Some things to Reconsider

 Donald Trump is back doing what he does best — throwing tantrums in prime time and calling it policy. His latest target? India. From parading deported Indian immigrants in chains — yes, actual chains, mid-flight — to snatching credit for ending Operation Sindoor, Trump’s message is simple: “I’m the boss of Vishwaguru.” He’s slapped tariffs on Indian goods, frowned upon Russian oil imports, and hiked H1B visa fees — a direct jab at the Indian tech class. And New Delhi’s response? Silence . The kind that pretends to be strength but smells suspiciously like fear. Spin doctors call it strategic restraint . The rest of us call it waiting for Trump’s next mood swing. When Trump wished Modi on his 75th birthday or extended his velvet glove , BJP’s online cheerleaders pounced on it like a Bollywood twist — “See! Friendship restored!” — until, of course, Trump’s next tweet arrived with his usual thunder. As the American columnist Ashley Tellis politely put it, India’s “extreme discipl...

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/show-of-honour-the-tweak-in-indias-military-traditions-prnt/cid/2118942 Two images remain stuck in my mind—not painful, but irritating thorns you can’t quite pluck out. The first is of Colonel Santosh Babu, killed in the brutal hand-to-hand clash with Chinese troops in Galwan in 2020. He was posthumously awarded the Maha Vir Chakra, India’s second-highest gallantry honour. So far, so dignified. But at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the medal wasn’t simply handed to his widow, Santoshi Babu. No, his mother, Manjula, was pulled into the frame. The cameras swooned, godi-media cheered —“See, for the first time, both wife and mother honoured. A new age of female emancipation!” My question was, where was the father? Is his grief of lesser value in the marketplace of sorrow? Or simply inconvenient for the photo-op? Grief, too, had been scripted for the storyboard. Call me old-fashioned, even chauvinist, but found it theatrics in poor taste. The second image ra...

  https://theprint.in/national-interest/indian-pakistan-air-force-doctrines-1965-1971-kargil-op-sindoor/2722096/ Among the well-worn tales of the 1965 Indo-Pak war, one stands tall: Lal Bahadur Shastry’s fearless call to cross the International Border in Punjab, defying both diplomatic and military counsel (especially diplomatic), to relieve pressure in Kashmir or then LoAC. It was a rare moment in history when Delhi’s political leadership took a risk for the soldier in the trench. But during the recent monsoon session of Parliament, Narendra Modi, in what can only be described as his “Blames, Boasts & Bullshit — Volume Whatever,” introduced a new villain into his perpetual “blame-the-past” series. Nehru the usual punching bag, Manmohan Singh gets a usual swipe, Rajiv Gandhi a mention sometimes, and even Indira in a rare moment. But Shastry? Yes, Shastry. Accused, by insinuation, of “squandering” the chance to reclaim Haji Pir Pass and Kartarpur Sahib. Why? Because Op Sind...

 When the history of Indian diplomacy under Narendra Modi is eventually written, it may be remembered not for its strategic breakthroughs, but for its theatrical excesses, its silences in moments of crisis, and its worrying penchant for personalisation over institutional prudence. Modi’s foreign policy, by design, was never meant to be quiet or cautious. From the grand gestures of “Namaste Trump” to his surprise visits to Pakistan, it has been high on drama and low on deliverables. It has sought headlines, not long-term relationships. Unfortunately, in foreign affairs, style without substance often invites consequences. Let us begin closer home. In 2015, when a devastating earthquake struck Nepal, India was the first responder. This was an admirable and expected act by a regional power. However, what could have been a reaffirmation of India’s neighbourhood leadership quickly descended into a public relations disaster. Kathmandu’s citizens and civil society accused India of using ...

