Tag: India

  • Why Doesn’t India Have More States?

    Why Doesn’t India Have More States?

    Uttar Pradesh, a northern state of India, has a population of 240 million. If it were an independent country, it would be the sixth largest in the world by population. The state spans 243,286 square kilometers and has a legislative assembly of 403 members. It’s difficult to imagine how the administration functions effectively when the chief minister can’t review even one constituency a day, let alone remember each one. This challenge isn’t unique to Uttar Pradesh – other large states like Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh face similar issues. Despite the size and population of these states, there are no significant movements at the administrative level for division and the formation of new states, although the idea is active on social media. Any political effort to propose new states faces significant opposition. While the U.S., with a population of 330 million, has 50 states, India, with 1.4 billion people, remains with only 28 states. This situation creates enormous challenges in governance, public administration, and even public health.

    When the modern Republic of India was formed in 1950, after a long period of Ottoman and British colonization, it faced a significant challenge in dividing the country into provinces due to its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural population. At the time, many people were uneducated, deeply emotional, and strongly tied to their cultural identities. The framers of the Constitution feared that dissatisfaction with the division of states could lead to riots or even secession movements to form new countries. To address this, they decided to use language as the primary criterion for state formation, leading to the creation of 14 states based on linguistic lines while continuing some of the provinces established during British rule. This approach worked to some extent, but over time, demands for statehood grew for various reasons, including the desire to recognize different ethnic groups and cultures. Many new states were formed as a result, but in the 21st century, only four states have been created, primarily for administrative purposes.

    It’s clear that managing such large states presents administrative challenges, but the issue is primarily political. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which currently rules India, is opposed to dividing states and forming smaller ones. The party prioritizes nationalism over localism and doesn’t want to create new states that might foster regional identities. Another concern for the BJP is the rise of local parties; they fear that smaller states would become breeding grounds for parties that push local agendas, which could threaten national interests. Additionally, demographics play a role—the BJP is wary that smaller states might give more importance to Muslim votes, which the party may struggle to secure. Smaller states with smaller populations would likely elevate the significance of minority votes. There’s also the concern about the lack of resources and revenue in smaller states.

    The Indian National Congress and the Samajwadi Party, the second and third largest parties, are also against the division of states. Public opposition to dividing states is another major issue, often leading to violent protests. People are emotionally connected to their states, and any move to divide them can be exploited by politicians for their own interests. However, another national party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, supports the creation of smaller states for more effective administration and the rule of law. In fact, in 2011, they even passed a bill in the Uttar Pradesh state assembly to divide the state, but it was halted by both the then and current central governments.

    As the population becomes younger and more educated, many believe that emotional attachments to states will diminish, leading to a growing demand among younger generations for smaller states and more efficient administration. The call for new states is gaining support on social media, where several campaigns are gathering momentum. However, the central government has shown little interest in these demands. It is evident that the division of large states would lead to smoother administration and better enforcement of the law, since the government has not prioritized birth control. It is likely that public demand for smaller states will intensify in the near future, especially as people grow frustrated with poor government services and a lack of jobs, eventually forcing the government to act.

  • Jammu and Kashmir Set to Elect Assembly After 10 Years

    Jammu and Kashmir Set to Elect Assembly After 10 Years

    Jammu and Kashmir, one of three Muslim-majority union territories in India along with Lakshadweep and Ladakh, has long been a focus of global interest. Both Pakistan and China, along with several Western diplomats, have expressed a desire to annex the territory to Pakistan, and Pakistan has conducted several wars and militant operations to achieve this goal. The global Muslim population has repeatedly raised the Kashmir issue, emphasizing Muslim solidarity worldwide and accusing the Indian government of suppressing Islamic rights. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, has taken a particular interest in the region and has increased central government control over Kashmir during his tenure. Jammu and Kashmir, which was previously granted special constitutional status and a separate constitution with elements such as Sharia law and its own flag, removed these privileges under Modi’s government. The dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly and the removal of Article 370 from the Indian Constitution by parliament ended the region’s special status. Elections in the union territory are now scheduled to take place in four stages from September to October, marking the first time since 2014. Given the region’s significant Islamist extremist threats, the election poses a challenge for India, as  terrorists may threaten potential voters.

    Jammu and Kashmir, a former state and now a union territory, has deep historical ties with India and was part of various great kingdoms that ruled the Indian subcontinent. Over the years, it became a Muslim-majority region, but it still has a significant Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist population that strongly supports Indian rule, along with Shia and Ahmadiyya communities. The region is now divided into four parts: the Kashmir Valley, which has a Sunni majority and faces the most extremist threats to elections; Jammu, which has a considerable Sikh and Hindu population; the territory under Pakistan’s control, annexed during the 1950s war – India does not recognize this occupation, and seats for it remain vacant in the assembly; and Ladakh, which was once part of Jammu and Kashmir but is now a separate union territory.

