Site Title

Tag: india

  • How entrepreneurial are the Indian educational institutes?

    Waterloo is a small University town located in the Canadian province of Ontario. With a population of less than a hundred thousand, it is an entrepreneurial powerhouse. With more than one thousand start ups credited to its innovative history, the region is one of the most progressive startup ecosystems in the world. Situated twelve thousand kilometers away is Mumbai, India’s financial center. Indian Institute of Technology, or IIT located in this financial hub is one of the primary educational institutes in the Asian region. Its E-cell has spawned more than two thousand companies, making it the largest in the Indian subcontinent.

    This is not just a comparison between two of the finest institutes, it is a comparison between a highly developed G8 country and a one of the fastest developing countries in the world. Although, India has made great strides in developing an entrepreneurial environment, it still is a land of extremes. On the one side, we have universities that rank among the best in the global rankings, but on the other hand, we still have a significant population who can hardly put a signature with a pen.

    Indian startup scene is becoming more and more inclusive over the time. With an active role played by the governmental sector, the outreach program is reaching and changing lives of millions of people across the country. A few days back, I came across an article on Gatesnotes that talked about DroneDidis, an innovative public sector scheme which empowers women in rural Bihar to use the technology of drones to increase their agricultural output by effective use of fertilizers. This exemplifies how Indian entrepreneurial landscape is getting transformed, even though at a gradual speed.

    To create an enriching and a supportive platform for the ideas to nurture and mature into successful enterprises, it is not only the government sector that has to chip in, it is also the private players and other organizational stakeholders that need to contribute in the creation of a dynamic start up society. In my view, the Indian economical and business sector has gone through four waves of evolution. The first wave was the opening up of call centers after the liberalization of the Indian economy. The second wave was the onset of Information technology industry. The third was the investment of United States into the research and development sector in India, primarily in the cities of Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Pune. The fourth ongoing wave is that of the boom in startups or technology oriented small scale businesses.

    I firmly believe that educational institutes can play an instrumental role in developing and nurturing the entrepreneurial energies of the Indian youth. They can act as a “beacon of inspiration” and provide the much needed mentorship, especially the in nascent years of the budding entrepreneurs. Although more and more universities and educational institutes are embracing innovation and entrepreneurship into their academic fabric, much still needs to be done. While I do agree that we have come a long way as an innovative and a productive society, there are challenges ahead of us.

    Recently, I was going through the specializations offered by the Master of Business Administration , or MBA program of my alma mater and I was surprised to certain extent that entrepreneurship was not one of those. It is not only my university business school that still hasn’t introduced entrepreneurship as a stream, the story is same for majority of the educational institutes across the country. The startup scene on the campus is still concentrated in the premier universities of the country like the IIT’s, IIM’s and private educational colleges.

    I think this is where we still have a gap and this is what needs a change. While I do agree that academic and vocational institutions do need to create a “white collar” workforce and prepare its pupils to excel in corporate jobs, but I strongly think that universities need to invest its resources in development of “Job creators” as well. Incubators should be set up on university campuses which not only nourishes students in its technology departments but also encourages young and aspiring minds from arts and commerce departments as well. Students should have an access to mentorship, to investment capital and access to the market where they can launch their idea. Cutting edge paradigms and business concepts like Design thinking should be absorbed in the entrepreneurial training and skill development. The start up growth has to be inclusive for India to compete with other countries.

    It is rightly said that the development comes when the highest level of technology reaches the lowest level of the society. The “startup culture” needs to percolate deep into the Indian society. Our educational institutes have the potential to accelerate this development and catapult the nation to the global stage.

  • How righteous was Karna?

    Mahabharata is considered to be the longest written poem in the world. The nucleus of it is “Bhagwat Gita” which provides deep reflections on how one should conduct his life. However, unlike millions of Hindus, I do not consider Mahabharata to be a work of history. For me it is a mythology. I don’t deny that the events described in this great epic never occurred but I do not accept the folklore surrounding it. Kurukshetra war might have happened and the characters might have existed too , but I do not buy the supernatural events encompassing it.

    Whether Mahabharata is a work of history or mythology is a discussion for another time, but I have been inspired by many of its characters throughout my life. The “folk tale” contains several situations that one can relate to in their own lives. It is a saga of triumph, of loss, of malign, of love, of virtues and of frivolous decisions made by “great men” of those times.

