Author: Manan Tandon

The article is published with: https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/india-must-turn-us-sympathy-into-strategic-support/42895

In a week dominated by the tragic incident in Pahalgam and tensions along India-Pakistan frontier, it became easy to forget an otherwise crucial diplomatic moment, the four-day visit of US Vice-President JD Vance to India.

Vance’s first official trip may not have made front-page headlines, but its impact on the Indo-U.S. relationship is worth reflecting upon. From his first stop in New Delhi to Jaipur, Vance’s message was consistent that the U.S. sees India not just as a partner of the future, but a critical ally. “We must ensure fair access to Indian markets, and we believe that deeper cooperation will unlock growth opportunities for both our countries. A fair, mutually beneficial partnership is essential for the 21st century,” Vance said.

There is a deeper pattern that links Vance’s strategic language in India. A triangle of concern, China, Islamist terrorism and economy sits at the heart of India and U.S. shared worldview. Both nations see the rise of China not just as a geopolitical issue but as a technological and trade imbalance. Vance did not name Beijing directly, but his intent was clear when he stated, “Our future cannot depend on authoritarian supply chains. We must build with partners who share our values.”

Likewise, the terror attack in Kashmir was not only a violent act, it was a strategic cry for relevance. “The attack in Kashmir wasn’t just an act of terror, it was an act of desperation,” said a senior Indian intelligence official, speaking off the record. “It aimed to remind Washington that Pakistan is still a matter of concern, but the world isn’t listening the way it once did.”

The terror attacks in India highlights that Pakistan still clings to tactics it believes can deliver results. Yet increasingly, these acts are backfiring, inviting growing international backlash against Islamabad. With US engagement with India now on a different plane, Pakistan’s military-industrial complex, unable to adjust to this new reality, seems destined to repeat its strategic missteps.

For India, this is a pivotal moment. New Delhi must now push harder to convert sympathy into sustained support, not just in words, but in actionable partnerships to counter cross-border terrorism.

Unlike Vance’s usual rhetorical style, his tone in India was warm and affirming. “If India and the United States work together successfully, we are going to see a 21st century that is prosperous and peaceful”, Vance said in a public address. His personal praise for Modi was not superficial. It was a signal that Washington sees India and Modi specifically as fundamental in determining the world order. “I have seen first-hand energy of this country, the optimism, the investment in the future, we need that spirit back home too.”, Vance said.

On Friday, the United States publicly urged India to “bring the perpetrators to justice”. “We are with you and support you as you hunt down those responsible for this heinous attack,” US Intelligence czar Tulsi Gabbard said in a statement, calling the Pahalgam attack an “Islamist terrorist attack, targeting and killing 26 Hindus.”

Trump had earlier maintained that India has the right to self-defense against acts of terror. The latest statements from Washington seem to indicate that the United States would not oppose any decisive action New Delhi might take against Pakistan even across the border, especially after a senior Pakistani minister openly admitted to institutional support for terrorism while criticising the West for reducing Pakistan to a rentier state.

India cannot afford to let this diplomatic opening slip away. Washington’s warm words and Vance’s visit must be channeled into concrete commitments on intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism cooperation. New Delhi must rise to this occasion, and ensure that goodwill turns into guarantees.

The article has been published at : Waqf: An audit of accountability

The tragic Pahalgam attack gripped the nation and dominated headlines, but quietly in the background, a different kind of assault was underway, this time on constitutional rights. The uproar over the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 was intense. Protests surged, dissent filled the streets and one devastating headline eclipsed another.

What began as a reform measure to clean up the cobwebs around Waqf properties has spiralled into a ‘communal shouting match’.

In the latest run, over 100 petitions later, the Supreme Court refused to entertain any further fresh writ petition challenging the act, signalling that the court may be drawing a line against being used as a battleground for identity politics.