    The Jammu and Kashmir union territory elections are set to occur in three phases: Phase I on 18 September 2024, Phase II on 25 September 2024, and Phase III on 1 October 2024. Results will be announced on 4 October 2024. These elections will choose the 90 members of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. Four major political parties, along with several smaller contenders, are vying for the assembly seats.

    In the complex political landscape of Jammu, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which holds the reins of power in India, stands out as the preeminent force. In the most recent assembly elections, the BJP clinched 25 of the 87 available seats, reinforcing its dominance. The party further solidified its position by capturing two of the five Lok Sabha constituencies in the recent general election, underscoring its significant influence in the region. The BJP is focusing on major infrastructure projects funded by the central government, including new railway lines, roads, hospitals, and other developments that were previously unavailable in the region. They are appealing to voters who felt disadvantaged under the previous special constitutional status, which was accused of favoring certain families and religious groups, and they are capitalizing on the rise of nationalism in the state. However, as the party lacks strong support in Muslim-majority areas, the BJP has been accused of backing smaller pro-Muslim parties in certain regions. The BJP aims to surpass the 45-seat mark for a majority in the 90-member assembly, with some seats expected to come from these smaller parties.

    The Indian National Congress, the main opposition party in the Indian parliament, is contesting the election in alliance with the region’s largest state-level party, the National Conference, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). This alliance has a strong presence in both the Kashmir Valley and Jammu and is demanding the restoration of statehood and special status for the region. In the last election, all parties in this alliance contested individually, collectively winning 28 seats, which was more than the BJP’s tally. Another significant party is the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which secured the most seats in the last assembly election with 28 seats. They are expected to contest individually this time. Other national parties, including the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), are also participating in this election, along with numerous state parties and independent candidates, who also play a crucial role in forming the government in the state.

    The upcoming election is a crucial juncture for the state. If the BJP wins, they will grant statehood but not restore special status. If the BJP loses, it is likely that other parties will join forces to demand special status. Additionally, if the BJP forms a  coalition government, there might be pressure to address this demand. The election will also attract international attention, especially from Pakistan. As Jammu and Kashmir moves towards greater democracy and development, it could impact the already troubled state of Pakistan and its part of Kashmir, leading to serious impact in the region. Therefore, the assembly election of Jammu and Kashmir is not only important for the union territory but also for the entire South Asia.

  • Significance of Narendra Modi’s Visit to Ukraine

    Significance of Narendra Modi’s Visit to Ukraine

    There was significant uproar from the Western world when India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Vladimir Putin in July, despite his bold criticism of Russia’s actions during the meeting. The Indian opposition also condemned Modi, viewing the visit as a clear departure from India’s long-standing non-alignment strategy, upheld since the Cold War. However, Modi defended his decision, stressing the importance of the India-Russia relationship and highlighting several agreements that would benefit the Indian economy. By choosing Russia for his first bilateral meeting after securing his third term as Prime Minister, Modi underscored the significance he places on this relationship, but it drew heavy criticism from Ukraine and the Western world.

    As a counter to his trip to Russia, Narendra Modi made a historic visit to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, on Friday. During the visit, he assured Volodymyr Zelenskiy of his readiness to act as a friend in facilitating a peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Modi’s visit has sparked hope among peace advocates, as he is seen as having significant influence with Vladimir Putin, unlike other Western leaders who have previously attempted to broker a peace agreement.

    This trip marks the first visit to Ukraine by an Indian leader since the country gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. It comes after a period of strained relations, as Zelenskiy had criticized Modi’s recent visit to Moscow, which coincided with a Russian missile strike on a children’s hospital in Kyiv. During his visit at Kyiv, Modi expressed respect and support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, calling it India’s highest priority. He also emphasized that he had told Vladimir Putin during their July meeting that problems cannot be resolved on the battlefield and that the war could only be ended through dialogue and diplomacy.

    Zelenskiy warmly embraced Modi and described his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty amid Russian aggression as critical. Zelenskiy posted on X that history was made with Modi’s friendly and symbolic visit, which coincided with the eve of Ukraine’s Independence Day celebrations. The two leaders stood together in front of a memorial dedicated to Ukrainian children killed by Russian missiles. During their official talks, they discussed Zelenskiy’s 10-point peace plan, which he has presented to the international community, according to India’s foreign ministry. The plan includes the withdrawal of Russian troops from occupied territories, reparations, and war crime tribunals for Russian generals and political leaders. Ukrainian officials are also preparing to organize a second peace summit this year, with Saudi Arabia being considered as a possible venue. Ukraine views building effective relations with countries of the global south as crucial, believing that a just resolution to the war is in everyone’s interest.

