Author: Caracal

  • What’s Going On Between the Philippines President and Vice President?

    What’s Going On Between the Philippines President and Vice President?

    Philippine politics is a shame for democracy, dominated by powerful political dynasties. Politicians manipulate elections to maintain patronage networks, while clientelism and electoral fraud are deeply embedded in the system, allowing corruption to thrive. Weak state institutions struggle to uphold their credibility. Though it is interesting to watch, like a drama—particularly action dramas—these dynasties love to fight each other, and often these feuds reach toxic levels. In the latest episode of the Philippines’ political drama, the president and vice president, elected from different political dynasties, have sparked a new wave of conflict, including death threats. Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, publicly declared on Saturday that she would have someone assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (Bongbong Marcos), son of former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Duterte revealed that she had contacted an assassin and ordered him to kill Marcos, his wife, and the speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives if enemies were to murder her. She believes the president’s team is trying to kill her. She made it clear that her words were serious. Duterte also threatened to exhume the remains of Marcos Sr., her political rival’s father, and throw them into the sea. Too cold!

    The very next day, Duterte denied making an assassination threat and clarified that any killing would depend on her dying first. Duterte further claimed that merely discussing the possibility of such an act was not actionable. However, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. declared on Monday that he would not take troubling threats against him lightly. Marcos’s office labeled Duterte-Carpio’s remarks as an active threat and said the executive secretary had referred the incident to the Presidential Security Command for immediate action.

    Although the vice president later retracted her comments, the fallout fueled discussions about her potential impeachment. And The Department of Justice noted that, unlike the president, Duterte was not immune from suit and might face charges of grave threats and sedition, as well as disbarment from her law profession. And it’s quite possible in revenge politics. 

    During the 2022 presidential election, the relationship between the president and vice president, as well as their two political families, was strong. However, it has since deteriorated. The two families clash over foreign policy, former president Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly war on drugs, and other issues. Sara Duterte resigned from the cabinet in June while remaining vice president, signaling the collapse of a powerful political alliance. In the fallout, Speaker Romualdez, a cousin of Marcos, slashed the vice-presidential office’s budget by nearly two-thirds. Angered, Duterte accused Marcos of incompetence and even claimed she had imagined cutting off the president’s head. She also called for the country to descend into hell under a lying president.

    Even though the threat is most likely politically motivated, the Southeast Asian nation is notorious for political violence, killings, and other criminal activities. Some consider Sara Duterte’s claim and threat to be possible, but many believe she is simply laying the groundwork for the upcoming elections. Filipinos have a long history of supporting strong, mafia-like leaders, and she and her family are well aware of this. Her dramatic break with the president gives her the chance to present herself as an alternative to a government that has lost popularity due to the economy’s lackluster performance. Despite the threats of impeachment and potential sedition charges, this could provide her with a stronger platform for the 2028 presidential race than remaining aligned with the Marcos administration. It is clear that she has inherited the toxic politics of the Philippines.

  • Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire: A Path to Peace or a Temporary Pause?

    Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire: A Path to Peace or a Temporary Pause?

    Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire, bringing an end to their latest wave of conflict. The truce went into effect at 4 a.m. Wednesday in Lebanon, drawing praise from peace advocates and world leaders. However, Israeli airstrikes on Beirut, including several in the city center, occurred just before the ceasefire began, further contributing to the chaos on the ground. The Israeli military issued warnings to residents in southern Lebanon to avoid IDF positions and evacuated villages. Despite the warnings and ongoing uncertainty, residents filled the roads from Beirut to southern Lebanon, determined to return to their homes. Hezbollah and the Amal political movement provided guidance for those returning to villages south of the Litani River. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government remained silent, revealing its inability to assert authority or manage the unfolding situation.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed the deal after his full cabinet approved it, despite opposition from his far-right allies. In televised remarks following the Israeli security cabinet’s vote on the 60-day ceasefire proposal, Netanyahu confirmed his readiness to implement the deal but stressed that Israel would retain full military freedom to act if Hezbollah violated the ceasefire.

    The 60-day agreement, spanning two months, is grounded in UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah but remains only partially enforced. Under its terms, Israel must withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah is required to move its heavy weaponry north of the Litani River, about 25 kilometers from the border. During the transition, the Western-backed Lebanese army is expected to take up positions in the south.

    Although Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, its forces are not included in the official military. A copy of the ceasefire deal, reviewed by Reuters, specifies that only official military and security forces in Lebanon may carry weapons. While Hezbollah is unlikely to fully disarm, it may reduce its visible armed presence. Israel has consistently criticized Hezbollah for stationing weapons near its border.