And yet, the noise outside the courtroom only gets louder. While the Congress has rolled out its ‘Samvidhan Bachao Andolan’ and leaders like Mohammed Ali Shabbir claim that the bill is an attack on Islam itself, there’s an uncomfortable but necessary truth that more Muslims need to reckon with, one that the Governor of Bihar, Arif Mohammad Khan has repeatedly underlined. “The word ‘Waqf’ doesn’t even appear in the Holy Quran”, he said. So why are we letting Maulanas drag religion into what is clearly a governance and accountability issue? He pointed out that the ultimate sufferers are the poor Muslims who need help. “Had the Waqf boards done their work efficiently, there would have been no reason to amend the old Waqf Act”, he said. This point must be kept in mind in the ongoing debate on this controversial issue.

Many leaders have pointed out that this is not about Muslims vs the BJP. This is about accountability vs opacity. The numbers speak for themselves, Waqf land holdings have more than doubled from 4.5 lakh in 2006 to 8.72 lakh in 2024, with the total land area increasing from 6 lakh acres to 37.94 lakh acres. Yet, the actual reported income generated is a pitiful ₹163 crore to ₹166 crore, while experts estimate it to be around 1 lakh crore annually.

Campaigns against the act have framed it as a threat to minority rights. But at no point does the amendment challenge the right of Muslims to practice or manage their religious spaces. Instead, it places scrutiny on the administrative functioning of the Waqf boards, how properties are identified, registered and used.

Earlier, In Karnataka, the BJP government already initiated geo-tagging and digital mapping of Waqf lands to reduce misuse. Interestingly, even Congress governments in the past like in Telangana have attempted Waqf audits and proposed stronger oversight mechanisms, though with limited success. The problem, it seems, is not who introduces the reform but who is willing to see it through.

Safeguarding minority rights should never mean exempting institutions from reform. This act, when read closely ensure that Waqf boards continue to function, but with greater public responsibility. The idea is not to dismantle but to democratise, not to erase but to ensure lawful use of charitable property.

There are genuine concerns in the community, especially in an environment that often stokes fear. But reforms should be critiqued on the basis of their text, impact, and intent not merely on who introduced them.

Campaigns are ongoing, positions have been at stakes and now the law will speak. What the court decides on May 5 will not just shape the fate of the Waqf Act, but will set the tone for how we approach institutional reform in religious and minority spaces going forward. Reform is not inherently anti-minority and resistance is not inherently unreasonable. But somewhere, the two must find a common ground.

Whatever the verdict may be, one hopes it marks a shift towards a more transparent governance not just of Waqf properties but of all public and religious trusts across India.

The article has been published at : Pahalgam: A geopolitical message in gunfire

On a Tuesday, in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, that should have been filled with the sound of gushing rivers and camera shutters, there was instead gunfire targeted, brutal and chillingly symbolic. 26 people, mostly tourists, were killed and several others injured when a gunmen opened fire. This incident has drawn widespread international condemnation.

Leaders from across the world, including the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and the European Union, have expressed solidarity with India, denouncing the violence and calling a justice. The handful of statements from global capitals, standard expressions of condemnation was neatly wrapped in diplomatic courtesy. And then, silence.

Barely days before the Pahalgam bloodbath, Pakistan Army Chief General Asif Munir delivered a speech that, in hindsight, now reads like a strategic green light to terror proxies. In openly invoking the two-nation theory and branding Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” Munir was giving ideological and moral support to groups like The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which soon claimed responsibility for the attack. What followed in Pakistan’s official response strengthens this linkage. Instead of unequivocally condemning the targeting of civilians, Islamabad attempted to deflect attention, painting the attack as the act of “locals acting against the government.” It was disingenuous attempt to rebrand terrorism as revolution, violence as activism. Even more so in light of reports that of the four assailants, three were foreigners.

The timing is no coincidence. The attack happened while Prime Minister Modi was visiting Saudi Arabia, marking a deepening partnership in trade and security; which for Pakistan threatens it’s traditional hold in the Gulf. But this is not 2001. With Pakistan’s economy in shambles and it’s diplomatic capital depleting, the state’s old tactics are losing relevance. Gulf nations today are investing in stability, not in failed promises.

