Author: Caracal

  • Manmohan Singh: A Legacy of Quiet Courage and Economic Reform

    Manmohan Singh: A Legacy of Quiet Courage and Economic Reform

    Manmohan Singh did not possess the fiery charisma many consider essential for a successful Indian politician. He refrained from delivering biting insults, stirring animosity, or crafting electrifying slogans that sparked frenzied devotion among the masses. Instead, he embodied a quieter virtue—a man of action who quietly transformed policy into progress. India mourns and bids farewell to one of its most transformative leaders, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who passed away at the age of 92 in New Delhi due to age-related health issues. The economist-turned-politician is regarded as one of the most impactful figures in modern India, having saved the Indian Union from economic collapse and helped shape the country into a globally competitive economic powerhouse.

    Singh entered politics in 1991 when India was facing one of its most severe economic crises, teetering on the brink of default. Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao appointed Singh, a renowned economist, as Finance Minister. Amid the chaos, Singh stood at the precipice, tasked with averting disaster. With the nation on the edge of collapse, his bold reforms dismantled the remnants of a Soviet-style command economy and introduced a liberalized system that revitalized India’s prospects. Singh drew from Victor Hugo’s words, stating that when the time is right, no power on earth can stop an idea. He believed that India’s emergence as a major economic power in the world was one such idea whose time had come. He dismantled the restrictive “license raj,” which controlled factory production and limited the types of products available. He devalued the rupee to stimulate exports, opened key industrial sectors to private and foreign investment, and slashed taxes. These transformative steps sparked rapid economic growth and earned Singh the title of India’s economic “liberator.” His actions did more than save the nation—they reoriented India’s future, protecting it from the economic unraveling experienced by the Soviet Union.

    The same deft economic leadership defined his first term as Prime Minister. Under his stewardship, India emerged as a rising economic powerhouse, with the economy growing at more than 8%. Singh championed initiatives like the Food Security Act to combat hunger on a national scale and institutionalized the Right to Information Act. He introduced transformative initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), designed to uplift the country’s most disadvantaged citizens. Additionally, he negotiated vital nuclear energy agreements and played an instrumental role in the landmark Indo-US civil nuclear deal, which not only ended India’s nuclear isolation but also secured the nation’s energy future for generations.

    Despite his considerable achievements, Singh Often portrayed as the “Remote-controlled” Prime Minister of the Gandhi dynasty, he faced intense media criticism, accused of being a passive leader in a highly charged political landscape. His reserved demeanor and reluctance to step into the spotlight only fueled these perceptions, earning him the label of an “Accidental Prime Minister.” His second term was overshadowed by a series of massive corruption scandals that undermined public trust in his administration. Though personally incorruptible, Singh was criticized for failing to assert control over his coalition partners. His former adviser, Sanjaya Baru, in his memoir, observed that while Singh upheld the highest standards of integrity, he did not enforce these standards on others. Singh’s perceived deference to Sonia Gandhi further led to allegations that he was merely her “Puppet.”

    The debates surrounding Manmohan Singh’s legacy underscore both his remarkable achievements and the perceived limitations of his leadership. While many in today’s middle class, burdened by the weight of taxes, look back with nostalgia at his tenure, it is impossible to ignore the fact that his second term paved the way for the rise of the BJP and Narendra Modi, ushering in an era marked by Hindu nationalism. In the process, his leadership precipitated the near-collapse of the Congress Party. Though Singh himself did not directly contribute to this downfall, his tenure marked the beginning of a slow but irreversible decline for the party. Once a dominant force in Indian politics, Congress has since withered into a shell of its former self, its relevance in both the electoral arena and in political discourse shrinking ever smaller.

    Even though Singh distanced himself from politics after his time as Prime Minister, the weight of his legacy lingers—compelling and contradictory. On one side of history’s ledger, he saved India from an economic abyss and oversaw a profound transition in the country’s economy and global standing. Yet, his era also witnessed the decline of Nehruvian socialism and the Congress Party’s weakening grip on power. Ultimately, history may well be kinder to him than many of his contemporaries, remembering him as a figure who, without fanfare or spectacle, steered India through turbulent waters—a hero not of blaring headlines, but of quiet determination.

  • Cambodian Opposition Leader Jailed on Usual Charges

    Cambodian Opposition Leader Jailed on Usual Charges

    Cambodia, a monarchy concealed beneath a veneer of constitution, is notorious for its history of authoritarian regimes and the relentless suppression of opposition. Today, the latest iteration of this authoritarian state is defined by Hun Sen, the nation’s most influential figure, and his family. Other political parties exist largely for ceremonial purposes, ensuring that they never challenge the dominance of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party. With more than 95 percent of parliamentary seats secured, Hun Sen’s power remains unchallenged, despite his formal transfer of the prime ministership to his eldest son. While the title may have passed, control is still concentrated within the family, and political dissent is met with swift retribution. Most recently, the government imprisoned opposition leader Sun Chanty on the ever-ubiquitous charge of “Inciting Disorder”—a familiar tactic used by authoritarian regimes to silence their critics. This act of repression is merely the latest in a series of moves under Hun Sen’s rule, one in which the judiciary has been weaponized to muzzle political adversaries and activists, while independent media is systematically silenced, ensuring the regime’s stranglehold on power endures.

    Sun Chanthy, president of the Nation Power Party and a prominent opposition figure, was found guilty in a Phnom Penh court, sentenced to two years in prison, and banned from running for office after being convicted of inciting social disorder. The court also imposed a fine of 4 million riel (£800) and stripped him of his right to vote or stand for election. The case focused on Sun Chanthy’s social media posts, including a video recorded during a meeting with supporters in Japan, in which he criticized the government. Pro-government media reports at the time of his May arrest claimed he had accused the government of burdening citizens with debt through bank loans and denounced its social welfare system. This was enough for the authoritarian regime to target him. Given the ruling party’s strong influence over the courts, the verdict was widely anticipated.