    Both parties repeatedly cycle through conflicts and ceasefires, demonstrating that neither truly seeks lasting peace. This time, they paused strategically and agreed to a truce because both required time. Their deep-rooted hatred persists without any signs of diminishing. Hezbollah considers expelling Jews a religious obligation, while Israel, fueled by the memory of the October 7th attack, remains driven by a desire for vengeance. Hezbollah uses the truce to rebuild its infrastructure, which Israel’s attacks and the loss of its top leader have severely damaged. At the same time, Israel works to strengthen ties with the incoming Trump administration and avoid escalating the conflict further, as doing so could harm its business relationships with Gulf states. And the truce gives Israel an opportunity to shift its focus toward Gaza.

    Will this ceasefire pave the way for one in Gaza? That remains unclear. Israel has not shifted its focus toward securing a truce in Gaza. The current agreement does not address the ongoing conflict there, where U.S.-led efforts to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have so far failed. Negotiators deliberately excluded Gaza from the discussions. When asked about the possibility of a Gaza ceasefire, Biden expressed cautious optimism, stating that he believed it was possible and hoped for it. However, Israel may delay addressing the Gaza conflict until Trump takes office, when he could bring a plan for Gaza that heavily favors Israel’s interests.

  • Will Pakistan’s Shias Meet the Same Fate as Its Other Minorities?

    Will Pakistan’s Shias Meet the Same Fate as Its Other Minorities?

    Pakistan, the first Islamic Republic, has gained notoriety for its treatment of minorities, who endure forced conversions, abductions of their daughters, killings, or imprisonment under harsh blasphemy laws. The country’s troubled history with minorities spans decades and has become institutionalized over time. Although divisions among communities were visible from its inception, the dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled from 1977 to 1988, entrenched these divisions further. Under his rule, Pakistan’s laws became deeply rooted in Islamic principles. Zia’s Islamization policies enforced a strict Sunni interpretation of Islam, marginalizing other communities. These policies, combined with Islamic politics, deepened societal divisions and escalated violence against minorities.

    Persecution under Islamic laws initially targeted non-Muslims, such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, who chose to remain in Pakistan despite warnings of potential dangers. However, discrimination soon extended to sects within Islam. The Ahmadiyya community faced brutal suppression, and in 1974, a constitutional amendment officially declared them “Non-Muslim,” effectively giving extremists a license to attack them.

    Shias, the largest religious minority group in Pakistan, have also been frequent targets of sectarian violence. The historical feud between Shias and Sunnis, rooted in centuries-old differences in religious practices, continues to fuel such violence. Extremists often view acts like killing each other as religious duties. In Pakistan’s Sunni-majority republic, Shias have faced systemic oppression and exclusion from the mainstream. Mosques are frequently bombed during religious festivals and other significant occasions, while Shia followers are pressured to conform to Sunni practices and teachings.

    Shias actively resisted movements that threatened their religious practices, including Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization campaign, which they viewed as “Sunnification.” In July 1980, 25,000 Shias staged a famous protest in Islamabad against these laws. However, such protests only deepened hostilities. Despite their resistance, sectarian violence continued unabated, and deaths became a grim norm. Between 2001 and 2018, approximately 4,800 Shias were killed in sectarian violence

    After a brief period of increased political clashes taking center stage, the Sunni-Shia conflict is once again escalating in the Islamic Republic, particularly since the last parliamentary elections. In the latest development, around 300 families have fled sectarian violence in northwest Pakistan, as fresh clashes killed 32 people last Saturday. Sporadic fighting between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the mountainous Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which borders Afghanistan, has claimed the lives of about 150 people in recent months.  The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported that 79 people died between July and October due to sectarian violence. The death toll is expected to rise as fighting between Shia and Sunni communities continues in multiple locations. The recent clashes, which left 32 dead—14 Sunnis and 18 Shias—occurred just two days after gunmen opened fire on two separate convoys of Shia Muslims traveling with a police escort in Kurram, killing 43 people and leaving 11 in critical condition, according to officials. On Friday evening, in Kurram, a once semi-autonomous region, Shia Muslims attacked several Sunni locations in retaliation. 

    The conflict is set to intensify in the coming days, with Shias likely to endure even greater suffering. Pakistan’s ineffective administration is ill-equipped to address the situation, and the increasing Sunnification of its politics, combined with the Taliban’s growing influence in the region, will exacerbate the persecution of Shias. The weakening Islamic Republic of Iran will further contribute to this crisis. 