Adding to the context was US Vice President JD Vance’s presence in India during the same period. As India and the US move closer strategically, the attack seemed designed to raise doubts, signal unresolved volatility. But the attempt didn’t land, the US administration quickly reaffirmed support for India. With every attack, Pakistan is isolating itself further, and shows how the world is changing, but Islamabad’s narrative isn’t.

The sympathy is appreciated but what the situation demands is action. Just boasting flags of human rights won’t help. “Deeply disturbing news out of Kashmir, The United States stands strong with India against Terrorism. We pray for the souls of those lost, and for the recovery of the injured. Prime Minister Modi, and the incredible people of India, have our full support and deepest sympathies. Our hearts are with you all”, Donald Trump wrote in a post on X.

Each time blood is spilled on Indian soil, global responses follow a familiar script, condemn the violence, express solidarity, and urge restraint. But that script is wearing thin. In today’s geopolitics, symbolic gestures are no longer enough. The world must move beyond the obvious and confront the uncomfortable truth of maintaining warm ties with a state that enables terrorism, while claiming friendship with its victim, is a contradiction that undermines credibility.

Several global leaders have openly identified the permissive environment in Pakistan as a key driver of regional instability. Yet many capitals continue to pursue a balancing act, issuing statements of support for India while keeping channels open with Islamabad, often the guise of strategic necessity. This approach is not just outdated, it is dangerous.

India has drawn its red lines, It has named it’s adversaries. Now, the strategic world must do the same. It’s key allies, from London, Moscow to Paris, must resist the temptation to recycle platitudes or offer diplomatic cover to regimes that shelter and arm non-state actors. Backdoor cooperation, equivocal language and the pursuit of trade at the expense of principle. All erode the moral clarity that democracies claim to champion.

India is not asking others to fight its battles. But the sustained export of terrorism is a grave violation of human rights, one that demands international resolve. It is time for states to confront this global threat with the seriousness it warrants.

A remarkable development has come to light in Myanmar, though “remarkable” might be too generous a word. The country’s infamous military Junta has announced amnesties for 5,864 prisoners, including 180 foreigners slated for deportation. In a rare act of ‘benevolence’, General Min Aung Hlaing reduced life sentences for 144 prisoners to a mere 15 years. Such grand gestures may sound commendable at first, but let’s not be fooled. It is clearly a smokescreen to distract the regime’s iron-fisted rule. Conspicuously or not, but absent from the list of those freed is the ousted civilian leader and symbol of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi. At 79, she is wasted away in detention. Many of the prisoners released include Thai nationals arrested for gambling at border town. The timing? Well, it coincides with the 77th anniversary of Myanmar’s independence from Britain, a holiday often marked by prisoner releases.

While symbolic gestures of mercy may appear to honour this day, but they invite a deeper question: Do such celebrations conceal the deteriorating political and economic realities facing Myanmar today? Granting amnesties on national holidays is a tradition in Myanmar, but the irony here is suffocating, a junta celebrating independence while holding its people hostage to tyranny.

Former U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said, “There remains no place in the 21st century for a military regime that suppresses freedom and denies democracy”. In an era where liberal ideals and democratic values dominate global discourse, it is easy to assume we have outgrown shadows of tyranny. Yet, even in the 21st century, Myanmar stands as a haunting exception, a nation where authoritarian rule has loomed relentlessly for more than half a century. The military coup of February 2021 was a devastating blow to Myanmar’s fragile democracy. Mass protests erupted, met with a severe crackdown that claimed hundreds of lives. In 2022, United Nations documented extensive human rights violations, with accusation of crimes committed against ethnic minorities. The Junta’s actions has drawn international condemnation yet political repression rolls on without a hitch. The coup’s aftermath has not only undermined governance but also devastated the economy completely. According to World Bank, Myanmar’s economy shrank by 18% in 2021 and it’s GDP is expected to contract by 1% by March 2021. The nation’s now ranks among the least developed in the world, plagues by corruption and mismanagement of the economy. Average citizens bear the heavy brunt of such a handicapped state facing rising unemployment, inflation and diminished prospects, while the military elite retain their privileges.