    The defense lawyer, Choung Choungy, called the ruling an injustice to his client and stated that they were considering whether to appeal. He told Agence France-Presse that the punishment was excessively harsh and emphasized that Sun Chanthy’s comments were not a mistake, but rather constructive criticism aimed at development.

    Sun Chanthy was previously a senior member of the Cambodia National Rescue Party, the former opposition party that was dissolved by the courts ahead of the 2018 elections. He later joined its unofficial successor, the Candlelight Party, which was banned from participating in last year’s election—a one-sided contest that was won by the longtime authoritarian leader, Hun Sen. In late 2023, Sun Chanthy played a key role in forming a new opposition party, the Nation Power Party.

    Hun Sen, who ruled Cambodia for nearly four decades, transferred power to his son, Hun Manet, shortly after the controversial 2023 general election. As prime minister, Hun Sen cemented his control over the country, methodically silencing opposition, activists, and independent media. When he appointed his eldest son, Hun Manet, as his successor, some dared to hope that civil liberties would improve. Manet had studied in the United States and Britain, where he was exposed to more liberal ideas about elections and human rights. However, since he took power in August 2023, those hopes, though modest, have evaporated. Despite frequently emphasizing the need for independent media and civil society, Manet’s government has moved in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, Hun Sen remains a powerful figure, leading the Cambodian People’s Party and heading the Senate. It’s clear that this type of governance can’t encourage fearless opposition and leaders like Sun Chanthy.

    As usual, the authorities have denied that the case against Sun Chanthy is politically motivated. Yet, he is merely the latest in a long line of targets—among many others. Rong Chhun, an adviser to the Nation Power Party, is also facing incitement charges and could face up to six years in prison if convicted. This year, similar charges have been levied against union leaders, environmental activists, and Mech Dara, an award-winning Cambodian journalist renowned for exposing corruption and human trafficking. Dara’s arrest in September sparked an international outcry. The regime has also extended its crackdown on dissent to Cambodians abroad, securing deportations from Thailand and Malaysia. The authoritarian machine marches on, unyielding in its pursuit. Though many have grown accustomed to the regime’s tactics, history shows that there is a time for every regime.

  • The New China? Vietnam’s Quest to Silence Opposition and Critique

    The New China? Vietnam’s Quest to Silence Opposition and Critique

    At its core, communism seeks not only to shape society but also to command the very essence of human existence — from daily routines to private thoughts. The ideology thrives on pervasive control, and history provides a stark record of its manifestations. The Soviet Union and Cuba epitomized the authoritarian model of communist regimes, enforcing conformity through relentless oversight and suppression.

    However, communist China has charted a unique path. While many contemporaneous communist states collapsed under the weight of popular dissent, China adapted by providing its people with what they desire while maintaining tighter governmental control. By intertwining its authoritarian governance with technological prowess, it has created a model where digital tools not only entertain but also enforce seamless and far-reaching control over its citizens. Through surveillance, censorship, and data collection, the government wields the internet as its most effective weapon.

    Vietnam seems intent on following China’s lead. Historically seen as an iteration of Chinese communism, its government has sought to mirror China’s trade successes while upholding a communist structure. Now, with a new internet law set to take effect, Vietnam appears ready to tighten its grip. This legislation grants the government broad powers over internet services and their users, facilitating meticulous surveillance and censorship. By leveraging digital platforms as tools of authoritarian control, Vietnam is paving the way for a more intense model of communist governance — one in which dissent is quickly silenced and every digital footprint is monitored.

    This is the perfect communism for the digital age: control, refined and perfected through the internet.

    Social media users in Vietnam, including those on platforms like Facebook and TikTok, will be required to verify their identities under strict new internet regulations. The law, which took effect on Christmas Day, mandates tech companies operating in Vietnam to store user data, provide it to authorities upon request, and remove content deemed “Illegal” by the government within 24 hours. Known as Decree 147, the law builds on the controversial 2018 cybersecurity law, which drew sharp criticism from the U.S., EU, and advocates for internet freedom, who claimed it mirrors China’s repressive internet censorship model.

    Under the new regulations, tech companies, along with all “Foreign Organizations, Enterprises, and Individuals,” must verify user accounts through phone numbers or Vietnamese identification numbers and store that information alongside users full names and dates of birth. They are required to provide this data to the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) or the Ministry of Public Security upon demand. Decree 147 significantly expands the government’s control over online access to information, citing concerns over “National Security” and “Social Order”. The law also obligates social media platforms to remove content deemed “Illegal” by authorities within 24 hours, further tightening state oversight of the internet.

    Vietnam’s hardline government has a well-established record of swiftly silencing dissent and imprisoning critics, particularly those who gain prominence on social media. In October, blogger Duong Van Thai, who had nearly 120,000 followers on YouTube, where he frequently live streamed critiques of the government, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for publishing anti-state content. Months earlier, prominent independent journalist Huy Duc, known for his popular blog critical of the government on issues like media control and corruption, was arrested on charges that his posts “Violated the Interests of the State”.

    Critics warn that Decree 147 will further expose dissidents—especially those posting anonymously—to the risk of arrest. Nguyen Hoang Vi, a blogger and rights activist based in Ho Chi Minh City, explained that many people work quietly but effectively in advancing universal human rights. She also cautioned that the new decree may encourage self-censorship, with people refraining from expressing dissenting views to safeguard their safety, ultimately stifling the development of democratic values in Vietnam.

    Former political prisoner Le Anh Hung called it the latest sign of infringement on basic freedoms, noting the vague distinction between what is considered legal and what is not. She added that no one wants to go to jail, so some activists will undoubtedly become more cautious and fearful of this decree. In a chilling reminder of the government’s stance on dissent, Duong Van Thai’s October conviction underlines the escalating crackdown on those who challenge the state.

    Le Quang Tu Do, from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC), told state media that Decree 147 would regulate behavior to maintain social order, national security, and sovereignty in cyberspace. The decree also stipulates that only verified accounts will be allowed to livestream, which could impact the growing number of people earning a living through social commerce on platforms like TikTok.