    Pakistan, as an ally of the United States, has effectively masked these atrocities from global scrutiny by fabricating data and manipulating narratives to downplay the extent of persecution. As a result, the international community remains largely unaware of the true scale of injustices faced by minorities and marginalized sects in the country. However, Pakistan cannot advance or survive while promoting deeply entrenched sectarian divisions. Emphasizing Islamic fervor and anti-India rhetoric might briefly unite factions, but it does not provide a sustainable path forward.

  • The Politics of Climate Conference

    The Politics of Climate Conference

    There are no longer any doubts about climate change, as its effects are evident to everyone. People’s suffering continues to grow, but climate spending and the politics surrounding it have caused significant division. The global right-wing and those burdened by rising living costs protest the expenses tied to climate initiatives, while the global left and climate activists demand more funding for climate action. As this polarization grows, the United Nations held its annual Climate Change Conference, COP29, in Azerbaijan, a country made up of oil. The conference took place in Baku from November 11 to 22, 2024.

    Unlike previous years, the event failed to generate significant attention. Despite the Azerbaijani government investing substantial oil revenues in PR campaigns, international media provided minimal coverage. The conference lost the global focus it once enjoyed, though it sparked some interesting controversies. The controversy began with the choice of hosts. Last year, Dubai—a wealthy, oil-rich desert hub—hosted the conference. This year, the decision to hold COP29 in Azerbaijan raised eyebrows once again. Azerbaijan, a major oil and gas producer, is also known for its authoritarian governance and widespread corruption. Adding to the controversy, Mukhtar Babayev, a longtime official with Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil company SOCAR, served as the president of COP29. These contradictions are glaring, much like LGBTQ+ advocates supporting Muslim rights. The peak of these ironies fuels doubts among the public and erodes trust in global climate efforts. Many accuse these actions of greenwashing, with little positive impact on the climate. Countries and businesses use climate change as a means to generate public opinion, much like how sports-washing works.

    COP29 Chief Executive Elnur Soltanov was secretly recorded discussing potential oil and gas deals during the conference, raising serious concerns about the need for such high-cost events. And EU diplomats criticized Azerbaijan for excluding fossil fuel phase-out from the conference agenda, which focused solely on mitigation. These events led Papua New Guinea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Justin Tkatchenko, to announce a boycott of the summit, calling it a total waste of time.

    Discussions largely focused on climate-related finances. A key agenda item was negotiating the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, which sought to establish a new financial target to support developing nations after 2025, building on the previous $100 billion annual commitment. Proposed solutions included blended finance, which combines public and private investments to boost funding for climate initiatives, and debt-for-nature swaps, allowing countries to redirect debt repayments toward environmental and climate projects. COP29 encouraged global financial institutions and the private sector to increase climate finance and invest in green innovation. 

    Delegates also agreed on rules and established a UN registry to facilitate and track international carbon credit trading. Key points of tension in the negotiations involved the donor base. Developed economies, such as the US and the European Union, argued that resource-rich countries like China and Gulf Cooperation Council nations should automatically contribute. Another point of contention was the share of funding coming from public budgets, with developing countries demanding significant increases in public, non-loan grants. The final $300 billion climate finance agreement stipulates that both public and private sources will provide funding and encourages voluntary contributions from developing countries, including China and Middle Eastern nations.

    The next COP, set to take place in Brazil in 2025, is expected to witness more intense political friction. The United States will have a new president, one who has shown little interest in climate-related issues. This shift could influence major countries, particularly in Europe, where there is significant opposition to spending large amounts of money on climate initiatives. The rise of right-wing movements and the weakening of climate-focused green parties in Europe may further undermine pledges, as they may not come to fruition. Meanwhile, China and India, the world’s growing economies, are unlikely to bear the burden even though they find clear opportunities in the process. As a result, the climate will continue to heat up.

  • Hindutva Strengthens Its Hold in India’s Wealthiest State

    Hindutva Strengthens Its Hold in India’s Wealthiest State

    Maharashtra, the largest economy in India, the second most populous state, and the third largest by area, has chosen the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Hindutva alliance to form the government for another five years through a landslide victory in the legislative assembly election. The state is home to India’s business capital, Mumbai, and serves as a major hub for business in the country. It is also the largest contributor to India’s economy, accounting for 14% of the national nominal GDP. Maharashtra’s significance in India’s economy and politics cannot be overstated, as political parties rely heavily on funding from the state. This victory marks a significant boost for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, following setbacks in the previous parliamentary and Jammu and Kashmir elections, and strengthens the party’s financial position as well.

