoice and make merry like the consumers. Great festivities ahead! (Author is Director and Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat Economy Policy United States USA World

1.01K

Options Galore!

Putting in place long term policy framework on trade, investments, currencies, geo-political alignments to protect Bharat’s interests must be priority. K.A.Badarinath United States President Donald Trump’s adversarial tariff policy on India has largely been regarded ‘flip flop’ hinting at fluid stance and diabolical in spirit and content. From being most favoured trading ally with minimal tariff proposal of 10 per cent in April 2025, India has been bracketed in the list of enemy countries that attract highest impost of 50 per cent. Numbers and data apart, there has been a lot of noise, nervousness and anxiety as clock ticked 4 pm in last few days in India. It’s at about that time of the day Trump first announced 25 per cent and later doubled it to 50 per cent triggering a flurry of activity. Old timers did not miss the drama, show shah and high decibel drama that Trump put on these days targeting one or other trading partners. It was the turn of Bharat in last few days. A 21-day window announced for tariffs to kick in signalled that Trump was open to negotiation before inking the trade deal. It’s one way of exerting pressure on New Delhi’s negotiators to sign on a ‘bad trade deal’ which means granting US unhindered access to agriculture, fisheries and dairy sector in India. President Trump’s optimism to drive a hard bargain also reflects from his statement, “it’s only been eight hours, let’s see what happens…you are going to see a lot more and some secondary sanctions”. The eight hour time frame referred to by Trump hints at his ‘wait, watch and strike’ attitude in the midst of serious negotiations. Contrary to drama associated with Trump’s diatribe, India’s response has been mature, measured and nuanced in last fortnight within and outside the parliament. Unreasonable, unfair and unjustified is how India described Trump’s executive order on 50 per cent levy. For the first time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stuck his neck out and took it upon himself the consequences of tariffs tantrums thrown by President Trump. Modi said unequivocally that he was willing to pay a heavy personal price as Trump’s tariffs would impact large number of labour intensive and rural sectors. First, Prime Minister Modi has taken personal responsibility for the impact trade pact and tariffs would have on 1.4 billion plus Indians. Modi’s statement at M.S.Swaminathan International Centenary Conference on Thursday is very significant. He’s not willing to compromise on protecting farmers, rural people interests and labour intensive industrial sectors. Also, he was willing to face the political flak and pay heavy personal price on consequences given opposition parties’ intransigent line on United States. Prime Minister Modi understands that throwing open the agriculture sector to US is not only economically unviable but politically unsalable to the core Hindu vote bank, Sangh parivar and the ecosystem. On factual analysis, Modi government will have to deal with adverse impact on GDP growth of 0.2 – 0.4 per cent in case tariffs finally stay at 25 per cent during this fiscal. Top analysts estimate that entire US $ 86.5 billion annual goods exports from India to United States may turn non-competitive or commercially viable. Given that US is top market for India and constitutes about 18 per cent of its global goods exports and constitutes 2.2 per cent GDP, strains have begun to appear on near future. Given Prime Minister Modi’s steadfast commitment to protect India’s national interests, Indian negotiators are breathing easy. The proposed 50 per cent duties, if they kick in finally, translate to unannounced trade sanctions or embargo on India thereby worsening the strain in relations between the two countries. One big fall out that’s largely speculated was that India may not buy F-35 stealth fighter jet aircraft from United States. Factual position so far is that after US offered to sell these jets, formal negotiations have not yet begun. And, these discussions may remain a non-starter. Secondly, India may consider imposing retaliatory duties on 28 US products including its apples and walnuts given the precedent in 2019 to counter restrictive levies Washington DC had imposed on Indian steel and aluminium products. Thirdly, the arc of dis-engagement between India and US may widen for the time being unless recalibrates its trade and tariff policies. Fourthly, an aggressive campaign may be launched by the ruling party and the government to go local and opt for ‘made in India’ products and services. Fifthly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi may mobilize people in socio-economic spheres for adapting ‘swadeshi’. Sixthly, realigning India’s trade, investment, economic, geo-strategic relations may be a big option. Russia, China and other countries engagement may be enhanced to counter-balance US Republican White House under President Trump’s stewardship. Aligning with countries like Brazil who have been put on high tariff line by US could be an option. Seventhly, present developments may lead to expanding time tested foreign policy of strategic autonomy to protect India’s offensive and defensive interests. This may also be the right moment to promote south – south trade engagement. Eighthly, upcoming conclaves of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Quad and BRICS may be occasions for India to sharpen its policy framework for global engagement. Ninthly, evolving an independent financial architecture, decoupling from US dollar or hastening BRICS currency to opt for diversification in payments may also be considered. Tenthly, putting in place medium and long term policy on currencies and oil will go the India way. (Author is Director and Chief Executive of non-partisan New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Business Economy Geopolitics Trade World

921

Damn EU Oil sanctions!