    In addition to its impact on social media companies, the new laws impose restrictions on gaming for individuals under 18, aimed at curbing addiction. Game publishers are expected to enforce a time limit of one hour per session and a maximum of 180 minutes of gameplay per day. Do remarked that games are “Designed to be Addictive”, noting that players often spend hours engaged in continuous matches.

    According to data from research firm Newzoo, just over half of Vietnam’s 100 million people regularly play such games. A significant portion of the population is also active on social media, with the MIC estimating around 65 million Facebook users, 60 million on YouTube, and 20 million on TikTok.

    While many pro-communist individuals believe the law will help protect people from the addiction to social media and the influence of Western culture, many young people have noted that their time spent on social media and playing games has negatively affected their lives. The harmful consequences are drawing increasing attention as the government’s actions unfold. The country is experiencing a resurgence of communist ideologies, reinforced by sweeping government and authority-led initiatives, such as the widely praised anti-corruption drive. These measures, framed as necessary to safeguard the state from its enemies, reflect a growing shift toward controlling governance and suppressing dissent.

  • The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    The Emirates Strategic Charm Offensive in Africa

    Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two ambitious nations seeking superpower status, have invested heavily in this pursuit, leveraging their immense wealth. Both have utilized Islam as their principal tool of influence, channeling resources into spreading their interpretations of the faith worldwide. Their efforts have included significant investments in conversion campaigns, mosque construction, and the global promotion of their ideologies. In addition, they have financed a variety of political and extremist groups, strengthening their foothold in numerous countries across the globe. More recently, however, the two states have turned to sports as their latest vector for influence. Qatar’s successful bid to host the FIFA World Cup stands as a remarkable testament to this strategy, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have secured high-profile sports deals and events. Beyond these pursuits, the Gulf states continue to invest in myriad ways—enhancing their soft power, cementing their global stature, and attempting, with varying success, to stake their claim as new superpowers.

    However, there is another country in the Gulf region that employs strategies to increase its soft power in a quieter, more effective way: the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Often seen in the shadow of Saudi Arabia, the UAE has pursued its own distinct agenda. Over time, it has crafted a positive image, positioning itself as a force separate from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Today, the UAE is the most invested and influential country in Africa, gradually establishing itself as a superpower through calculated diplomacy and strategic investments.

    The influence of the United Arab Emirates in Africa has grown unmistakably in recent years, as it has quietly cemented itself as the leading backer of new business ventures across the continent.  With many African nations eager to meet their urgent development needs, the UAE has positioned itself as a key partner, offering substantial investments with a sharp focus on green energy and infrastructure. Between 2019 and 2023, Emirati companies committed $110 billion to various projects, $72 billion of which was dedicated to renewable energy, according to FT Locations, a data firm owned by the Financial Times. This surpasses the combined pledges of the UK, France, and China, whose investments in African infrastructure have waned due to disappointing returns. As many African leaders grow increasingly disillusioned by the underwhelming climate finance commitments from Western governments, the UAE’s persistent investment strategy has earned it a reputation for reliability. At the COP29 conference, while Western nations promised a mere $300 billion annually—far less than the $1.3 trillion requested by developing countries—the UAE’s ongoing contributions stand as a clear and deliberate contrast, signaling not only economic strength, but an increasingly strategic diplomatic footprint across the African continent.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with subtlety and purpose, particularly in North and East Africa, where it has been an unspoken yet significant actor in the conflicts that have plagued Libya and Sudan. Unlike the international powerhouses of China and India, the UAE has kept a low profile in the global superpower race, often escaping the glaring scrutiny of the Western media or outlets such as Al Jazeera. This relative invisibility, in fact, has worked to the UAE’s advantage. Far from courting attention or controversy, it operates in the shadows, its investments flowing with far less opposition or critique, thus allowing its strategic engagement across Africa to unfold with remarkable ease.

    The UAE’s influence in Africa has grown with quiet determination too, largely through the early efforts of Dubai’s port and airline companies, which were among the first to establish a robust presence on the continent. Emirates, the airline controlled by the Dubai royal family, now services 20 African nations, a footprint that underscores its growing reach. Similarly, DP World, a state-owned giant, has been a fixture in the region since 2006. It currently oversees six ports and is planning to expand its footprint with two more. Abu Dhabi Ports has also made significant inroads, managing Kamsar Port in Guinea since 2013, and recently securing new concessions in Egypt, the Republic of Congo, and Angola. Angola stands out as the only country where both DP World and Abu Dhabi Ports are active. The UAE has not been swayed from its commitment to East Africa, but rather is seeking to extend its influence and connectivity toward the Americas, particularly Latin America.

    The UAE’s economic interests are equally broad, as Emirati firms diversify investments across sectors like agriculture and telecoms. Notably, since 2022, Dubai royal Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum has brokered deals to sell carbon credits from vast forests in several African nations—spanning 20% of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia, 10% of Zambia, and 8% of Tanzania. The UAE’s investments are shaping a new kind of geopolitical engagement—strategic, expansive, and far-reaching, yet executed largely beneath the radar.

    Emirati investments are reshaping long standing power dynamics in the mining sector too. One of the more surprising moves came when International Resource Holdings (IRH), a company controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s national security adviser, secured a $1.1 billion deal to acquire a 51% stake in Zambia’s Mopani Copper Mines. The announcement caught many off guard, as the shortlist of potential investors had long been expected to feature China’s Zijin Mining and South Africa’s Sibanye Stillwater. This shift occurred after Zambia’s state-run mining company, ZCCM, took over the ailing Mopani Copper Mines from Glencore in 2021, a transaction weighed down by crippling debt and the need for a fresh infusion of capital. Despite Sheikh Tahnoon’s company having no prior mining experience, the deal ultimately won over Zambian officials. IRH’s promise to invest heavily in the mine while maintaining jobs, coupled with its recruitment of world-class expertise, proved a compelling combination that outweighed conventional expectations. The transaction not only symbolized the UAE’s growing role in the sector, but also reflected a shift in how capital from the Gulf is infiltrating industries long dominated by larger, more established players. And there is the growing amount of illegally smuggled gold from African countries to Dubai. Research by the NGO Swissaid revealed a significant discrepancy between official exports from African nations to Dubai and the emirate’s actual imports. From 2012 to 2022, this difference amounted to 2,569 tons of gold, valued at an astonishing $115.3 billion. This surge in illicit gold trade further exemplifies the UAE’s influence in Africa.