    The Maharashtra Assembly election for the 15th Legislative Assembly took place on November 20, 2024, with voters selecting all 288 members. Voter turnout reached 66.05%, the highest since 1995. The election featured a contest between two major alliances, reminiscent of the previous Indian parliamentary election.The first alliance, the Hindutva Alliance named Mahayuti, includes the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Shiv Sena (SS), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and several regional parties. This alliance, led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde of Shiv Sena, currently governs Maharashtra, with the BJP being the largest party within the coalition. The second alliance, the Secular Alliance named Maha Vikas Aghadi, consists of the Indian National Congress (INC), Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (SS-UBT), the Nationalist Congress Party Sharadchandra Pawar(NCP-SP), the Samajwadi Party, communist parties, and other regional parties. While both alliances represent a broad spectrum of political ideologies—Hindutva and secularism—members have come together primarily to form a government. During the campaigns and even after voting concluded, both alliances made extensive preparations, with Maharashtra’s political landscape known for practices such as horse trading and corruption.

    The results, announced on November 23, were absolutely stunning, with a massive win for the ruling Mahayuti alliance under the leadership of the BJP. To secure a majority in the 288-seat assembly, a party or alliance needs 145 seats. Mahayuti bagged 235 seats, with the BJP alone securing 132 seats. This marks the party’s biggest success in the state’s history and one of the greatest wins for any party in recent Maharashtra history. The victory rate is remarkable, as the BJP contested only 145 seats, according to the alliance’s agreement. With this strong mandate, the BJP can form a government independently, without relying on other major parties in the alliance. They only need the support of 13 more members to ensure stability, and they are adept at securing such deals. Shiv Sena secured 57 seats, and the NCP got 41. It seems likely that there will be negotiations between the parties, as seen in previous governments. Most probably, BJP will take the Chief Minister’s post, with Devendra Fadnavis expected to be the next Chief Minister of Maharashtra. 

    The collapse of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance is surprising, given its strong performance in the six months leading up to the parliamentary elections. However, the alliance secured only 50 seats out of 288, falling far short of expectations. It cannot even claim the position of opposition leader, as no single party or alliance has the required number of seats to do so. The Indian National Congress (INC) won only 16 seats out of the 102 it contested, marking one of its poorest performances in Maharashtra, a state it once dominated. Shiv Sena (UBT) emerged as the largest party in the alliance with 20 seats, despite contesting 92. The strength of the NCP-SP fell to just 10 seats, even though they contested 86. The election results have cast doubt on the future of the MVA alliance, as its member parties—driven by differing interests—had united primarily to gain power in Maharashtra. Questions now surround the relevance of Shiv Sena (UBT) and the NCP-SP, as well as the political futures of their leaders, Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar.

    The Maharashtra election results will significantly impact national politics. They signal strong support for Modi and his Hindutva agenda, as Maharashtra’s BJP leaders and the likely Chief Minister are staunch advocates of both. This victory will also bolster Modi’s position in Parliament’s upper house, where members are proportionally elected from state assemblies. For the Indian National Congress, the results underscore their ongoing failure to connect with the electorate. Their lack of political direction has once again led to a disappointing collapse.

  • Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    International news outlets and social media are celebrating the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is leading a war against Iran’s Axis of Resistance, which has vowed to dismantle the state of Israel. However, the ICC has decided to act during the war. Netanyahu has become the first leader of a modern Western-style democracy to face an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in its 22-year history. He now stands alongside his former defense secretary, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif, although doubts remain about Deif’s current status.

    The ICC’s three-judge panel stated that reasonable grounds exist to believe Netanyahu and Gallant are criminally responsible for war crimes, including using starvation as a method of warfare, as well as crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The panel also found reasonable grounds to hold them accountable as civilian superiors for directing attacks against civilian populations.

    While anti-war advocates, leftists, and Islamic groups anticipate that Netanyahu will be forced to avoid international travel, the ICC arrest warrant actually benefits the prime minister in several ways. The warrant significantly bolsters Netanyahu’s narrative that international bodies are against Israel and have no support in fostering peace for the country. With the warrant, Netanyahu can now position himself as a leader in a battle against those seeking Israel’s destruction, a role that aligns seamlessly with his political strategy. 