    Reports indicate that Indians have been recruited from both sides to fight in the war, with casualties reported. With high unemployment remaining a significant issue in the overpopulated country, more Indians are reportedly ready to join the conflict. However, India’s economy has benefited substantially. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent Western sanctions, India has imported large volumes of discounted Russian oil, which has been processed by Indian refineries and sold globally.

    Although India has gained economically, Modi has consistently sought to portray his government as a neutral peace broker. Critics accuse India of merely performing a balancing act with Russia, provoking considerable anger among Western countries. Nevertheless, some political analysts believe that India’s actions are a strategic response to the Kremlin’s growing partnership with China, India’s primary geopolitical rival, leading to a reassessment of its foreign policy.

    Modi’s visit comes as both Russian and Ukrainian forces are making notable advances. Recently, Ukraine launched a surprise incursion into Russia, and its forces now control a 1,250 sq km area within Russian territory, around the town of Sudzha. Around 130,000 Russians have fled the region, with fierce fighting continuing in Korenevo and other frontline villages. This incursion – the first by foreign troops into Russia since World War II—has been more successful for Kyiv than expected. The Russian military’s response to the Kursk incursion remains unclear. As the conflict escalates into a new phase, Modi’s visit to Ukraine is likely to have a significant impact on India’s relations with both Russia and the West.

  • How Mass Protests Are Shaking Bengal Politics

    How Mass Protests Are Shaking Bengal Politics

    West Bengal, India’s region of Bengal, is witnessing mass protests following unrest in neighboring Bangladesh that led to the toppling of its government. The protests in West Bengal were triggered by the brutal rape and murder of a junior doctor at Kolkata’s medical college and have shocked the nation. Although India’s police system is relatively strong and the protests have not descended into the same level of violence or anarchy seen in Bangladesh, the ongoing protests have become a significant challenge for the Bengal government, led by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). The AITC has been a fierce critic of Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government. The BJP has decided to leverage the situation to its advantage, and central agencies have stepped in to investigate. With nationwide criticism continuing ten days after the incident, many believe the unrest could further destabilize the state government.

    West Bengal, the eastern state of India formed after the division of Muslim-majority areas into Pakistan and later Bangladesh, has long claimed to be one of the most culturally influential regions, particularly in its reverence for the Hindu female deity Kali. The state asserts itself as the true heir of Bengali identity, a language-based identity that is gender-neutral, unlike many other Indian languages. Unfortunately, Bengal is now also known for an increase in crimes targeting women.

    The situation became notably concerning under Mamata Banerjee, the state’s female chief minister and founder of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), who rose to prominence as one of India’s most influential political figures. Despite her strong position in elections, Banerjee has consistently faced criticism for failing to maintain law and order in the state. Gang rapes have become frequent, and the sensational case involving Sandesh Kahli, where an AITC leader was implicated in organized crimes against women with substantial support from local machinery, has highlighted these issues. Additionally, reports indicate that Muslim women in the state, many of whom migrated from Bangladesh, have faced violations of their basic civil rights. Government intervention has often been lacking, partly due to the political need of AITC to maintain support from the Muslim vote bank.

    The recent brutal attack on a doctor has intensified national attention, exposing attempts by the AITC government and authorities to cover up such incidents. Protests have erupted across West Bengal, with Kolkata, the state capital, emerging as the epicenter. Long marches and clashes between AITC supporters and protesters have disrupted daily life in Kolkata, one of India’s largest metropolitan areas.

    West Bengal’s political landscape is currently divided between the Mamata Banerjee-led All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), which forms the state government, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is now the opposition in the state and leads the central government. The previous major players, the Communist Party of India and the Indian National Congress, have been ousted from the state, leaving the voter base split between the AITC and the BJP. The AITC now holds the secular and Islamist vote banks, while the BJP attracts Hindu nationalist votes. In previous contests, Mamata Banerjee and her AITC have been victorious, including in the last general elections.

    Political analysts are divided on the impact of the ongoing protests in Bengal politics. Some believe that the firm support of the Islamist community will provide Mamata Banerjee with momentum, as the BJP struggles to expand beyond Hindu votes and other parties that could have split the AITC’s vote base are currently inactive in West Bengal. However, some analysts predict that the reaction to these emotionally charged issues could mirror past events, such as the Nandigram firing incident that led to the ousting of the Communist Party, potentially leading to a similar fate for the AITC.

    The governor of the state, a representative of the central government, declared that West Bengal is not a safe place for women. Many believe this move could prompt the central government and the president to dissolve the state government and impose presidential rule, according to Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. BJP leaders, workers, and some pro-BJP figures are advocating for this action. From a political perspective, this represents a significant opportunity for the BJP, which has struggled to gain power in the last three assembly elections due to the firm support of Muslim votes for the AITC.