So, the question that arises is, what exactly is the future of Myanmar? It does hang by a thread with a promise of democracy on one end and chokehold of military power on the other. Such celebrations offers a shallow guise of growth, where freedom dressed up in ceremony is as hollow as a drum. True liberation required more than symbolic prisoner releases or national holidays filled with fanfare. It demands dismantling systematic repression, restoring political freedoms and ensuring accountability for the human rights abuses that continues to haunt the nation till date. Think of thousands who marches peacefully in the 2021 Spring revolution, only to be met with bullets and batons. Recall the stories of journalists like Kyaw Min Swe, imprisoned for reporting the truth and of course, the story of mass displaced Muslim Rohingyas suffering from persecution. Celebrations of independence cannot erase these ongoing struggles.

Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “The will to power is the very essence of life.”

The power race is perhaps the most defining yet destructive force plaguing our world today.

At it’s core, the very desire for power is inherently wrong. Power drives human ambition, innovation, and progress. But when the pursuit of power becomes unrestrained, it morphs into a zero-sum game. The race for dominance among superpowers like the United States, China, and Russia drives this point home. Henry Kissinger warned of this cycle when he said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” This intoxicating pursuit leads nations to justify proxy wars, military build-ups, and economic manipulations.

Certainly, it’s becoming a hotbed of power plays. At the heart of this chaos is the US-China rivalry, a no-holds barred competition that is spilling over into every corner of the globe. While China’s Belt and Road initiative is busy redrawing the influence map. Add in the Quad and AUKUS alliances flexing in the Indo-pacific, and it’s a tug-of war with no end in sight. How can we forget the Israel-Palestine conflict? Once, a regional issue is now a pawn in the broader game of this power politics. With the US standing staunchly behind Israel, whereas Iran and Turkey championing Palestine, the war is a tragic stage for competing agendas. Add ‘ America first policy’ into the mix where alliances are transactional, and this will make the plot even thicker.

Well, this race even has it’s fingerprints all over the corporate world, where multinationals pull more strings that governments ever could. Arendt was right when she said that, “Power is actualised only where word and deed have not parted company,” yet corporations today seem to have parted ways with accountability. So, can we blame them? After all, capitalism itself is a power game, one designed to favour competition.

Social media has made this literal when we say Power is everywhere, because it comes from everywhere. Turning every interaction into a ground for status and validation. The quest for followers isn’t just a harmless pastime, it’s the epitome of society’s obsession with dominance. “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” But on such platforms, we are practically handing over the consent, aren’t we? The paradox of power is relational. It’s value depends on someone else having less. Kofi Annan captured this tension perfectly, “You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course, you can do a lot more with power.” The irony is that cooperation, not domination is what we desperately need, from climate change to inequality, you name it.

Ultimately, the pursuit of power isn’t the issue but instead how we pursue it. In Gandhi’s words, “Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment.” If the power race could shift from domination to collaboration, perhaps it wouldn’t be the world’s greatest issue but its greatest solution.

Until then, we’ll continue running this exhausting race, only to find that no one truly wins.

North Korea, once known as the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ for it’s isolationism, is stepping out of the shadows in a way that is sending shockwaves across the global stage.

Pyongyang and Moscow have signed a ‘Mutual military aid’ pact alarming nations worldwide. The treaty, marks a significant collaboration between the two nations since the Cold War and strengthens ties between Kim Jong Un’s regime and Putin’s embattled Russia.

Intelligence reports indicate that 12,000 North Korean troops have already been deployed to bolster Russian forces in Ukraine, with another 50,000 troops from both nations reportedly preparing for a joint offensive from Russia’s Kursk region. This has been ratified by Russian authorities last week, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty is set to come into force once documents are exchanged, as confirmed by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

This alliance isn’t just a footnote in global politics, it is a radical shift that has drawn significant reactions from the United States, China and South Korea. It is a story of power play, opportunism, unintended consequences, exposing the international order’s fragility and unpredictable ambitions of such repressive regimes.