    The ICC depends on its 124 member states, signatories of the Rome Statute that established the court, to enforce arrest warrants. These countries are obligated to arrest individuals wanted by the ICC if they enter their territory. However, neither Israel nor its closest ally, the United States, are members of the ICC, nor are Qatar and Egypt—potential venues for ceasefire talks.  Netanyahu remains free to visit Russia, China, India, and other influential nations as they all are not member states. On the other hand, Germany, a strong ally of Israel, is an ICC member, as are all European Union nations, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, and most Latin American countries, with the exceptions of Cuba and Haiti. Still, it is uncertain whether these countries will act against Israel and the United States in favor of the ICC’s warrant. Last year, Vladimir Putin avoided visiting South Africa amid speculation that authorities might detain him under an ICC warrant for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, he was warmly welcomed in Mongolia, an ICC member state, exposing the persistent weaknesses in the court’s enforcement mechanism.

    The US strongly criticized the ICC’s decision, with President Joe Biden calling the arrest warrants outrageous in a Thursday night statement. The US National Security Council also issued a statement rejecting the court’s decision, reiterating that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the matter. This position contrasts with the US’s earlier support for the ICC’s warrant against Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Netanyahu’s office condemned the ICC’s decision, labeling it antisemitic and describing the court as a biased and discriminatory political body.

    The ICC’s verdict has united Israeli politicians, with Benny Gantz, a retired general and political rival of Netanyahu, condemning the decision as moral blindness and a shameful stain of historic proportions that will never be forgotten. Israel is clearly using the ICC arrest warrant as an opportunity to attack the international body, which has previously recognized Palestine. Palestine joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and in 2021, the ICC recognized it as a state, extending its jurisdiction to territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. However, this recognition has had little practical impact. Many parts of Palestine lack functioning governance or administrative systems, and Hamas has no means to arrest Netanyahu. So, The ICC’s rulings, while symbolically significant, remain largely ineffective in practice.

  • Why Should India Consider Changing Its Capital?

    Why Should India Consider Changing Its Capital?

    Delhi is now a living nightmare. Apologies to the 1.4 billion people of India, but it must be said. As the capital territory of India, the world’s most populous country, and home to nearly 20 million residents, Delhi is one of the largest urban agglomerations on the planet. However, it has become an increasingly difficult place to live. The air pollution has reached a level where living there poses severe health risks, and the government has proven unable—or perhaps unwilling—to address the crisis effectively. 

    Delhi’s struggle with pollution is not a recent phenomenon; it has been grappling with this problem for years. Poor urban planning, combined with a rapidly expanding population, has only exacerbated the situation. Moreover, deep-rooted cultural practices and resistance to change have hindered the implementation of necessary pollution-control measures.

    Despite these challenges, Delhi remains the nerve center of India. It houses the military headquarters, judiciary, ministries, and numerous other vital institutions. People traveling from distant regions to work or seek services here must endure the city’s harsh conditions.

    This dire situation has prompted some political experts to propose a controversial idea: should India consider relocating the capital? Building a new, planned capital city—alongside other new towns—could be a step toward alleviating the pressure on Delhi and fostering sustainable development.

    The suggestion has not gained public traction or widespread endorsement, remaining largely confined to discussions among think tanks. It is expected to trigger significant backlash, as people fear it could negatively impact Delhi’s real estate market, businesses, and the overall importance of the national capital territory. This is one reason political parties have been reluctant to initiate such proposals.

    Delhi was chosen as India’s capital centuries ago due to its strategic location for Indian emperors. At that time, India stretched from Afghanistan in the west to Assam in the east, and Delhi’s central position made it an ideal seat of power. In the modern era, while Delhi is no longer geographically central, the threats from northern enemy states and the financial constraints of relocating the capital prevented any change.

    However, today, pollution has emerged as the greatest challenge for Delhi. It has drawn criticism not only from foreign diplomats working in India’s capital but also from Indian judiciary members, bureaucrats, and think tanks, who struggle with the deteriorating living conditions in the city.

    As of Wednesday morning, Delhi’s air quality remained in the “Severe” category, with an average Air Quality Index (AQI) of 427, making it the most polluted city in India. Of the 38 air quality monitoring stations in the city, 12 reported AQI levels of 450 or higher.

    Compounding the situation, Delhi experienced its first below-normal minimum temperature of the season, dropping to 11.2 degrees Celsius on Wednesday. This followed a period of above-average temperatures since mid-October. The maximum temperature on Tuesday was recorded at 25.4 degrees Celsius, two degrees below normal. Cold westerly winds and clear skies have contributed to this drop in mercury levels.

    As winter approaches, the prospect of worsening pollution levels becomes increasingly likely, further exacerbating the already difficult living conditions in the city.

    The government has introduced various measures, such as banning crop burning—a practice tied to cultural rituals—restricting the use of firecrackers during festive seasons, and controlling motor vehicle emissions. However, these efforts have largely been in vain. Without a long-term strategy and widespread cooperation, meaningful change seems unlikely. In a bureaucratic country like India, such efforts are even harder to implement effectively.