    There is little doubt that pouring money into sporting events like the World Cup has granted Saudi Arabia and Qatar significant attention and influence, particularly within global sporting bodies. This is a form of influence, yes, but one rooted in wealth rather than subtlety. What sets the UAE apart is how its investments have drawn politicians, not only to its coffers, but also closer to its vision for regional and global dominance. In Africa, it can be argued that UAE influence is more refined and effective than that of its neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter maintains control over some of the most conservative Islamic nations, but it is the UAE’s diverse portfolio—spanning trade, infrastructure, and energy—that has given it the upper hand.

    While investment from traditional Western powers such as the United States and Europe has dwindled, often discouraged by the outspoken stances of African leaders, and the investments from China, India, and Russia have similarly faltered amid American political concerns, a perfect opening has emerged for the UAE. With fewer competitors and a clearer path forward, the UAE has seized the opportunity. As it continues to amplify its investments and diplomatic strategies, the Emirates have become arguably the most influential Gulf state in Africa, marking a significant shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape.

  • Can HTS Rebuild Syria Despite the Terrorist Stigma?

    Can HTS Rebuild Syria Despite the Terrorist Stigma?

    The Syrian civil war, which began in 2011 with a brutality few could have foreseen, has, in a technical sense, reached its conclusion. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, worn down by years of conflict and international sanctions, now belongs to history. In its place, Damascus is now under the control of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Sunni Islamist faction left to govern a fractured nation, torn apart by sectarian divisions and shaped by decades of authoritarian rule.

    To much of the world, HTS remains an organization shrouded in infamy, its name still marked by the stigma of terrorism. Yet, in the alleys of the capital and the corridors of power, its leaders—chief among them Ahmed al-Sharaa, better known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani—project an image of determined ambition. Their rhetoric emphasizes a break from the grim patterns of extremist rule, rejecting comparisons to the Taliban and pledging an approach guided by pragmatism and, perhaps, restraint. However, words, however carefully crafted to reassure a skeptical world, cannot erase the unease of minorities—Shia, Kurds, and countless others—whose fragile existence on the nation’s periphery remains haunted by the specter of displacement, discrimination, or worse.

    HTS’s tenure in Idlib, long a laboratory for its ambitions, hardly inspires confidence. Reports from the years of its administration there paint a picture of a governing apparatus that struggled to transcend its militant origins, marred by accusations of repression and ineptitude. Now, thrust into the complexities of running a modern state—an endeavor demanding more than rhetoric and religious zeal—the group must wrestle with a task that has humbled leaders far better prepared.

    The biggest challenge for Syria’s new administration is shedding the “Terrorist” label attached to its leadership—a designation that complicates its path to recognition, international aid, and the maneuvering room needed in Syria’s fragmented political landscape. For Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), securing legitimacy could unlock vital support from foreign powers, bolstering its position in a potential tug-of-war with rival factions and even a looming conflict with Kurdish forces.

    Diplomacy, often defined as the art of achieving the improbable, has become the tool of choice for Syria’s de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Blacklisted as a terrorist by the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and United Nations, al-Sharaa has managed to carve out surprising diplomatic inroads. Shedding his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, and the trappings of militant rebellion, he has recast himself as a statesman intent on steering Syria out of five decades of Assad rule. His overtures to Western officials have already borne fruit, with the United States recently lifting a $10 million bounty on his head following what he described as “Productive” talks.

    Winning Western support could prove transformative. Access to international aid would accelerate Syria’s reconstruction after more than a decade of ruinous war. Al-Sharaa’s government, if granted a modicum of trust by the West, could also leverage Sunni solidarity to attract funds from Gulf powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. An alignment with Sunni-majority nations might ease tensions with Israel, paving the way for regional stability—or at least détente.

    The Kurdish question, however, remains a stumbling block. Turkey, HTS’s largest benefactor, vehemently opposes Kurdish autonomy in Syria, while the United States may pressure Damascus to seek a fragile coexistence with Kurdish factions as part of any broader reconciliation. Al-Sharaa’s ability—or inability—to navigate this minefield could define his administration’s relationship with the West.

    Iran poses an equally complex challenge. Maintaining the fragile allegiance of Syria’s Shia minority will require delicate handling, particularly if Tehran views the new Sunni-led administration as a threat to its regional ambitions. Any missteps here risk turning Shia groups, with Iranian support, into a destabilizing force within Syria.

    Russia, meanwhile, cannot be ignored. Marginalized on the global stage but entrenched in Syria, Moscow remains a power broker capable of influencing Damascus’s fortunes. Al-Sharaa must walk a tightrope, balancing old alliances while pursuing new ones—a test of his diplomatic finesse as much as his political will.

    The harsh realities cannot be ignored: over 90 percent of Syrians live in poverty, more than six million have fled the country, and another seven million remain displaced within its borders. A decade of war has crippled the economy, leaving the nation in ruins. For HTS, the road ahead demands more than lofty promises—it requires pragmatic leadership and skilled diplomacy to secure the support essential for Syria’s reconstruction and renewal.

    A stable Syria offers more than just domestic benefits. Refugee returns could ease migration pressures on Turkey and Europe, but the UN has cautioned that hasty repatriation without international support risks reigniting the country’s deep-seated conflicts. Damascus must aim higher than mere stability; it must pursue sustainable peace within a unified state. That vision demands foreign powers, such as Israel, which continues to occupy Syrian territory illegally, step back to allow the country to heal.