For Russia, whose caught up in a protracted and costly war with it’s neighbour, this alliance with North Korea seems like a lifeline. It is indeed desperate for ammunitions, manpower and international backing. Moscow has found a willing partner in Kim, whose regime is equally isolated but eager to assert on a global stage.

However, the question that arises is, whether this is a genuine partnership or just Russia’s drive of desperation? Well, unsurprisingly and clearly, Moscow is exploiting Pyongyang’s vulnerabilities to sustain it’s war efforts, while Kim seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that he’s being used as yet another pawn in a broader game of chess. The danger that lies for North Korea, is that this transactional bond could leave him even more isolated in the long run.

China, North Kore’s traditional ally is closely watching this alliance with great unease. Beijing’s ambitions to dominate East and South Asia by 2049 hinges on maintaining stability in it’s neighbourhood. Yet, Kim’s growing alignment with Putin disrupts this strategy.

Pyongyang’s newfound assertiveness towards Russia threatens to upset this balance of power on the Korean peninsula. To be fair, Beijing is power-hungry but at the same time Pragmatic. While it openly supports North Korea’s survival as a buffer state, it does not want Kim to overshadow its ambitions in the region.

As far as the United States is concerned, this North Korea-Russia axis poses a challenge. Trump’s campaign promise to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours now seems increasingly implausible, as North Korean arms shipments provide Russia with the means to prolong the conflict. The U.S must definitely tread carefully. Any misstep could escalate tensions with both Russia and China, complicating Washington’s efforts to manage crisis in multiple theatres. The former Biden administration’s focus has been on sanctions and diplomacy, but these tools may prove insufficient against the growing alignment of authoritarian regimes.

South Korea, has expressed it’s frustration with Russia’s actions, calling it ‘bellicose and irresponsible’. Seoul has called on Moscow to halt its military cooperation with North Korea, criticizing the “cannon fodder” policy that sees North Korean soldiers being used to shore up Russian forces. A stronger, more militarised North Korea not only threatens the peninsula’s fragile peace but also undermines Seoul’s security and regional aspirations.

The international community has long sought to pressure North Korea into abandoning its isolationism through sanctions. However, the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty demonstrates Pyongyang’s ability to sidestep these measures by forging opportunistic alliances. Yet, this strategy carries risks. If North Korea overplays its hand, it could face even harsher sanctions and deeper isolation, potentially forcing it to seek assistance from the very global powers it now defies.

Whether this marks a new era of power for North Korea or its descent into further isolation remains to be seen. For now, the world can only prepare for the repercussions of this dangerous game.

Recently, I was looking at a contemporary development of Chagos Archipelago, a group of seven atolls in the Indian ocean. It’s a story of a forgotten paradise, filled with betrayal, exploitation and heartbreak.

If we tred our steps back to the 1960’s, the inhabitants, ‘Chagossians’ were torn from their homeland and have been fighting for decades to reclaim their identity and dignity. Their struggles echoes the pain of other such communities around the world who have been victims of forced deportation and unjust colonial policies.

Recent calls for reparations stir up the age-old questions of accountability and justice.

But the question is, Can any amount of compensation right the egregious wrongs committed here? Or is this “treaty” that has been recently signed on October 3, 2024 is just another cleverly disguised diplomatic sleight of hand?

Let’s not mince words: the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homeland between 1968 and 1973, not for the Chagossians’ benefit, but to accommodate a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, which is the largest and the southernmost island of the Archipelago. This was done in exchange of $14 m discount on the Polaris nuclear missile.

Well, the agreement was clear, “Keep Chagos “clean and sanitised” of indigenous life” . More than 1,500 Chagossians were displaced to Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK, left to discover nothing but a hostile world with no resources and no support, while their homeland became an exclusive military zone, a place they would only dream of returning to.