    The difficulty in curbing pollution has fueled the idea of relocating the capital. While some suggest seasonal shifts, this is impractical for a nation with such a large bureaucracy and extensive ministries. Instead, a permanent change—or at least relocating certain ministries to other cities—has gained attention. Others propose creating a new, purpose-built capital, similar to Indonesia’s plan for its new administrative center.

    The idea comes with both positives and negatives. On the positive side, relocating the capital could significantly improve quality of life, and a new city could be planned efficiently from the ground up. For a country like India, the investment required is manageable, and the project would create numerous jobs. However, the negatives are substantial. The process would involve moving an enormous number of files, developing extensive infrastructure, and accommodating thousands of government employees and their families.

    Despite the challenges, the positives clearly outweigh the negatives. The lack of creativity in leadership, administrative inefficiency, and political hurdles remain significant barriers, but the government cannot afford to delay action indefinitely. The capital territory is metaphorically and literally burning, and decisive steps are urgently needed.

    Historically, there have been attempts to shift the administration away from Delhi. Sikandar Lodi moved it to Agra, Jahangir to Allahabad, Muhammad bin Tughlaq to Daulatabad, and the British to Calcutta. Yet, all these changes were short-lived, with the capital eventually returning to Delhi.

    Critics opposing the idea of a capital change argue against its feasibility, but careful planning can address their concerns. Several cities could be contenders for the new capital. However, given that every state in the northern belt faces similar crises, no city in the region currently offers a viable alternative for managing border tensions.

    Meanwhile, southern and coastal cities in India, which are comparatively less polluted, also present challenges. These cities are already overcrowded and lack the infrastructure to accommodate such a significant expansion. This suggests that India may need to build a new, purpose-planned city to serve as its capital. Post-independence, India has successfully developed several cities, including Chandigarh and Amaravati, demonstrating its capability to undertake such projects. However, the challenges will be significant.

    The next generation is likely to prioritize health over emotional attachments. After all, without clean air to breathe, there can be no emotions—and no life. Therefore, experts believe the Indian government will likely embrace this idea in the near future.

  • Political Freedom Sealed: A Farewell to Hong Kong?

    Political Freedom Sealed: A Farewell to Hong Kong?

    Hong Kong is in its final days of political freedom and its distinct identity. Communist China, now firmly in control, is transforming Hong Kong into yet another territory under its full authority, erasing the remnants of British and Western influence. Political freedom and free speech, once defining features of Hong Kong, have become the first casualties in this new, Chinese-controlled era.

    China has been methodically executing its plan: rewriting the constitution, orchestrating elections to ensure its dominance, and silencing all opposition. Advocates for Hong Kong’s identity, freedom, and democracy are being relentlessly targeted.

    Major opposition figures have been arrested and jailed, while large-scale protests have vanished. The administrative machinery is now entirely under China’s control, aligning Hong Kong with the Chinese model of governance. A city that once shone as Asia’s star, an international hub, and the “New York of the East,” has been reduced to a shadow of its former self.

    In the latest development in the crackdown on Freedom advocates, a Hong Kong court on Tuesday sentenced 45 pro-democracy activists to prison terms under the city’s controversial national security law. Imposed by Beijing in mid-2020, the law criminalizes acts of dissent, sedition, and foreign collusion. The activists, part of a group known as the “Hong Kong 47”, were charged for their involvement in a 2020 primary election held ahead of the general election. Authorities deemed the event an attempt to subvert the government. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that Beijing harbors a strong aversion to democracy.  

    In the largest national security trial in Hong Kong’s history, Benny Tai, a legal academic and activist, received a 10-year prison term. The court ruled that Tai’s role in organizing the primaries constituted an attempt to trigger a constitutional crisis. Joshua Wong, a prominent figure in the 2019 protest movement, was sentenced to four years and eight months, reduced by a third due to his guilty plea.. Wong is already serving jail time for other protest-related offenses, with the judges noting that the additional sentence would not be overly punitive.  

    Australian-Hong Kong dual national Gordon Ng received a sentence exceeding seven years. The court found that Ng actively supported the pro-democracy plan by pressuring others and placing media advertisements. Although Ng pleaded not guilty, the judges acknowledged a potential misunderstanding of the plan’s legality, reducing his sentence by three months.