  https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-diplomacy-is-measured-not-mute/article69780623.ece Lewis Carroll once quipped, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” It seems Priyam Gandhi-Mody, in her recent op-ed, has taken that advice a bit too literally. With the enthusiasm of a Bhakt moonlighting as a strategist, she argues that India’s silence on global affairs is proof of rising diplomatic maturity. “India speaks when it matters,” she declares. Allow me to disagree — robustly. Let’s begin with the absurd. Amit Shah, in full campaign mode, not so long ago claimed that “Modi ne war rukwa dee” — that the Prime Minister stopped the Russia-Ukraine war. Never mind that the war hasn’t paused for a second. Neither Moscow nor Kyiv remembers this magical intervention. And yet, we are told this is what “measured” diplomacy looks like — restraint wrapped in gravitas. I call it what it is: a strategic muzzle, saffron-tinted and politically convenient. ...

  https://theprint.in/national-interest/op-sindoor-is-the-first-battle-in-indias-two-front-war-a-vicious-pawn-in-a-kings-gambit/2650009/   Op Sindoor: More Chest-Thumping, Less Thinking Let me begin with categorical disagreement—not gentle dissent, but full-throated, Sumo wrestler style takedown—of the “received wisdom” that now saturates prime-time India: the punditry of “TV Generals” and the breathless prose of what I call “cookie-pusher editors,” more trained in literary flair than geopolitical nuance. Case in point: the recent article titled “Op Sindoor is the First Battle in India’s Two-Front War. A Vicious Pawn in a King’s Gambit.” Dramatic? Certainly. Factual? Barely. The idea that China’s aggressive calculus came into India’s view only after Op Sindoor is laughable. For decades, China has not merely operated in isolation—it has built a playbook around proxy warfare. This is not new. It is not even controversial. It’s doctrine. North Korea is the textbook ex...

 https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/clear-cut-victory-military-historian-says-west-misread-the-conflict-says-india-decimated-pakistani-bases-475974-2025-05-12 The recent article titled  "Clear-cut victory: Military historian says West misread the conflict..."  is deeply troubling—both for its perspective, and for its framing. The headline itself lacks journalistic neutrality, using triumphalist language that enhances government talking points rather than offering a balanced or investigative lens. More concerning is the reliance on a military historian to frame an unfolding geopolitical conflict. Historians are invaluable in interpreting past wars, not in validating present-day statecraft or battlefield outcomes still mired in ambiguity. Their role of a historian is to analyse in hindsight, not to endorse real-time narratives. Using a historian to proclaim military victory undermines objectivity and risks reducing journalism to propaganda. Such editorial choices...

  Shobhaa De’s column “Sindoor Was Modi’s Finest Hour” reads like a Page 3 party report dressed in fatigues .   Her mention about a cordial exchange in a London café is heartening, but does little to reflect the deeper, unresolved tensions between the two nations. —as if war and diplomacy are settled over Earl Grey and polite nods. War is not a fashion show. It’s not a soap opera where symbolic Sindoor and gender-balanced briefings make for strategic brilliance. Two women officers giving press conferences may be a welcome sight—but let’s not pretend it changes the cost of conflict or the calculus of deterrence. And then—out of nowhere—She crowns a new trinity: Modi the statesman, Tharoor the global Indian, and Abdullah the reborn moderate. I’ve seen stranger combinations, but not many. This isn’t analysis. It’s narrative airbrushing. She skips over international reaction, the fragile regional balance, the blowback that may still come. Instead, she takes a swipe at Trump, calli...

https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/asim-munir-tightens-grip-but-fifth-star-won-t-alter-ground-realities-125053001946_1.html  By all means, Shekhar Gupta’s column “The Weight of the Fifth Star” could have been a sober, strategic analysis of civil-military tensions in Pakistan. Instead, it reads like a warning flare fired in the dark—noisy, dramatic, but ultimately directionless. While the piece accurately captures Pakistan’s descent into hybrid authoritarianism, it ultimately leans too far into speculative geopolitics, bordering on the theatrical. Let us begin with what is beyond dispute. Pakistan remains a garrison state, where the military tail wags the civilian dog. The Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, is not a national leader but a ceremonial compère reading scripts drafted in Rawalpindi. The President, Asif Ali Zardari, continues to weave his intrigues—but these days mostly in the salons of Karachi rather than the corridors of power. The institutions that should...