Tag: India

  • Narendra Modi Finally Got India’s Capital Territory

    Narendra Modi Finally Got India’s Capital Territory

    Delhi, the national capital territory of India, serves as the country’s administrative center, housing Parliament, ministries, the Supreme Court, and other key government institutions and tribunals. Unlike Indian states, it functions as a special administrative zone with limited governing authority, akin to Washington, D.C., in the United States. Despite its small size, Delhi wields significant political influence. Often called “Mini Hindustan” due to the diverse migration from across India, it remains a crucial battleground for political parties, with gaining power in Delhi considered a point of pride.

    For Narendra Modi and the BJP, securing power in Delhi has been a long-standing goal. Though the party briefly controlled the capital in the 1990s, it struggled to regain influence after Modi became prime minister in 2014. Despite its widespread electoral success across India, the BJP consistently lost Delhi’s assembly elections to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), led by Arvind Kejriwal. Originating from an anti-corruption movement, AAP positioned itself as a grassroots alternative to traditional politics, operating more as an activist-driven group than a conventional party. While some experts saw AAP’s rise as a potential third force in Indian politics, the party lost its important ground in this latest election.

    After years of setbacks, the BJP’s hard work finally paid off in the latest Delhi Assembly elections, which concluded on February 5th. This victory—Modi’s fourth attempt at capturing the capital—marks a significant political shift. For the first time in over a quarter-century, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has taken control of Delhi’s government. In the 2025 assembly elections, the BJP won 47 of the 70 seats, ousting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which had governed the capital since 2015. AAP secured just 22 seats. In a stunning upset, its leader and founder, Arvind Kejriwal, along with his deputy, Manish Sisodia, lost their seats despite the party’s strong appeal through welfare programs and its anti-corruption agenda. The Indian National Congress, which failed to win a single seat for the third consecutive election, faces serious questions about its future. Once a dominant force in the region, Congress ruled Delhi for nearly 15 years before Kejriwal’s rise. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), another former powerhouse, also suffered a crushing defeat.

    Waving party flags and holding up posters of Narendra Modi, BJP supporters chanted slogans and danced outside the party headquarters in the capital as the vote results started to come in, with most exit polls predicting a decisive win for the party. Addressing the crowd, Modi criticized the Aam Aadmi Party and Arvind Kejriwal for their actions, but reserved his sharpest words for the Indian National Congress, delivering a scathing critique of the opposition. Amit Shah, India’s influential home minister and senior BJP leader, emphasized that the victory represented the people’s rejection of deceit. He noted that the public could no longer be misled by falsehoods. Shah also stressed that under Modi’s leadership, the BJP would transform New Delhi into the world’s leading capital by fulfilling all its promises. He hailed the victory as a testament to the people’s faith in Prime Minister Modi’s vision for progress.

    The election result was a major boost for the BJP, especially after the party failed to secure a majority in last year’s national elections and had to rely on coalition partners to form the government. The BJP regained momentum by winning key state elections in Haryana and Maharashtra. In the lead-up to the election, Modi’s government implemented tax cuts for the salaried middle class, a vital voting bloc. Throughout the campaign, both Modi and Kejriwal promised reforms, such as overhauling government schools, providing free healthcare and electricity, and offering a monthly stipend of over 2,000 rupees ($25) to impoverished women—proposals that have become standard in Indian elections.

    The Delhi election signals important political shifts in India. Narendra Modi and the BJP are reaching new heights, extending their influence into states and territories once beyond their grasp. Modi is also attracting support from Muslim and Sikh communities, groups that were traditionally outside his base. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc, known as I.N.D.I.A., which includes the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), is unraveling. Both parties failed to coordinate and strike agreements ahead of the Delhi election, leading to disappointing outcomes. AAP may distance itself from the alliance, as many parties within the bloc face similar struggles due to a lack of cohesion. Modi’s success is well-deserved, and the BJP is clearly flourishing. However, the opposition must reassess its strategy if it hopes to challenge Modi’s expanding dominance.

  • Why Doesn’t India Have a Strong Third National Party?

    Why Doesn’t India Have a Strong Third National Party?

    India, the largest democracy in the world with more than 900 million voters, has over 1,000 political parties. These parties can be categorized under various criteria—politics-based, caste-based, interest-based, or even fan groups of cinema actors, who also participate in Indian elections as registered political parties. This diverse landscape makes Indian politics fascinating, with elections often described as the biggest festivals in the country.

    However, the most significant criterion for classifying political parties is their registration status with the Election Commission of India. According to the latest publication dated March 23, 2024, by the Election Commission, there are six national parties, 58 state parties, and 2,763 unrecognized or local parties. Each category has specific criteria for recognition. For instance, a national party must meet one of the following conditions: win 11 Lok Sabha seats from at least three different states, poll 6% of votes in four or more states and win four Lok Sabha seats, or gain recognition as a state party in four states.

    Under these criteria, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Indian National Congress (INC), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Communist Party of India (Marxist), and National People’s Party (NPP) qualify as national parties.