    Among the defendants are activists, legislators, campaigners, and councilors from what was once a thriving pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. In 2020, the group organized a pre-election primary to identify the strongest candidates to challenge the pro-Beijing establishment in the general election. Their goal was to win a majority in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) and leverage it to block budgetary bills, ultimately pressuring the chief executive to address their pro-democracy demands.

    Most defendants have already spent over three years in jail, yet none were released following the sentencing. Those who pleaded not guilty received harsher penalties, reflecting the court’s stance on their lack of cooperation. 

    The NSL trials extend beyond this case. On Wednesday, jailed media tycoon and pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai is set to testify in his collusion trial, breaking his silence after nearly four years in prison and five prior trials. Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, faces charges tied to the newspaper’s articles supporting pro-democracy protests and criticizing Beijing’s leadership.

    Observers believe that the demand for Hong Kong’s freedom will fade over time. However, the intense public interest in the trial tells a different story. At the West Kowloon Magistrates Court, the queue for public entry began over the weekend and grew to several hundred people by Tuesday. Some individuals who had waited in line for over a day were accused by bystanders of being paid to secure seat tickets without entering the courtroom—a practice increasingly scrutinized in high-profile political cases. On Tuesday morning, police vans patrolled the area as officers directed the crowd into a line that stretched down the block and doubled back on itself. Several people were searched by officers.

    But even as the protest movement must be suppressed successfully by the Chinese government, Hong Kong’s identity is at stake. Without freedom, democracy, cooperation with the West, and free trade, Hong Kong will cease to exist as the global city it once was. Instead, it risks becoming just another Chinese city, indistinguishable from Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou.

  • Sri Lanka: The New Communist Hotspot in Asia

    Sri Lanka: The New Communist Hotspot in Asia

    Sri Lanka, once on the brink of collapse, now finds hope in communism. Frustrated with conventional political parties, dynastic politics, and rampant corruption, the people have rallied behind the country’s communist party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), and its alliance under the banner of the National People’s Power (NPP). Last month, voters elected Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the party leader and former revolutionary, as president. The snap parliamentary elections he called led to a resounding victory for the party, which secured nearly two-thirds of the seats in Parliament.

    This remarkable victory for the JVP marks a significant shift in Sri Lanka’s political landscape, driven by widespread dissatisfaction with previous governments. Sri Lanka’s newly elected communist government now inspires communist parties across the region, who view it as a model for achieving their own political ambitions.

    However, this transformation has alarmed democracy advocates. In a small, politically volatile nation, many fear that Sri Lanka could transition into a one-party communist state, similar to China or Vietnam. The rise of a communist government in South Asia also promises to reshape regional politics, potentially altering the balance of power.

    The election for the 17th Parliament of Sri Lanka, held on November 14, 2024, mirrored the presidential election from two months earlier, but with an even more decisive victory for President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his communist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party, now led by Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya. The National People’s Power (NPP) emerged as the largest group in Parliament, securing 61.65% of the popular vote and winning a supermajority with 159 seats out of the total 225. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) became the main opposition, capturing only 17.66% of the vote and a reduced total of 40 seats.

    Additionally, the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi won 8 seats, the New Democratic Front secured 5 seats, and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, the winner of the previous election, fell to just 3 seats—a sharp decline from the 145 seats they had secured in the last election. This outcome reflected public dissatisfaction with the ousted leader Mahinda Rajapaksa and his political dynasty. The NPP’s 159 seats marked a historic achievement, surpassing all other Sri Lankan political parties and securing the second-highest proportion of seats in the nation’s history. The NPP won every district except Batticaloa. This was also the first election since 1977 in which a single party achieved a supermajority, and the first time a non-Tamil political party won the former separatist Jaffna District. The results delivered a clear verdict on how the 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis reshaped the country’s political landscape, as ultra-nationalism gave way to communism, marking a dramatic shift from global trends, or something akin to British politics.

    Sri Lanka’s victory marks the second instance of a fully communist government in South Asia without any coalition with centrist parties, following Nepal. This achievement, in a region once dominated by nationalism, is a significant milestone for communism as a global movement seeking to expand its influence. South Asia, one of the most populous regions in the world, has not embraced communism despite being fertile ground for it. Many hope that the communist victory in Sri Lanka will inspire communist factions in other South Asian countries.

    In India, once a communist hotspot, the movement now has very low or negligible representation in parliament, holding only a small state. Beyond that, communists have no significant role in Indian politics. Nepal, despite having a communist president and prime minister in the past, now experiences large splits within coalitions with centrist parties, holding little power compared to before. While many expected communism to fade from the region, Sri Lanka offers new hope. The country is already deeply tied to China through massive economic debt, making it easier for China to operate and spread communism from this Indian Ocean island, a gateway to the Indian subcontinent.