    The unrest in West Bengal poses severe security issues for India, particularly given the large number of Bangladeshis in the state and its history of Hindu-Muslim conflict. The central government fears that dissolving the West Bengal government could lead to further anarchy, similar to the situation in Kashmir. However, this situation has clearly shaken the West Bengal government, forcing Mamata Banerjee to take strong actions. The future of the protests will likely determine the fate of the West Bengal government, Mamata Banerjee and the All India Trinamool Congress.

  • How Foreign Influence Shapes Bangladesh?

    How Foreign Influence Shapes Bangladesh?

    Even though Bangladesh claims a constructed identity of Islamic Bangla, it is actually a product of conflict between the region’s superpowers, India and Pakistan. This former part of Pakistan became an independent state in 1971 with the intervention of India. The conflict nearly escalated into a world war, as Pakistan received strong support from the United States, while the Soviet Union aligned with India. Even after independence, Bangladesh has remained entangled in power politics, with foreign powers interfering and causing various political incidents, including assassinations, coups, and student protests. Political analysts point to this foreign interference as a cause of the recent wave of protests that led to the toppling of the government. Why is Bangladesh subject to such interference, and who is making it prone to unrest?

    Bangladesh, a small and densely populated country, has highly congested living conditions. A spark can lead to mass unrest that can affect the administration in Dhaka. This is why Bangladesh is often in turmoil, with mass mob actions being common, making it susceptible to foreign interference. India’s and Pakistan’s involvement in Bangladesh stems from their mutual fears. India is particularly concerned that any instability in Bangladesh could destabilize its eastern regions. Since Bangladesh shares the majority of its border with India, any conflict within Bangladesh could result in a significant influx of refugees into India, posing substantial political and economic challenges. Many districts in India have become Muslim-majority due to this influx, leading to cultural tensions as Hindus and tribal communities feel outnumbered. Many immigrants to India are reportedly attracted to Islamist organizations and become radicalized. Consequently, India has consistently supported Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party to stabilize the country and its borders and promote cultural ties. Through this alliance, India has emphasized a Bangla identity over an Islamist identity, enhancing cultural exchange between Bangladesh and the Indian state of Bengal.

    Pakistan, which lost the war with India and was forced to grant independence to Bangladesh, has never given up on the country. They have attempted to disrupt Bangladesh’s growing ties with India by supporting the anti-Indian Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its leader, Khaleda Zia. While India has promoted a Bangla identity, Pakistan has pushed for an Islamic identity and anti-Indian propaganda. Pakistan also supported Jamaat-e-Islami, an organization advocating for the Islamization of the Indian subcontinent, which has worked to promote Islamic values in Bangladesh. Many accuse the recent riots that led to Sheikh Hasina’s ousting of being influenced by Pakistan-supported Islamic factions. Indian media have reported on these accusations and are investigating whether the riots involved persecution of minorities in Bangladesh.

    India and Pakistan are not the only interested parties in Bangladesh. The United States and the UK, which did not support Bangladesh’s independence and even opposed India for backing it, are also implicated according to some political analysts. Sheikh Hasina has consistently blocked U.S. attempts to acquire St. Martin’s Island, which was reportedly part of a U.S. plan to establish a military base and boost its military dominance in the region. Some believe that the United Kingdom has plans to create a Christian nation in the Indian subcontinent while forming a Muslim nation elsewhere, and sees an opportunity in Bangladesh. Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have supported Islamist factions in Bangladesh, have helped to bolster the Islamic identity of the country. China, which seeks to reduce India’s dominance in the Bay of Bengal, also disapproves of Hasina’s alignment with India and has therefore been accused of intervening in Bangladesh as well.

    Bangladesh is currently in a transitional phase, and foreign countries are closely watching the situation. Despite previous authoritarian tendencies during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, Bangladesh has recorded growth and emerged from India’s shadow. It will be interesting to see what Bangladesh will be like after Hasina. The country is now under an interim government led by Younus, who has the support of the West. The upcoming election will be a battleground for various parties with different agendas and foreign influences. If Bangladesh cannot form a strong government, foreign interference will likely continue.

  • What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    Bollywood and Indian policymakers dominated the Indian subcontinent until the last decade. The Indian subcontinent, including Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, maintained a good relationship with India. Countries like the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan acted more like India’s satellites. They developed and evolved using India as a model, and India was generous to its neighbors, offering assistance in areas from education, health, to the satellite services. This collaboration led to the formation of SAARC, which was one of the most effective regional bodies.

    The people of these countries shared a strong cultural bond, enjoying the same movies, music, and cricket and admiring stars from each other’s nations. Despite nationalism, there was a sense of fondness and unity. However, in 2024, the scenario has changed dramatically. The union and sentiments that once bound them together are no longer present. Politicians, people, and even artists are expressing hostility toward each other, with social media filled with hate comments. Anti-India factions are ruling in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Maldives, and have gained strength in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Recently, a violent riot in Bangladesh toppled an India-supported government, revealing a clear rise in anti-India sentiment. Now, it seems only Bhutan remains allied with India in the subcontinent. What caused such a split between these countries that once seemed as close as in a Bollywood drama?