In there own Creole language, Chagossians categorised themselves as “Sagren”, which means torn from their homeland.

These words hang heavy with betrayal, telling us how an entire community was robbed of its identity, family, and heritage. The islanders’ enforced exile and the military occupation of their homeland reflect the kind of callous imperialism most nations pretend to have outgrown.

But why now, after decades of denial and neglect, can UK make for all this lose time?

Now, as Mauritius and the UK sit down to negotiate the fate of the Chagos Archipelago, we must ask ourselves if this is really a genuine attempt at justice. What real guarantees does the UK offer that it will adhere to these commitments, let alone apologies to the Chagossians for their unimaginable suffering?

Imagine generations growing up in exile, watching their elders talk about a home they’ve never seen but still fiercely call their own.

The Chagossians who live in Crawley, Sussex in the UK still face severe socio-economic challenges, racism and are often treated as second-class citizens. Many Chagossian families in Crawley, where there is a significant population, live in poverty, struggling to access healthcare and education, still dreaming of the life they could have had in their paradise.

The irony is almost poetic, the UK, which prides itself as a promoter of democracy and human rights, has held on to its last colony in Africa, refusing to let go of its imperial past.

Well, the latest UK-Mauritius treaty negotiations over the Chagos Archipelago represent a significant development in the decades-long dispute.

These talks could lead to a historic transfer, and the UK has reportedly included provisions for reparations, which would cover compensation for the harm inflicted upon the Chagossians during their forced displacement. However, despite these promising steps, Chagossians feel deeply sidelined, voiceless and powerless in the negotiations.

Chagossian leaders and activists argue that they remain largely excluded from direct involvement in these talks, which are predominantly between British and Mauritian officials. For Chagossians, whose forced displacement and exile have left them scattered, the sense of being ignored persists.

As Olivier Bancoult, a prominent Chagossian leader, stated, “We are the ones who were displaced. Why are we not the ones negotiating our future?”

There are two main reasons Chagossians feel neglected. First, the discussions primarily focus on state-to-state interests and the logistics of transferring sovereignty from the UK to Mauritius, rather than on the Chagossian community’s right to return or reparations.

The potential return of the islands to Mauritius does not necessarily guarantee that Chagossians will be allowed to resettle, nor does it outline a specific framework for addressing their long-term social and economic needs, both of which are crucial for any meaningful reparations.

Second, while Mauritius has repeatedly expressed support for Chagossians’ rights to return, Chagossian leaders fear their community’s interests may become secondary to broader geopolitical goals.

Although Mauritius has pledged to protect their rights, Chagossians question whether the government would prioritise their needs once the islands are under its control.

For many, the ultimate hope is not just to reclaim land but to rebuild a self-sustaining community on their ancestral homeland, something that current negotiations still fall short of ensuring.

In essence, the UK-Mauritius treaty may seem like progress on paper, but for the Chagossian community, it remains a symbolic gesture unless their rightful place at the table is respected.

The treaty does mark a step forward but the road to real justice remains a long one.

India and Canada have long been seen as friendly nations, knitted with democratic values and strong cultural ties. However, the recent diplomatic blow-up between Canada’s PM Trudeau and India threatens to affect this partnership. The tensions are not just political but are permeated in historical grievances, ethnic politics and conflicting national interests.

Firstly, the core of this tension is Canada’s downright reluctance to crack down on Khalistani separatism, a movement that ‘s so relevant in India today as a dial-up internet. But in Canada? Well, it’s alive and kicking as always.

Canada’s dismissiveness towards India’s concerns over pro-khalistani activities is not just a diplomatic snub, it’s a slap in the face. The Sikh community, though dominating just 2% of Canada’s population, wields significant political weight. As Trudeau himself puts it, “Canada is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and Sikh community is an integral part of that diversity”, while some translate it as their potential vote banks and a mere political strategy, rather than some high-minded dedication to diversity. Because in this cold, calculated world of electoral politics, Khalistan is a card Trudeau won’t give up easily.