    Despite these classifications, only the BJP and the INC can truly be considered national parties in terms of nationwide presence and organizational reach. No other party has a pan-India support base or the ability to consistently win more than 10 seats out of the 543 in the Lok Sabha. This trend, visible long before the 2014 general election, became more pronounced when Narendra Modi’s leadership framed Indian politics as a contest between Hindutva and anti-Hindutva narratives. Today, India’s 1.4 billion people largely choose between these two parties and their ideologies, rather than benefiting from a truly functional multi-party system.

    There are several reasons behind this phenomenon. One is the way Indian politics operates, with a strong attachment to socialism or center-right ideologies. This creates a narrow spectrum where major parties compete, leaving little room for diverse offerings. Another factor is the worship-like style of Indian politics, making it difficult for new parties to break through. Additionally, agenda-setting plays a crucial role. Indian politics often divides into two dominant camps, each setting the political narrative in a way that leaves little room for other parties to gain traction.

    Communication barriers further exacerbate the issue. Beyond word-of-mouth channels, many leaders or organizations struggle to connect with the populace, as a significant number of people lack access to print or television media. Established parties already dominate these communication channels, leaving little opportunity for emerging parties to reach a broader audience. These, along with several other factors, make it challenging for new political entities to establish themselves in India’s political landscape.

    When we examine the history of Indian elections, it is unsurprising that the country’s vast political landscape has predominantly been dominated by two major parties, representing two broad political ideologies. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, India occasionally witnessed contests involving three or even four significant parties. For example, in the elections of 1989, 1991, and 1996, in addition to the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), parties like the Janata Dal and the Communist Party held considerable sway and fiercely contested for control of New Delhi.

    Outside of these exceptions, most general elections have been two-way contests, evolving into what can be described as a “two-tent” system. Despite the diversity among India’s political parties, alliances often form during elections, consolidating around two dominant factions. This trend has become a recurring pattern in Indian electoral politics, especially following the period of INC’s dominance after independence.

    It is noteworthy that no third political force in India today has the widespread appeal or organizational reach to secure significant representation across multiple states. Janata Dal, once a powerful player, fragmented into numerous smaller factions and has since lost its national relevance. Similarly, the Communist Party, once a robust third force, now faces an existential crisis. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which emerged as a champion of Dalit politics with a genuinely national agenda and representation from diverse states, has also faded into relative obscurity due to a lack of direction.

    The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which burst onto the political scene with significant momentum and the promise of becoming India’s third major national party, appears to have stalled, increasingly resembling a regional entity. Meanwhile, the National People’s Party (NPP), a Northeastern-based national party, seems uninterested in expanding its influence beyond its home region.

    A strong third political party can reinvigorate democracy, offering voters a genuine alternative and enriching the national dialogue. In India, however, no such party has emerged with the ability to secure even 10 percent of the seats in the Lok Sabha. In the 2024 elections, the Samajwadi Party (SP)—a regional force with deep roots in Uttar Pradesh—managed to carve out a notable, yet modest, position as the third-largest party, winning 37 seats. The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) were the only other parties to cross the 20-seat mark. However, all three remain state-centric. DMK’s politics is rooted in Tamil Nadu, showing little interest or involvement in national issues. While the Samajwadi Party and AITC have shown stronger potential, significant hurdles remain.

    The SP’s 37 seats mark one of the strongest performances by a third party in recent Indian elections, rivaling the AIADMK’s 37 seats in 2014. However, unlike AIADMK, which is confined to Tamil Nadu with its 39 Lok Sabha seats, the SP hails from Uttar Pradesh, which offers 80 seats. Additionally, the SP has previously established a presence in other states like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The party’s vote base includes OBCs and Muslims, groups that often feel politically marginalized and disconnected from the Indian National Congress. With Akhilesh Yadav as its young, charismatic leader, the SP has the potential to expand into the Hindi belt and other states with significant Muslim populations. However, its dynastic politics raises concerns that it may follow the path of its predecessor, Janata Dal, which eventually disintegrated.

    There is a visible political vacuum, as voters seeking an alternative to the BJP often avoid the Indian National Congress. This opens a window of opportunity for the SP. However, for this to materialize, Akhilesh Yadav must strategize effectively, particularly given reports of friction between the Congress and the SP within the opposition alliance, INDIA. A divergence could prompt the SP to strengthen its independent ambitions.

    Similarly, the AITC holds potential. While the party’s current focus remains on West Bengal, where it is dominant, its influence could extend into northeastern states. The Congress’s decline presents an opportunity for the AITC, as both parties share a similar voter base. Being a Congress offshoot, the AITC is well-positioned to attract disillusioned Congress leaders and supporters unhappy with its leadership. With 42 seats in West Bengal and 25 in the northeastern states, the AITC has room to grow in regions previously held by the Congress.

    Both the SP and the AITC represent possible contenders for becoming India’s third political force, but success will require strategic planning and expansion beyond their traditional strongholds. The path is fraught with challenges, yet the shifting political landscape offers unique opportunities for growth and influence.