    India, as the largest secular democratic republic, was a role model for its fellow South Asian states. Even when they had disputes with India, they admired it. While some Islamist countries and the United States, which was opposed to Russia, propagated against India, people in these countries were fond of India, its secularism, and its culture. Indian Bollywood movies facilitated this cultural exchange significantly. Bollywood films, with their family values and cultural closeness, attracted large audiences in these countries, creating hardcore fans who cherished Bombay dreams. Bollywood produced content that appealed to these audiences and included more artists from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries, resulting in significant box office collections for Bollywood movies in these regions. At one point, despite border tensions, Pakistan was one of the largest contributors to Bollywood’s box office revenue.

    Cricket was also a unifying factor, as India provided facilities to promote the sport in these countries. Indian cricket and hockey stars were admired across the region. A similar cultural exchange occurred in reverse, with Pakistani musicians and Sri Lankan cricketers becoming big stars in India. Together, they formed a friendly alliance. The wars at the borders and foreign interests did not disturb this friendly environment.

    But things began to change over the last decade, specifically after Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), came to power in 2014. The rise of the Hindu nationalist party caused widespread concern in Islamic countries, leading them to question India’s secular image among their own people. Comments from BJP leaders were widely circulated, giving more spotlight to Islamic factions in countries like Pakistan, the Maldives, and Bangladesh. The public in these countries slowly began to fall out of love with India. Economic downturns in these countries were also redirected into India-hatred by local politicians, who blamed India for various problems. Jealousy played a role as well; in the past, everyone seemed to grow together, but now only India was progressing, leading to the perception that India didn’t care about them and was taking away their opportunities and overshadowing them on the global stage.

    The decline of Bollywood also contributed to this cultural divide. As Bollywood started producing more propaganda-based movies instead of the traditional romantic dramas, the films lost their connection with markets in Pakistan and other regions. Meanwhile, the youth, especially Gen Z, began exploring Hollywood and Korean movies instead of Indian content, further weakening cultural ties.

    But political analysts point to another important factor: the influence of social media on a predominantly young population. As social media spaces are heavily utilized by propagandists, minor incidents in distant places, which mainstream media usually neglect, have started to be highlighted and shape the national mood. This has further strained the already deteriorating connections between people and policymakers. Additionally, outsiders with vested interests have begun to exploit the situation. The United States and the United Kingdom have been culturally disseminating anti-India narratives in the surrounding countries, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are advancing Islamic interests. Meanwhile, China has heavily invested in the region through infrastructure projects that small-income countries cannot afford to repay, pulling them out of India’s sphere of influence. Anti-Indian groups in these nations are taking advantage of this situation by fostering a new and distinct identity that previously did not exist.

    As a result, India is becoming increasingly isolated in the region, posing significant economic and military risks. With satellite countries bound by Chinese debts, they cannot refuse the influx of Chinese products, causing substantial losses for Indian businesses. Furthermore, infrastructure projects in strategic locations around India provide a military advantage for China. It appears that China is now the dominant player in the region with its partners, putting India in a difficult position.

  • Armenia’s Blossoming Relationship with India

    Armenia, feeling abandoned after its humiliating loss in the war with Azerbaijan, struggles to make decisions in international relations. Russia has chosen to side with Azerbaijan, but Armenia cannot become hostile toward Russia as it still heavily relies on Russian military support and the Russian economy. Armenia cannot turn much toward the West either, as it observes the situation in Ukraine. Considering NATO is challenging for Armenia because Turkey, a NATO member, is a historical enemy. China does not prioritize its relationship with Armenia since Azerbaijan is one of its important trade partners. Therefore, no superpower is completely reliable for Armenia at the moment. However, in this situation, a surprising entry is gaining importance. Despite being a developing country, India is a rising superpower both militarily and economically, with aspirations for greater influence. India, which maintains friendly relations with both Russia and the USA, is becoming a great partner for Armenia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who heads a Hindu nationalist party and has shown past animosity towards Islam, is looking interested in strengthening ties with Armenia.

    For Armenia, partnering with India is an excellent option at present. Armenia seems interested in further developing its relationship with India, which has flourished through bilateral military cooperation. In March 2020, Armenia signed an important agreement to purchase four Swathi Weapon Locating Radars for $40 million from India. In September 2022, Armenia agreed to purchase four batteries of Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers, anti-tank rockets, and various types of ammunition from India for $240 million. Indian Aerospace Defence News reports that by the start of the current fiscal year 2024-25, Armenia’s total weapons purchases from India had reached $600 million, making it the largest buyer of Indian weapons.