Secondly, India’s response to Trudeau’s wild accusation has been unforgiving. Describing the claims as politically motivated, India has shown that it’s not about letting it’s reputation be dragged through the mud without a fight. Cancelling visas, expelling diplomats, India’s message is clear, ‘Don’t bite the hand that holds your diplomatic goodwill’.

With both nations being influential players in the global arena, India in G20 and Quad while the latter being in G7 and the Five eyes alliance, this squabble could soon begin to force other nations to pick sides as well.

While the diplomatic punches keep flying, the economic impact has been mere simmer instead of a full-explosion. For instance, Canadian pension funds have pumped around $75 billion into India’s economy, and both countries stand to lose if they let this ruckus spill over into trade and investment.

However, let’s not pretend that money is immune to political pressure. Already, trade talks have grounded to a halt, and it won’t be long before the private sector starts feeling the pinch as well.

Another considerable point is the education exchange between the two countries. Indian students flock to Canada in droves, with one in every seven Indian students studying abroad choosing the Great White North. These aren’t just warm bodies filing the seats they are rather soft power conduits. But if this feud drags on, we might witness fewer students heading towards the west, cutting off an invaluable link in diplomatic relations.

Well, this diplomatic mess can only be cleaned up with one thing and that’s ‘Dialogue’. But not the kind where both nations talk past each other.

India and Canada need to sit down, face the hard truths and get real about the cost of letting this standoff get out of control.

Political polarization has always been the hottest trend in pattern, and the chambers are the places to be. Forget about engaging in meaningful conversations with differing viewpoints, these days- it’s all about retreating into your bubble, cancelling anyone who dares to disagree and building ideological walls higher than ever before.

Political leaders worldwide are mastering the art of ignoring valid opinions, preferring instead to dismiss arguments that don’t fit their narratives.

The governance challenges accompanied by contentious campaigns as the backdrop, the stage is set for a drama of epic proportions where no one listens, and everyone yells.

Social media is becoming the fairy godmother to this havoc, turning platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram into tailor-made chambers.

We are all becoming experts in ignoring anything that doesn’t fit into our pre-existing beliefs.

It is the very own “us” vs “them” mentality.

Let’s look at the Partisan circus across countries:

If you’re looking for a prime example of political polarization, look no further than the United States.

The current spectacle involves former president Donald trump and president Joe Biden, whose lives are now akin to a soap opera.

Trump, currently juggling multiple indictments ranging from mishandling classified documents to allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results, remains as polarizing as ever.

His legal woes have done nothing to diminish his star power within the Republican party. If anything, they’ve only amplified his status as the victim of a supposed “deep state conspiracy”.

On the flip side, Biden’s administration is stumbling through it’s own set of crises. Recent footage of Biden’s “malfunctions” and his infamous gibberish speeches have given critics endless fodder.

Let’s not forget the media’s role in all this, Conservatives love to highlight Trump’s legal battles and recent shooting incident as proof of a biased justice system. Meanwhile, liberal networks like CNN can’t get enough of calling for accountability and denouncing political violence.

The Indian way

In one corner, we have the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who’s been accused of turning the dial up on Hindu nationalism to eleven.

The BJP’s policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA) and the revocation of Article 370 are being slammed by critics as delightfully exclusionary.

Apparently, making laws that favor one religious over another is the latest fashion statement in Indian politics. On the other hand, we have the INC and other opposition parties who have donned their capes to save secularism and minority rights.

This discourse, however has become vitriolic, with little room for nuanced debate or middle ground.

The European Context

Europe is not immune to these trends either.

The 2024 elections for the European parliament have highlighted deep divisions between pro- European Union(EU) parties and Eurosceptic factions (being opposed to increasing powers of EU).

In countries, like Italy and Hungary, populist leaders such as Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orban have rallied against EU regulations and immigration policies, tapping into nationalist sentiments.