    Sharaa’s calls for revisiting Syria’s political transition, particularly the relevance of the 2015 UN Security Council resolution that shaped it, carry merit. Yet his next steps will be decisive. If he insists on entrusting the drafting of a new constitution to a handpicked committee of loyalists, he risks repeating the mistakes of his predecessors. A meaningful constitution must emerge from an assembly elected by Syrians or representatives of the country’s vast diversity—not from a closed circle of ideological allies.

    Failure to adopt an inclusive approach could erode the legitimacy of a new charter, reducing it to a document as disregarded as the Assad regime’s defunct constitution. Sharaa’s rhetoric suggests he understands the stakes, but his actions will determine whether Syria’s long-awaited renewal can take hold—or whether its divisions will only deepen.

  • India’s Khalistan Paradox: Divisions That Endure

    India’s Khalistan Paradox: Divisions That Endure

    Sikhs, one of the many religious communities in India, have long pursued political ambitions and established their own territories in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent over the centuries. The religion, a blend of Hinduism and Islam, was once the state religion of the Khalsa Raj, which existed on the map from 1799 to 1849 and stretched over a large area during its period. Sikhs fought against the rulers of India, the Mughals and the British, but ultimately, their kingdom fell under British rule and became part of British India. After the British split the kingdom’s territory between India and Pakistan, Punjab, the heart of the Sikh kingdom, was divided into Western Punjab, which went to Pakistan, and Eastern Punjab, which remained part of India. While most of the Sikh population moved to Eastern Punjab after facing persecution from Islamist forces in Pakistan, India warmly welcomed them and appointed Sikhs to key positions in the government. The initial harmony between Sikhs and Hindus was strong, as Sikhs did not share the same rivalry with Hindus as they did with Muslims. However, the demand for an independent Sikh state, under the name of Khalistan, soon began to trouble the relationship.

    Besides India and Pakistan, a large Sikh diaspora existed in English-speaking countries due to prolonged British rule. As Sikhs gained wealth and influence, they amplified the demand for a separate state by carving it out of India. Khalistan, the proposed land for the Sikh state, was supported by overseas Sikhs and Western governments, who feared India’s growing alignment with the Soviet Union. The demand for Sikh statehood received heavy funding from the West and Pakistan, which, after losing East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) due to India’s intervention, saw this as an opportunity to support Sikh youth. This eventually led to the Sikh insurgency in the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the region of Punjab experienced a wave of terrorist acts, prompting the Indian government to respond with a strong stance. This led to the assassination of India’s then-Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, by her Sikh bodyguards. The assassination caused widespread anger and riots against Sikhs, with propaganda spreading in India that equated Sikhs with Muslims—suggesting both prioritize religion over their motherland. Anti-Sikh campaigns were carried out across India. Once a beloved community, Sikhs became increasingly viewed with suspicion. Overseas Sikhs exploited these tensions to rally youth, recruit them, and spread their propaganda both abroad and in India. They used both peaceful and violent means to keep the issue alive among the Sikh diaspora and in India.

    As India’s domestic politics shifted toward Hindu nationalism, with the BJP holding a strong majority and Narendra Modi emerging as a powerful figure, overseas Sikhs feared that India would assimilate the Sikh population through nationalism. Sikh leaders, who are highly influential in Canadian politics, and community leaders in the UK, USA, and other countries, began attacking Modi and the BJP, pressuring their respective governments to take a tougher stance against him. In response, Modi targeted Khalistan supporters fiercely. The clashes became more frequent, and Sikhs supporting Khalistan attempted a coup under the guise of the farmers’ protests. As Modi tightened his grip on India, the Khalistan movement shifted its focus to foreign countries, particularly Canada, the USA, the UK, and Australia, where Khalistan supporting Sikhs launched large campaigns against India, attacking Hindus, delivering hate speeches, and desecrating the Indian flag.

    By the 2020s, Sikh leaders, long recognized for their provocative rhetoric against India and Hindus, began to face an alarming wave of anonymous attacks. On June 18, 2023, one of the most prominent voices in this movement, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, was fatally shot in the parking lot of a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia This triggered a huge outcry in the Sikh diaspora against India, with some accusing Indian diplomats and the Indian spy agency RAW of orchestrating the attack. A few weeks later, Khalistani supporters set fire to the Indian consulate in San Francisco, and Indian diplomats were subsequently targeted by Khalistanis. Canada used this attack to criticize India. Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister and a staunch supporter of Sikhs, directly entered the conflict, turning it into an India-Canada dispute. In 2023, the United States also came out against India by alleging a plot by the Indian government to assassinate New York–based Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a spokesperson for the pro-Khalistan group Sikhs for Justice, who openly threatened to bomb Indian planes, among other actions.

    India will not allow any further secession, as it now has a Hindu nationalist government working toward an Akhand Bharat, a union of all Indian subcontinent countries. However, Sikhs are receiving significant support from Canada, which has a large Sikh voter base and influential leaders like Jagmeet Singh. As a result, the demand for Khalistan will likely continue to grow. If India does not make serious efforts to improve the living conditions of Sikhs within the country, the diaspora can easily utilize them. Moreover, regardless of whether China is involved, the West does not want a superpower to emerge in Asia and may sponsor attempts at secessionism in India to destabilize it. As a result, Khalistan will likely receive continued support from the West. This will push India closer to Russia and China, creating turbulence in its relations with the West. Therefore, Khalistan will continue to act as a barrier between India and the West.

  • Does Israel Want To Expand?

    Does Israel Want To Expand?

    Israel is often seen as having no expansion plans beyond the territories of the former British Mandate. Its actions following the Six-Day War support this perception, as it briefly held Gaza and returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, both gained during the conflict. Similarly, Israel reclaimed areas under the British Mandate from Jordan, specifically the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which were previously under Jordanian control. After regaining these territories, Israel negotiated agreements with neighboring countries, promoting mutual respect for borders and significantly reducing regional tensions.