Strategic autonomy coupled with its right to source crude at affordable prices and quality is non-negotiable. Here’s New India… By NC Bipindra Latest round of sanctions announced by European Union on July 18, 2025, has opened a new chapter in the growing geopolitical standoff between Brussels and New Delhi. For the first time, EU has directly targeted Indian oil trade, specifically naming Nayara Energy’s Vadinar refinery which is majority-owned by Russia’s Rosneft. The EU sanctions, coming as it does within days of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s warning about secondary sanctions on India, are part of these regional institutions’ crackdown on what it calls indirect financing of Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. At the heart of this issue lies India’s continued and unapologetic purchase of discounted Russian crude. India has been refining this oil and exporting resultant diesel and jet fuel, some of which flows back into Europe. While New Delhi views this as a perfectly legal and economically sound strategy, Brussels sees it as a dangerous workaround that weakens Western sanctions regime. What makes this clash more than a bureaucratic quarrel is its broader significance for global energy markets, economic diplomacy and tests limits of Western pressure in a multipolar world. Why Is the EU Escalating Pressure on India over Russian Oil Purchases? EU wants to isolate Russia economically. India, however, is determined not to compromise its energy security and strategic autonomy, the principles it considers non-negotiable. From European perspective, India’s growing role as a refinery hub for Russian crude threatens to undercut its sanctions framework. Eighteenth package of EU sanctions which includes lowering price cap on Russian crude to about $ 47.60 per barrel and sanctioning over 100 tankers in Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” is aimed at choking off alternative routes for Russian oil revenue. By focusing on Indian exports and targeting refineries like Vadinar, Europe is sending a clear message that it will go after any actor — state or private — that contributes to propping up Moscow’s war chest. What are Its Strategic Imperatives? But India isn’t taking this lightly. Ministry of External Affairs responded swiftly and sternly, calling the EU’s actions unilateral and unjust. Officials in New Delhi accused the bloc of practicing double standards, pointing to Europe’s own imports of Russian LNG and uranium even after war in Ukraine escalated. Energy security, Indian leaders assert, is not just a matter of policy but a constitutional duty, especially for a developing nation with over 1.4 billion people striving for economic growth and social stability. From New Delhi’s standpoint, its trade with Russia is both lawful and pragmatic. Indian officials frequently cite EU Regulation 833 / 2014, which states that once a good is substantially transformed in a third country, it is no longer considered to originate from the sanctioned country. India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar and Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri have made this argument repeatedly, maintaining that diesel refined in India is legally distinct from the Russian crude it was made from. The economic logic behind this policy is also compelling. Minister Puri has stated that importing discounted oil from Russia has saved India billions of dollars, helped stabilise inflation and shielded consumers from worst of global energy shock. In a world still reeling from economic aftershocks of the pandemic and the war, these savings have helped India remain on a steady growth trajectory while other economies faltered. India’s position is also shaped by deeper strategic calculations. The country has long prided itself on its foreign policy of non-alignment, now recast as “strategic autonomy.” This allows New Delhi to navigate complex relationships with both the West and traditional partners like Russia without being forced to pick sides. India’s close defence and energy ties with Moscow continue, even as it deepens cooperation with the United States and European Union in other areas like technology, trade, and counterterrorism. What are India’s Strategic Options? Rather than cave in to external pressure, India has quietly but effectively diversified its oil imports. Over past year, it has increased purchases from Middle Eastern countries, United States, Brazil and new suppliers in Africa and Latin America. This diversification has enabled India to demonstrate that it is not wholly dependent on Russian oil, even as it defends its right to continue buying it. At the same time, India has expanded its investment in natural gas, renewables and long-term energy security. A 15-year LNG deal with United Arab Emirates’ ADNOC, for example, will bring in one million tonnes of gas annually, supporting the country’s gradual shift toward cleaner fuels. India’s resilience is also built on its ability to conduct trade outside of Western financial and logistical systems. Russia has set up rupee-based trade settlements, used vostro accounts through Indian banks and relied on non-Western insurance and shipping firms. This alternative infrastructure insulates India-Russia energy trade from Western sanctions to a large extent and helps maintain stability despite external disruptions. Even as EU tightens restrictions and hints at possible secondary sanctions, India continues to find new export markets for its refined petroleum products. Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America have emerged as key destinations where buyers are less concerned about the origins of crude and more focused on price and availability. These regions offer India a buffer against any loss of European markets, keeping its refineries running and export revenues intact. At the legal level, India has pushed back forcefully the very idea of violating sanctions. Indian legal experts argue that under international law, unilateral sanctions not backed by United Nations are not binding. New Delhi has taken this position consistently and has also pointed out hypocrisy of Europe’s own uneven implementation of sanctions where Russian LNG and enriched uranium remain untouched by embargoes. Behind all this lies a larger philosophical question. Should developing countries bear the brunt of economic disruptions caused by conflicts they did not start and do not control? India has answered this with a firm no. It argues that energy access at affordable prices is a matter of global

Blog Post