Conversely, pro-EU leaders like Macron of France and Olaf Scholz of Germany advocate for greater European integration and possess liberal democratic values.

Well, the consequences of political polarization are troubling. Governance becomes increasingly difficult due to the erosion of bipartisan cooperation.

The 2024 elections around the world highlight the deepening effect of polarization that poses significant challenges to democratic governance.

So in thought, political polarization is not a result of differing opinions, but rather failing to respect and engage with those differences.

And this too reminds me of a leader’s words that how “we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”

Well, the choice is ultimately ours!

We are in 2024 and the Middle East is in complete disorder, and at the center of it all Israel which was formerly a dominant regional power now faces an existential dilemma.

With attacks from Hezbollah, missiles from Iran, and a political climate turning increasingly hostile, one can’t help but ask, how bad will it get for Israel? And more pressingly, can Israel survive as it’s gradually becoming a pariah state?

Recent events have brought Israel’s prolonged tension with Iran to a boiling point.

Following Iran’s latest missile attack, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant vowed a “lethal” response. Gallant is serious, and so is Netanyahu, who is fresh off a conversation with Joe Biden discussing retaliation.

The rhetoric has grown sharper, this is no longer a cold war of covert operations and proxy conflicts, it’s gradually becoming a direct confrontation. But how many times can Israel go tit-for-tat with Tehran without triggering a regional inferno?

Israel’s strikes in Beirut and Tehran have thrown both nations into an even more dangerous cycle of escalation. And the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has eliminated one of the last key figures in Hezbollah’s leadership. While Israel’s military may celebrate that, it’s a hollow victory.

The former U.S. Army General and Director of the CIA, David Petraeus, attributed, “Hezbollah like all militant movements, thrives on martyrdom, killing Nasrallah doesn’t end Hezbollah, it galvanizes it”. He made this remark while discussing the complexities of combating Hezbollah and other militant groups, while highlighting that targeting leaders like him could lead to further radicalization rather than ending the group’s activities.

The situation gets even more complicated within Israel itself. A group of 130 Israeli soldiers has penned an ultimatum to their government, threatening to abandon their service unless a deal is made to secure the release of hostages.

These are soldiers willing to put their own military careers on risk, because they believe the current course not only endangers the hostages but fuels the conflict.

Netanyahu is struggling to hold together his coalition government and it stings when the backbone of Israel’s power, “military” turns around and says, “Reach an agreement or we’re stepping back”

The hostage situation isn’t just a humanitarian crisis, it’s more of a political time bomb.

If Netanyahu doesn’t shift gears, this internal rebellion could rip through the Israeli’s defense forces(IDF)and destabilize an already fragile system. Is Israel really in a position to lose soldiers at a time when it’s facing existential threats on every front? Can it afford to keep fighting without addressing the plight of these hostages?

Israel’s problems, of course, don’t end with its enemies. Increasingly, the international community views Israel with disdain. Western nations, long Israel’s supporters, are becoming weary of its policies.

The continuous military operations, settlements and disregard for international law all of these adds to a narrative that Israel is becoming more or a rogue state rather than a democracy under threat.

For all its military might, Israel can’t survive in isolation. The U.S. still backs Israel for now. But for how long? With mounting pressures from global organizations, human rights groups, and even internal dissent, Israel’s pariah status is quickly becoming a reality. And a nation cut off from its allies, no matter how powerful, eventually finds itself vulnerable.

Israel has survived countless wars, terrorism, and waves of international criticism, but what we’re witnessing now is completely different.

The combination of escalating conflicts with Iran, the assassination of key figures like Nasrallah, internal dissent among soldiers, and growing international isolation puts Israel in a precarious position.

The question is not just whether Israel can win its battles but whether it can survive the costs of winning.

With each missile strike, each political misstep, and each alienated ally, Israel is digging itself deeper into a hole that may soon be impossible to climb out of.

And as the situation worsens, one often wonders, how much longer can this last?