    There will be restrictions on obtaining military equipment from Russia, which is at war and favors Azerbaijan. Buying U.S. weapons could send the wrong message to Russia, and Israel will not supply weapons to Armenia due to its good relationship with Palestine. Thus, Indian weapons are currently the best option for Armenia. Additionally, Indian weapons are inexpensive and compatible with those Turkey supplies to Azerbaijan. 

    For India, the relationship with Armenia is somewhat emotional. The current Indian government, led by Hindu organizations that are critical of Islamization, feels sympathy for Armenia’s Christians, who have been treated harshly by their Islamic neighbors. Pakistan, India’s Muslim-majority neighbor with whom India has ongoing conflicts, maintains a strong relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Although not of Turkic ethnicity and predominantly of Indian background, Pakistan claims a Turkic heritage and seeks to ally with Azerbaijan and Turkey. This alliance of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan appears to have grown beyond social media, and Turkey’s criticism of India is considered part of the worsening relationship between these countries. As a result, India has decided to boost its relationship with Armenia.

    Armenia and India have had a strong relationship throughout history. Both countries have exchanged culture and trade since medieval times, even when they were under Islamic empires. Many people of Armenian origin still live in India, and Armenian Christians have churches there. The relationship between modern Armenia and India has also blossomed. Indian presidents and prime ministers visited Armenia when it was a socialist republic in the Soviet Union, and India was among the first to recognize Armenia’s independence. In 1995, 2003, and 2017, Armenian Presidents Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, and Serzh Sargsyan visited India, resulting in the establishment of several agreements. In a 2019 interview, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed Armenia’s support for India in the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan. This was a significant support for India, as Western countries and Islamic states tend to side with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Amid the deepening relationship between India and Armenia, calls for recognizing the Armenian Genocide have increased in India, though there is opposition from Islamist and liberal factions. And For the first time under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, the Indian embassy in Armenia officially acknowledged the genocide, and in 2021, Indian Ambassador Kishan Dan Dewal paid tribute to its victims.

    India and Armenia are a perfect match, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, as both nations have maintained their culture and beliefs despite significant regional changes. They now share common adversaries. Prime Minister Modi’s interest in cultures and histories fosters a desire for closer ties. This relationship is undoubtedly beneficial for Armenia, as it offers military, technological, and economic support without antagonizing Russia or the United States.

  • Why Isn’t India Controlling the Population?

    Why Isn’t India Controlling the Population?

    India is overpopulated. More than 1.4 billion people, one out of every eight people in the world, live in this country. The figures included here are not precise because the government has not taken a census in the last 13 years. While these numbers and the position as the world’s most populous country make many Indians proud, they significantly impact their quality of life. Many people continue to have more and more children even though they don’t have the means to feed them, making India a tough place to live.

    While this population size helps the economy in many ways, such as making India a big market with cheap labor and low production costs, it also has negative impacts. The lack of jobs and the decline in quality of life are starting to affect the population very deeply. Even though India had a GDP worth $3.94 trillion in 2024, the fifth biggest in the world, when it comes to GDP per capita, it is just $2,700, ranking 136th by the IMF. Despite India’s resources, overpopulation causes this difference. People can’t find jobs. Graduates do not have jobs or are forced to take any job to survive. This leads to people not valuing their lives or their surroundings, and the dream of escaping is prevalent.

    India has become an emigration hotspot. While parents are ready to suffer to increase their caste or religion’s follower count by having more children, young people are not. They are leaving the country, and slowly, the mindset towards population control is changing in a favorable way. But Indian political parties do not seem very interested in addressing this issue.

    According to an estimate published by the United Nations on Tuesday, India’s population growth will continue, and it will reach almost double China’s figure by 2100. Though the pace is slowing according to this projection, when we compare it to the current quality of life in India, we can expect it to be terrible. This will be a blow to Narendra Modi and Hindu nationalist dreams of making India a developed country by 2047.

    In 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that a large population was obstructing India’s development and emphasized the need to consider if we can fulfill our children’s aspirations. He stressed the importance of having broader discussions and raising awareness about population explosion. Many leaders of the BJP, including Ashwani Dubey and Yogi Adityanath, echo these sentiments. They advocate for a two-child policy and propose that loan waivers and government support should be restricted to those adhering to this policy.

    However, this has led to deep discontent among different communities, especially the Muslim population, who are more radical in India and believe that reducing the number of children or using any type of contraceptive will result in divine punishment. Additionally, Muslim women have a higher rate of illiteracy and unemployment compared to the general female population. So the fertility rate, number of children increased in this community. This situation has actually fueled a population conflict because many Hindu organizations believe that Muslims are aiming to Islamize India and argue that Hindus must have more children to counteract this, thereby making life miserable for the next generation.