    The territories reclaimed from Egypt and Jordan are now recognized by international authorities as part of the Palestinian state. However, Israel expanded its Jewish population in these areas through planned settlement growth, transforming arid deserts into fertile land, and relocating more people to these regions. Numerous reports, even before the renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas on October 7, 2022, point to Israel’s de facto annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, Israel has made fewer efforts to establish settlements in Gaza, and the situation has largely remained stable since the withdrawal of settlements in 2005. However, following the October 7 attacks, it is now clear that Israel will likely follow the strategies it used in the West Bank, leading to further encroachment on what some view as the future state of an independent Palestine.

    Israel’s recent actions have raised further doubts, as its expansion plans now appear to extend beyond the former British Mandate. In addition to these territories, Israel continues to control the Golan Heights, which was not part of the British Mandate and which the international community still recognizes as part of Syria, and which it has not returned through peace negotiations. As Israel shifts its military operations toward its borders with Lebanon and Syria, and with Gaza no longer posing an immediate threat from the south, the country seems to be intensifying its focus on the Golan Heights. Israel is following the same strategies used in the West Bank. The Israeli government has approved a plan to invest over $11 million in the occupied Golan Heights, aiming to double the region’s population. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the initiative an important response to the evolving “New Front” with Syria, emphasizing that strengthening the Golan Heights is essential for strengthening Israel at this time. Netanyahu reiterated the government’s intent to retain the area, promote its development, and expand settlements there. 

    Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Israel established a buffer zone by stationing troops on the Syrian side of the border, arguing that previous ceasefire agreements had collapsed due to changes in Damascus. Reports suggest that Israeli troops have extended their presence beyond this buffer zone in several areas. The Golan Heights is home to over 50,000 people, including Jewish Israelis and members of the Druze and Alawite religious minorities. As the Jewish population grows and Syria maintains stable governance, the Muslim population may move towards Syria, which will likely lead to undisputed Israeli control of the Golan Heights. There are now more than 30 Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, housing around 20,000 people. Netanyahu stated that Israel would continue to hold onto the territory, make it flourish, and expand settlements there. This announcement followed a day after Syria’s new de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, criticized Israel for its ongoing strikes on military targets in Syria, reportedly targeting military facilities.

    As Netanyahu maintains a cruise mode, he is likely to adopt a more aggressive approach. The Golan Heights, surrounding areas, Lebanon, and even Yemen hold historical significance for the Jewish people, with a once-thriving Jewish population that was displaced by Arabs. Given this, Netanyahu may plan to re-establish settlements in these regions to serve Jewish interests. It may seem like an exaggeration, but by observing these trends, it is clear that Israel seeks expansion, citing security as the justification. This pattern is evident in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Lebanon, and potentially Aden. The Jewish people have a deep connection to their history.

  • Will Singapore Ever Recognize Palestine?

    Will Singapore Ever Recognize Palestine?

    As the Israel-Hamas conflict slipped into yet another charged chapter, Singapore retained its measured commitment to a two-state solution, its calls for Palestinian sovereignty growing steadily louder. Yet, despite these increasingly public declarations of support, the city-state continues to withhold formal recognition of Palestine. By contrast, its Muslim-majority neighbors have embraced a more unequivocal stance, championing Palestinian statehood while categorically refusing to recognize Israel. Their position is tethered to the broader contours of the “From the River to the Sea” ideology, a vision that entertains the erasure of the Jewish state altogether.

    If not to dismantle Israel, the question might reasonably arise: why not recognize both? Intriguingly, Singapore sets itself apart not just from its regional peers but also from nations that recognize both Israel and Palestine. Instead, it aligns with countries like Japan and South Korea, which extend official recognition solely to Israel. But unlike these countries, who remain muted on the question of Palestine, Singapore strikes a markedly different tone. Through consistent, though noncommittal, expressions of support, it fosters a posture that is at once active and ambiguous—a calculated ambiguity that renders its stance an exercise in balancing rhetoric and restraint.

    There were fleeting moments when Singapore seemed poised to join the growing list of nations recognizing Palestine, as Spain and Armenia had done in recent years, spurred by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each time, however, Singapore stepped back. In May, a proposed resolution to recognize Palestine sparked cautious optimism across the Islamic world, which saw the potential shift as a significant gesture from a prominent Asian nation. The optimism, though, proved premature. By July, in a parliamentary address, Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan announced that Singapore would recognize Palestine—only for the resolution to be quietly shelved.

    Come September, Singapore once again appeared to take a bold step, supporting a United Nations General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territories within a year. Whispers swirled of Singapore leaning favorably toward Palestine, yet the momentum faltered once more.

    Singapore’s delicate balancing act took center stage in a recent podcast episode featuring Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. Reflecting on the Gaza war and its global repercussions, Wong affirmed Singapore’s commitment to collaborating with international partners to help secure a homeland for the Palestinian people while aiding their preparation for eventual statehood. He stressed the necessity of a deliberate and nuanced approach, positioning Singapore as neither beholden to the views of its neighbors nor inclined to alienate the United States. Technical assistance, Wong argued, represents a meaningful and uniquely Singaporean contribution to global affairs—a strategy deeply rooted in the city-state’s diplomatic ethos. Drawing comparisons to Singapore’s well-established support initiatives across Southeast Asia, he suggested that similar efforts could play a critical role in equipping Palestine for the responsibilities of statehood. Over the course of the 46-minute podcast, Wong’s remarks revealed a careful and calibrated strategy—one that seeks to balance principle with pragmatism, charting a course that maintains Singapore’s reputation as a constructive, if cautious, participant in the global dialogue on Palestine.