    Many experts believe that, aside from the two dominant parties, the emergence of a third party in India would likely stem from a spin-off. However, this seems less likely in the current political climate. The BJP, which has built its strength through a solid ideological foundation, systematic organization, and leadership, is not at risk of a major split, as it has consolidated its influence around its charismatic leadership. Similarly, the Indian National Congress has already undergone multiple splits and cannot afford more without risking a complete loss of influence. In recent times, no significant divisions have been visible in either party.

    Another possibility could be the merger of smaller parties to form a larger political force, but this is unlikely to succeed, as ambitious leaders often prioritize their own interests rather than working together for the greater good. Political consolidation among smaller parties faces significant challenges, especially with leaders who are reluctant to cede control.

    In a multiparty state with such a large population, it is a disgrace that the political agenda is set by just two dominant parties. Sadly, this is the reality of India.  However, unless state parties like the SP and AITC decide to grow, or the BSP and AAP refine their strategies, or new spin-offs and mergers take place, the status quo will persist. This will lead Indian politics in the direction of the United States, offering voters only two viable options—and that is detrimental to the health of democracy.

  • Uneasy Allies: The Quiet Growth of India’s Ties with Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

    Uneasy Allies: The Quiet Growth of India’s Ties with Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan

    Afghanistan has always been immensely important to Indian rulers, serving as a gateway to the Persian-Turkic world. After gaining independence in 1947, India recognized Afghanistan’s strategic value as a counterweight to Pakistan’s hostility. India invested heavily in Afghanistan’s development and actively participated in its social, economic, and cultural spheres. During Afghanistan’s short-lived democratic period, following the United States overthrow of the first Taliban emirate, India and Afghanistan forged their strongest ties, with Indian investments and relations reaching unprecedented heights.

    However, the Taliban, an Islamic extremist organization, has consistently opposed India and its involvement in Afghanistan. When the Taliban first seized control in 1996 and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan with support from Pakistan and the United States, they pushed India to the margins. Their rigid Islamic ideology, including calls for the Islamization of India, directly threatened Indian interests too. The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 raised immediate concerns about India’s diminishing influence in Afghanistan, jeopardizing its strategic presence in the region.

    Though In recent years, a significant shift has unfolded. The current Taliban leadership has grown increasingly at odds with its longtime ally, Pakistan, leading to escalating tensions that risk boiling over into open conflict. This rift presents an unexpected opportunity for India, under a Hindu nationalist government, to pursue strategic engagement with the Taliban despite the stark ideological differences. What once seemed an improbable partnership has begun to take shape, with recent developments pointing to a surprising and growing rapprochement between India and the Taliban.

    As much of the international community maintains its distance from the Taliban’s repressive rule, India has quietly intensified its outreach. On Wednesday, in Dubai, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri sat down with Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Taliban’s acting foreign minister, marking the highest-level official meeting between India and the Taliban since the latter’s takeover of Kabul in August 2021.

    The discussions, as outlined by Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, touched upon a range of pressing issues: the evolving security situation within Afghanistan, India’s role in supporting humanitarian efforts and development initiatives, and the use of Iran’s Chabahar Port to open trade routes to the beleaguered nation. The Taliban’s statement, framed within the context of what it termed a “Balanced” foreign policy focused on economic priorities, pointed to its aim of deepening political and economic ties with India—an acknowledgment of India’s growing importance as both a regional and economic player in this complicated geopolitical landscape.

    India has also expressed its support for the burgeoning relationship. After the meeting, India’s Foreign Office stated that in response to a request from the Afghan side, India would provide additional material assistance, initially focusing on the health sector and refugee rehabilitation. The two sides also discussed strengthening cooperation in sports, particularly in cricket.

    The Taliban, for its part, is in desperate need of financial support. The United States has fully disengaged from Afghanistan, the Gulf countries have limited capacity without U.S. backing, and Russia is now weak, leaving China and India as the primary players. Afghanistan, rich in minerals and strategically located, makes it a target for both countries. India, driven by its desire to not only challenge Pakistan but also compete with China, seeks to reassert itself in a key regional theater.

    The recent meeting between India’s Foreign Secretary and Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister is part of a series of ongoing talks between the two countries. In November, senior Indian Foreign Ministry official JP Singh held multiple meetings with Taliban representatives, including a notable discussion with Acting Defense Minister Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob. Earlier, in June 2022, India sent a “Technical Team” to Kabul to oversee the delivery of humanitarian aid and assess how New Delhi could further assist the Afghan people. Since the opening of the technical mission, the Taliban has repeatedly sought to station its own representative in Delhi. In response, India has allowed a Taliban representative, Ikramuddin Kamil, to work at the Afghan consulate in Mumbai.

    No nation has yet reached the point of formally recognizing the Taliban regime, especially given its ongoing brutal suppression of women. This meeting, however, will likely be seen as highly favorable by the Taliban, which is currently facing military pressure and additional stress from Pakistan. As an old Indian proverb goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Despite the stark ideological differences between the two countries, Afghanistan has effectively become a de facto ally for India.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.