    Reports indicate that Indian communists are already celebrating this victory as they struggle for survival, particularly in Kerala, the only Indian state still governed by communists. The triumph of communism over nationalism is something they have long desired. In Nepal, the communist party is gaining ground as people grow frustrated with frequent changes in government. In other religiously dominated countries in the region, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Maldives, communist influence remains weak. However, in Bangladesh, there have been reports of communist-linked parties hoping for a communist government. As communism is a pan-nationalist ideology, Sri Lanka’s victory could inspire and support other communist movements across the region.

    While many believe a communist Sri Lanka could emerge through the systematic occupation that communism deploys, others question how long the island can remain united, given its ethnic and cultural divisions and the fact that the population is only united by their hatred of the previous government. The United States will likely oppose the growth of communism, particularly with the Trump administration in charge. The country is highly volatile, and easily influenceable by the U.S., as its people are both educated and, at the same time, hopeless. India, too, would not want a communist government that could align closely with China. They will probably attempt some form of cultural uprising. But for now, it is clear: Sri Lanka is red, and communism has once again opened a door to the Indian subcontinent.

  • Mutual Defense Treaty Pulls North Korea into War

    Mutual Defense Treaty Pulls North Korea into War

    Russia is now short of men. They never anticipated, even in their distant dreams, that the war in Ukraine would last this long. After two and a half years, the death toll on the Russian side is high, and the conflict shows no signs of an immediate ceasefire, creating serious challenges. Russia has tried to boost recruitment, including from countries like Nepal. People living in poverty are being sent to the frontlines, despite having no interest in Ukraine or the war beyond the promise of some money.

    As the governments of these countries take steps to curb this recruitment flow, primarily under pressure from the West, Russia has adopted alternative measures, including enlisting its long-term ally North Korea in the war. Russia and North Korea recently formalized a significant treaty focused on military cooperation. Under this pact, North Korea plans to send troops to Ukraine to support Russia’s war efforts. With the treaty now ratified by both governments, North Korea’s entry into the Russia-Ukraine war is official.

    On Monday, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un signed and officially ratified the landmark mutual defense pact with Russia. The treaty, first signed on June 19 during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s famous state visit to Pyongyang, commits both nations to provide immediate military support to each other, using all means necessary, in response to any act of aggression. Kim hailed the pact as a milestone, calling it an alliance that will elevate Russia-North Korea relations to unprecedented heights. The world, especially Russia and North Korea’s adversaries, now watches closely, concerned about how this alliance will impact ongoing conflicts and global stability.

    The treaty includes a preamble and 23 articles that outline cooperation in politics, trade, investment, and security. Article 3 specifies that if either nation faces a direct threat of armed invasion, both sides must immediately open bilateral negotiations to align their positions and plan practical countermeasures. Article 4 requires immediate military and other assistance from the other party if one nation enters a state of war due to an armed invasion, resembling NATO’s mutual defense clause. Article 10 focuses on fostering exchanges and cooperation in fields such as science and peaceful nuclear energy This clause is particularly intriguing for Kim Jong-un, who has a strong interest in nuclear weapons, likely motivating him to commit troops in return for advancements in weaponry.

    Five days before North Korea ratified the treaty, Russia’s parliament approved it in Moscow on November 6, signaling the growing importance of the agreement. Observers expect Russia to extend this strategy to include more of its satellite states, which may also join the effort if the war persists. Despite U.S. attempts to disrupt these alliances, many former Soviet countries continue to depend on Russia.

    Intelligence reports from South Korea, the United States, and Ukraine confirm that at least 11,000 North Korean soldiers have already been sent to the front lines to fight against Ukrainian forces. Most of these troops have been deployed to Russia’s Kursk region, which has been partially under Ukrainian control since Kyiv’s surprise incursion into Russian territory in August. Neither Moscow nor Pyongyang has directly commented on the presence of North Korean soldiers in Russia, but their involvement under the Mutual Defense Treaty has effectively expanded the war beyond Russia and Ukraine,  drawing North Korea into the conflict.

    North Korea’s involvement could potentially draw South Korea into the war in support of Ukraine, with growing fears that Japan might also join, further escalating tensions. Earlier this month, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol warned that he might send arms to Ukraine if North Korean soldiers are not withdrawn from Russia. However, many believe this scenario is unlikely. North Korea’s role in the war appears limited to sending troops to assist Russia in exchange for advanced technologies. Still, we must consider the possibility that they are all teaming up to prepare for a larger agenda.