    In the interview organized by Plan B, Prime Minister Wong reiterated Singapore’s steadfast support for a two-state solution, while emphasizing the nation’s recent initiatives to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Since the war erupted in October 2023, Singapore has dispatched five consignments of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Both government-led and citizen-driven contributions have amassed over US$13 million in donations to support relief efforts. Earlier this month, Dr. Maliki Osman, Singapore’s Second Minister for Foreign Affairs, met with Dr. Mohammad Mustafa, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Palestine, during a conference in Cairo. There, Dr. Maliki reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to assisting Palestine in its capacity-building endeavors. Moreover, Singapore has expanded the number of scholarships offered under its Enhanced Technical Assistance Package for Palestinians, increasing the annual intake from three to ten. 

    While Singapore’s public stance appears to align with Gaza, its domestic policies exhibit a more restrictive approach, particularly when it comes to managing any form of public protest that could tarnish its image. In October of the previous year, authorities prohibited public events tied to the Gaza conflict, even in the country’s sole designated free speech zone, citing concerns about public safety and security. They also issued a warning against displaying symbols associated with the war. Three women were charged for attempting to organize a group of 70 individuals to deliver pro-Palestinian letters to the president’s office and official residence without a permit. Despite such efforts being stifled, there has been ongoing pressure from Palestinian supporters in the city-state for Singapore to sever its defense ties with Israel and officially recognize Palestinian statehood. This has been accompanied by a surge in public mobilization. A petition demanding the government recognize Palestine as a state has collected over 10,000 signatures since its launch in October.

    The Singaporean government’s sympathy for Palestine is evident, yet its actions reveal the deep constraints of what it is willing—or able—to offer. While there is a notable push for practical support, the more contentious issue of formal recognition remains elusive. This tension speaks to the complex diplomatic landscape that Singapore must traverse. The city-state, often characterized as conservative in practice but progressive in appearance, exemplifies this paradox. On closer inspection, it is apparent in nearly every facet of its policies.

    With 15 percent of its population Muslim and deep business ties to neighboring Muslim-majority countries, Singapore can no longer ignore the Palestinian cause. However, any move to formally recognize Palestine seems untenable without risking its strategic relationships elsewhere. Chief among these is its long-standing military alliance with Israel, which dates back to Singapore’s split from Malaysia in 1965. At that time, Israel played a key role in helping build Singapore’s military—an offer other regional powers, like India, had refused. Caught in this diplomatic web, the city-state finds itself in a precarious position, unable to fully align with either side without facing significant consequences. Though Singapore will likely delay its recognition of Palestine “Until the Right Time.”

  • How the BJP’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ Is Redefining Indian Democracy

    How the BJP’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ Is Redefining Indian Democracy

    From the United States to Japan, democracies everywhere contend with a common predicament: the staggering financial burden of elections. Governments allocate vast budgets to organize them, while political parties and candidates pour in even greater sums to secure victory. This flood of money—both aboveboard and concealed—not only fuels corruption but often forges troubling alliances between business tycoons and politicians, bound by the relentless demand for funds. Fair elections remain the cornerstone of democracy, but their escalating costs can feel like a silent affliction, gradually undermining the very principles they are designed to protect.

    In India, the world’s largest democracy, elections scale up into grand spectacles of participation and spending. With over a billion people involved, the process transcends politics, transforming into a sprawling festival of flags, rallies, sweets, and freebies. Spanning months, election seasons unfold in staggered phases, covering parliamentary, state, and local polls across 28 states and multiple union territories. The financial strain on the nation is immense, fueled not only by government and political party expenditures but also by the pervasive corruption and money laundering that frequently accompany the process.

    The relentless cycle of political campaigns, rife with financial and ethical challenges, undeniably hampers India’s economic momentum. Yet democracy, by its very nature, cannot exist without elections. To address this dilemma, the Indian government has put forth the contentious “One Nation, One Election” proposal—a bold attempt to streamline the electoral process and curb costs and corruption. But the question persists: will this sweeping reform resolve India’s electoral quandary, or will it usher in a host of new complications?

    An India Today report predicts that the cost of the 2024 elections could soar to a staggering 1.35 trillion rupees. While official figures remain unverified, experts believe the final cost will likely surpass this estimate. The Centre for Media Studies, a Delhi-based non-profit, revealed that India spent over 600 billion rupees on the 2019 general elections, making it the world’s most expensive at the time. Added to this are the billions spent on various state elections. Confronted with these enormous costs, the government has proposed a solution aimed at reducing financial strain: the merger of national and state elections, to be held once every five years. This forms the backbone of the “One Nation, One Election” initiative. The Indian government is considering the synchronization of all elections, whether within a single month or a set time frame, to ease the financial burden of repeated electoral cycles.

    Beyond financial savings, the government argues that the proposal would bring other benefits: by avoiding the disruptions caused by ongoing election seasons, governance could become more efficient, and politicians could focus on national issues rather than just campaigning. Additionally, the government believes it would also boost voter participation and encourage greater political engagement.

    For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been a staunch advocate for the concept of “One Nation, One Election.” The party has long supported a vision of a strong central government over a decentralized federal system. But this idea has sparked fierce opposition, particularly from India’s regional parties and the Congress Party, the country’s historic political powerhouse.

    The Congress Party now opposes the “One Nation, One Election” proposal, despite having conducted unified elections from 1951 to 1967. In stark contrast to Modi’s vision of a centralized system, Congress seems fragmented and hesitant to endorse the initiative. Party leaders fear the proposal could bolster Modi’s position, using his national popularity to secure synchronized state and parliamentary elections, potentially weakening Congress’s foothold in state politics. Many regional parties share this concern, believing the plan would further undermine India’s federal structure. They worry that national issues would dominate in a unified election cycle, sidelining state-specific concerns and diminishing the influence of regional governments in the national conversation.

    With a five-year parliamentary term and the possibility of no elections in between, critics argue that such a system would free the ruling party from the democratic “Test” of frequent elections. This, they warn, could empower the government to push through unpopular policies—like fuel price hikes—without fear of electoral consequence.