    Muslim-based political parties and caste-based political parties have always opposed the idea of a population control bill, arguing that it contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling on forced population control and infringes on basic rights allowed by the Indian constitution. These community based political parties promote population growth because more people in their communities translates into more votes for their candidates, increasing their chances of winning elections. These political parties also gain more bargaining power in forming alliances when their communities have larger numbers in many constituencies, enabling them to mobilize more supporters for rallies.

    The low-income individuals who follow their community leaders directions, despite having limited income, accept the duty of increasing their numbers while struggling to provide basic facilities or education for their children. This often leads to their children developing anti-social mindsets and gradually becoming involved in criminal activities for political parties. Such individuals, known as “Gundas”, become assets for political parties that use them to intimidate people and suppress opposition. Given these dynamics, why would Indian politicians support population control?

    Many political experts believe that the lack of nationwide population policies and laws creates a significant disparity in population management at the federal level. We can observe a growing divide between the North and South in terms of population management. South India, which has better-controlled population growth and a comparatively better quality of life, has become a destination for people from overpopulated northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. The education levels, quality of life, and population policies differ significantly between these regions, leading to major differences and conflicts among the people.

    This regional disparity is seen as a significant threat to India as a federal republic in the future. It should prompt national-level parties to seriously consider adopting a comprehensive population control policy. Although it may be late, it is crucial for them to act now. The dream of a developed India, as envisioned by Modi, will never materialize without population control. 

  • Is Right-wing Opposition to Modi Rising in India?

    Is Right-wing Opposition to Modi Rising in India?

    India’s Prime Minister and leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, is frequently depicted as a far-right figure in the media. Modi reinforces this perception with his comments on Hindu nationalism and remarks targeting Muslims. He is carrying out several Hindu nationalist agendas, including building the Ayodhya temple, renaming places, granting citizenship to Hindu refugees from neighboring Islamist countries, and scrapping Sharia laws in Kashmir, among others.

    Modi receives a lot of criticism for these actions from the opposition, and he is already heavily disliked by communist and Islamist populations. He is receiving substantial criticism for his actions that disrupt conventional center-left politics in the country. But as he enters his third term, he faces unexpected opposition from the far-right. They are slowly targeting Modi for not doing enough to establish a Hindu nation, even though he has held an absolute majority for the last ten years. A lot of protests and meetings by the country’s far-right supporters are demanding that the Modi government establish a Hindu nation. Many accuse Modi of diluting Hindutva, even though he is portrayed as an authoritarian far-right symbol by left-leaning and neutral media.

    In the Indian social media space, especially on X, there is a surge in content portraying Modi as a centrist leader and a business-oriented man rather than a true Hindu leader. Hindu nationalists online argue that Modi is betraying Hindu nationalism and call for him to return to his early 2000s stance when he was accused of inciting the Gujarat riots. These individuals do not like Modi diluting his stance and becoming another centrist prime minister.

    But it is clear they don’t have a political party and a leader like BJP and Modi, who can mobilize common people at the grassroots level. In reality, there are not many other parties with Hindu nationalism or even engaging in similar politics. In India’s complex political landscape, political parties are often formed based on the interests of reputed families. Even political parties initially founded on political ideologies eventually turn into vehicles for the interests of the leaders families. There are many examples of this phenomenon. The Indian National Congress, founded on anti-imperialism and socialist ideology, has now shrunk to a party serving the interests of the Nehru family. Janata Dal, a political party that once provided  prime ministers and was the second biggest party, split into many factions due to the interests of various families. The only reputed political party not driven by family interests and that carries a political ideology is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which advocates for Hindu nationalism. That’s why people choose BJP and Modi.

    But many election experts believe the reduction in numbers BJP obtained in the last parliamentary election is due to discontent among supporters of Hindu nationalism. There is criticism from Hindu organizations that Modi is becoming an idol and is getting away from the core ideology of the BJP. Several Hindu organizations have already expressed their discontent in how Modi is projected more than the Hindu ideology he represents. Narendra Modi presented himself as the chief priest in the Ayodhya temple inauguration and made statements that he represents God, with his fans often worshiping him with chants usually reserved for Hindu gods. All of this is enough to consider whether he is straying from the founding principles of the BJP. 

    Besides this, while Modi secured a majority in both houses of Parliament last time, he has not pushed for the long-term dream of Hindu organizations: the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which would dismantle the Muslim right to follow Sharia law in India. He is also not ready to abandon the changes introduced by Indira Gandhi, which included words like “Secularism” in the preamble and some articles. Some Hindu nationalists, often Muslim haters, criticize Modi for not working towards a hijab ban, madrassa ban, population control bill, etc.

    There are also long-standing demands, such as removing illegal immigrants, mostly Muslims from Bangladesh, which change the demographics of many places in India, making them Muslim-majority areas. Additionally, Modi has not worked towards recapturing Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, among other issues. Many believe Modi will not be able to address these concerns in his third term, as he is now at the mercy of alliance parties that do not carry Hindu nationalist agendas. Therefore, they are angry that Modi has wasted ten years.

    The third term will be challenging for Modi, as he needs to appease Hindu nationalists. However, he faces limitations in a coalition government. The far-right factions are not ready to settle, and their demands will likely intensify. Staying in power without satisfying them could lead to a rise in far-right movements in India. Currently, India has only two Hindu nationalist parties, BJP and Shiv Sena. Both are part of the alliances and cannot significantly push the Hindu nationalist agenda. This creates a space with high potential, waiting for a leader.

  • Why is Modi’s trip to Russia significant?

    Why is Modi’s trip to Russia significant?

    Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy, has chosen Russia for his first bilateral meeting after securing a third term in last month’s general election. The two-day visit, which included informal discussions, photo sessions, dinners, diplomatic talks, and the awarding of the highest civilian honor to the Prime Minister, holds considerable geopolitical importance. This visit sends important signals to the West, particularly as Western countries stand united in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, albeit with less attention to the situation in Palestine.

    India has never aligned with any major power bloc since becoming a republic, its leaders, irrespective of their political affiliations, have always maintained a warm relationship with Russia. Narendra Modi, who has been in power for the past 10 years, continues this policy. Over the last decade, the United States and Western countries have attempted to draw India away from its traditional alliances and towards a grand democratic alliance in Asia, including the West and Japan. However, Modi’s recent actions demonstrate India’s steadfast stance despite the evolving Asian political landscape. Modi also stated that the visit, his first since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the pandemic, aimed to cement the “Bonds of Friendship” between the two countries. He later enthusiastically described Russia as India’s “All-weather friend and trusted ally”. 

    At Tuesday’s formal summit, Modi stated that he and Putin had covered everything from establishing new Indian embassies in Russia to enhancing trade cooperation. India’s significant imports of Russian oil, minerals, and arms, in exchange for Indian agricultural products, are crucial for sustaining the Russian economy amid stringent Western sanctions, alongside China. However, reports indicate that during informal discussions, Modi called for Russia’s withdrawal from the war and called for an end to the conflict.

    India and Russia anticipate enhanced cooperation as the North-South corridor becomes fully operational. India, with a market of 1.4 billion people and one of the world’s largest economies, presents significant opportunities for Russian businesses. Conversely, Russia offers a large and cost-effective option for Indian businesses seeking natural resources, fostering a mutually beneficial relationship. However, ethical concerns remain, as Modi’s visit was condemned by Ukraine, citing ongoing war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. Just hours before Modi arrived in Moscow, Russian airstrikes targeted Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital and other civilian sites, causing numerous casualties and prompting global condemnation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy described it as “A devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy embracing the world’s most notorious criminal in Moscow on such a day”.

    But the situation extends beyond Ukraine. Asia is undergoing polarization, and two blocs are  formed. The superpowers are already teamed up. One side includes Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. The other side consists of Russia, China, Iran, Kazakhstan, and North Korea. The stances of India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are crucial but not yet clearly defined. With significant investments and diplomatic talks, these blocs are aligning more countries with them. Vietnam will likely join the United States bloc, and Indonesia is expected to lean towards the Russian bloc. According to reports, India is also moving towards an alliance with Russia, which will be a significant blow to the U.S. bloc.

    The U.S. recognizes the importance of India and has not criticized it, instead praising India for directly calling on Putin to stop the war, which indicates the U.S. still has hope in India. Historically, the U.S. was aligned with Pakistan, while India was connected to the Soviet Union and Russia from its formation. However, over the last decade, as Pakistan was ousted from the U.S. plan, the U.S. began to consider India more seriously. During Trump’s tenure, the relationship flourished, and there were reports that India leaned toward the U.S. side while Pakistan moved toward an alliance with China and Russia.

    After Trump, due to poor handling of foreign relations, India began returning to Russia’s side again. This shift will not be easy for India, as India and China now have serious disputes and appear to be enemy countries, both of which are important to Russia. If any issue arises between India and China, Russia’s stance will be crucial, as both countries are important to Russia. If Russia favors China, it won’t take long for India to switch sides to the U.S., given India’s existing relationships with U.S. allies Japan and Israel.

    The importance Modi places on Putin and the significance Russia attributes to India is the message conveyed by the recent meeting of both leaders. However, the U.S. will not abandon its mission with India. For its plan in Asia, the U.S. cannot rely on the U.K. and France anymore, so it needs superpowers from Asia. India is valuable for the control of Asia, particularly for security against China. If the Republicans return to the U.S. presidency, they will likely attempt to revive the relationship with India. From Russia’s side, even though they may prefer China, they will remain connected to India and ensure India stays neutral.