    Though the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) still enjoys a commanding position, even with a two-thirds majority necessary to amend the constitution, its path to implementing “One Nation, One Election” faces obstacles. On Tuesday, India’s law minister, Arjun Ram Meghwal, introduced a bill in Parliament to establish the system, only for it to fail in a vote. In a notable twist, even BJP members—including a prominent union minister—abstained from voting. However, the government remains undeterred, planning to move the issue to a parliamentary committee for further deliberation. The committee will review a report from former President Ram Nath Kovind, who chaired a nine-member panel recommending simultaneous elections. Kovind described the proposal as a “Game Changer,” citing economists who believe the change could bolster India’s GDP by up to 1.5%.

    India, the world’s largest democracy, is perpetually in election season. With 28 states, eight union territories, and nearly a billion eligible voters, elections are an ever-present feature of the nation’s political landscape. Unifying all elections into one season may reduce the spectacle and vibrancy of the process, but it could ultimately strengthen India’s democracy by streamlining elections and curbing excessive spending. However, this shift risks eroding the federal nature of India’s constitution, potentially creating tension at the local level. The impact of the “One Nation, One Election” proposal could fundamentally alter Indian democracy, diminishing the role of federalism and state-level politics, leaving national parties and their agendas with dominant influence.

  • As Sanctions Suffocate Russia, Kazakhstan Struggles to Breathe

    As Sanctions Suffocate Russia, Kazakhstan Struggles to Breathe

    Landlocked and deeply intertwined with Russian politics and economics, Kazakhstan has long felt the gravitational pull of its northern neighbor. For decades, the nation has relied on Russia as its gateway to the globe. But as Russia faces its toughest period in recent years and endures a deluge of sanctions over its war in Ukraine, Kazakhstan’s dependence has become costly.

    When the war began and Western sanctions were imposed on Russia, many speculated that Kazakhstan might benefit from Russia’s economic isolation, with businesses redirecting trade through its borders. However, the reality has been far harsher. Kazakhstan now finds itself burdened by unavoidable sanctions. The surging U.S. dollar, a weakening ruble, and a flood of Russian migrants, goods, and businesses have further strained the country’s economy. This mounting pressure has battered the tenge, stretched public finances, and made daily life increasingly difficult for its citizens.

    Over the past two weeks, the Kazakh tenge has steadily weakened, unsettling citizens just ahead of the holiday season. On December 4, the currency dropped to 522 against the U.S. dollar. Although it briefly regained ground, it slid again, trading at 521 by December 11. This sharp decline—nearly 10 percent in just ten days—has ignited a firestorm on social media across Kazakhstan. The tenge’s rapid depreciation is fueling inflation, especially for food and consumer goods, much of which is imported from Russia. In Almaty and other cities, prices continue to rise, compounding the stress on an already uneasy population.

    Kazakhstan’s National Bank, in a statement on November 28, attributed the tenge’s sharp decline to a number of external fundamental factors. The bank identified Russia’s faltering economy, grappling with a steep ruble devaluation, as a key driver of the currency’s struggles. The tenge’s drop closely followed reports of the ruble hitting its lowest level in over two years after the announcement of a fresh round of U.S. sanctions.

    The National Bank highlighted the strengthening U.S. dollar as a significant factor driving the tenge’s decline, noting that a strong dollar is traditionally a negative factor for raw materials. It also cited the worsening geopolitics and energy market price volatility as additional pressures on foreign exchange markets.

    Kazakhstan’s reliance on raw materials like oil and gas as its primary exports has heightened speculative pressure, increasing the likelihood of further currency volatility.  Energy companies, a major source of government revenue in Kazakhstan, pay their taxes in dollars. As a result, the tenge’s recent decline is not expected to significantly impact the state budget in the short term. Despite this, economic analysts remain concerned about the near future.

    In late November, the National Bank sold more than $1 billion in assets from the National Fund, the country’s strategic reserves, and plans to allocate another $900 million in December to stabilize the tenge. To curb inflation, the bank also increased the base rate by one percentage point, raising it to 15.25 percent.

    Analysts worry that Kazakhstan’s heavy dependence on the National Fund to prop up the tenge may undermine the country’s economic resilience in the medium term. In October, the International Monetary Fund called on Astana to establish clearer fiscal policy guidelines to safeguard the National Fund’s ability to finance social and economic infrastructure projects and shield the economy from future shocks.

    By the end of November, the National Bank revised its inflation forecast for 2025, raising the projected range to 6.5-8.5 percent from the earlier estimate of 5.5-7.5 percent. However, actual price increases significantly outpace the official inflation figures, as highlighted by price comparisons in stores and markets frequently shared by bloggers.

    Many investors have started to withdraw their money from the country. Despite higher interest rates and rising credit costs, people continue to take out loans, which inevitably pushes prices higher and places additional pressure on the tenge. The weakening ruble against both the U.S. dollar and the tenge could also lead to an influx of Russian food and goods into the Kazakh market. This influx, experts warn, could erode the competitiveness of local producers and further destabilize Kazakhstan’s economy. Tough times lie ahead for the country. Although the government and National Bank claim they are addressing the issue and try to spread optimism, the public remains unconvinced.

    In reality, Kazakhstan has little control over the situation, as it remains deeply tied to Russia, an influence it cannot escape. While China recently surpassed Russia as Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner in overall turnover, Russia still held the top spot as Kazakhstan’s primary source of imports during the first eight months of 2024, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the total, according to official government statistics. 

    Kazakhstan’s dependence on Russia is largely a result of the country’s corrupt political elites. For over 30 years, these leaders have prioritized political maneuvering, self-promotion, and resource distribution, rather than working to strengthen the nation’s statehood. They have neglected vital areas such as economic development, infrastructure diversification (including alternative oil export routes), the creation of a secure information environment, improving public welfare, and fostering a stable middle class. By mirroring Russia’s political system, they constructed a false democracy that silences opposition and preserves their own grip on power. Closing the door to the West, they guaranteed continued alignment with Russia. As long as the current administration remains in power, Kazakhstan’s ties to Russia will endure, despite Western attempts to intervene. Meanwhile, the burden of this relationship continues to fall on the people.