    One character that stands out and grabs my attention is that of Karna. People usually consider him as someone doomed by destiny who had to align with the “evil” Duryodhana. Was he righteous in his conduct? Did his actions earned him a place in the “Heaven” as the mythology states? I think he had his share of mistakes and “immoral” conduct, but before concluding that Karna had an “evil frame of mind”, one has to think in context of the circumstances in which those vices were committed.

    Abandoned by Kunti, he was raised by his foster parents, Radheya and Adhiratha. He was rejected by Dronacharya who refused to take him as his disciple on the grounds that he was not a “Kshatriya” (or Warrior). He eventually got trained by Parshurama, who cursed him that all the learnings that he got from him would be rendered useless when he needs them the most. The reason behind this curse was that Parshurama thought that Karna had hidden his real identity from him and got the training in a clandestine manner.

    Karna’s misfortune does not ends there. He was also cursed by a “Brahmin” that on the most decisive battle of his life, the wheel’s of his chariot would be submerged in the ground and the “demon of fear” will surround him from all sides. To add to his adversity, Indra, the God of rain visited him at a time when he granted people with anything they asked from him. Indra, disguised as a Brahmin, deceived him and took away his divine armor and his earrings. This armor had the power to protect Karna from any divine weapon and his earrings gave him strength of an elephant. Krishna, the Hindu deity, mentions it himself that had Indra not taken the armor and earrings from Karna, his defeat was impossible.

    Despite of all these maledictions, he never left hope and is known as an epitome of valor. Many do argue that he insulted Draupadi during the infamous game of dice and that he also joined Duryodhana in slaying the young and armless warrior Abhimanyu. These make him as much a partner in crime as Duryodhana. I would argue that albeit these instances cannot be refuted and hold merit to some degree, one also has to understand the venomous slangs thrown by Draupadi on Karna.

    During the “Swayamvar” of Draupadi, Karna contested for her hand along with other princely warriors including Arjuna. Karna was the first one to lift up the Bow and knot its string but was “brazenly” rejected by Draupadi on the grounds that he was a “Sootputra” (son of a Charioteer) and not eligible for her garland. On another occasion, the “arrogant” Draupadi insulted Duryodhana by calling her “Andhe ka Putra Andha”, which means blind son of a blind man. Despite this, he was thoughtful enough to question and object Duryodhana and his wicked uncle Shakuni for their treacherous means of killing Pandavas. It was his unwavering commitment to Duryodhana that made him offend Draupadi during the game of Dice. All these, along with Yudhishthira’s intoxication with the game of dice laid the foundations for the battle of Kurukshetra.

    Karna was a dedicated friend, a wise ruler of the kingdom of Anga, and embodied all the great virtuous of Pandavas. Even Krishna himself appreciated and praised Karna on many occasions. He had a soft corner for karna and said at one point before the battle that if he wished, he would want karna to never fight the battle since it was only him who had the “astras” or the weapons to defeat Arjuna.

    So was Karna righteous? I would say he was as righteous and as villainous as the Pandavas.

  • An analysis of the “Grey Shades” of Pandit Nehru’s policies

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee, one of India’s greatest statesmen and politician, once stated about the erstwhile Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru that he is a “mix of Churchill and Chamberlin”. While Churchill lead the Allied forces to victory over the Nazis, Chamberlin, was a puny leader known for his appeasement policy towards the Nazis.

    The spirit and soul of any country lies in its institutions and the capability of its leaders to build these institutions. I strongly agree that Nehru’s character and his policies were an amalgamation of both strength and weakness. On the one hand, he was an institution builder and paved the way for accelerating the growth and development of India but on the other hand, he made a few blunders when it comes to some of the most contentious issues facing the country even to this day.

    As the first prime minister of independent India, he prioritized boosting domestic production thereby reducing the reliance solely on imports. He boosted industrialization and promoted social equality uplifting millions of Indians out of sheer poverty. His reforms in the agriculture sector are undoubtedly evident in establishment of agricultural universities across the country. His administration abolished the “Zamindari” system thereby giving profits of the land to the cultivators. He played a pivotal role in creation of National Cadet Corps which empowered youth of the country and increased their participation in nation building.

    Nehru was instrumental in orchestrating planning commission which focused on formulating five year plans channelizing the country’s resources towards progress. His policies in the educational sector were impressive and deserve credit too. The establishment of four of the India’s premier technology institution’s namely, Indian Institutes of technology, or IIT’s , was brought to fruition under his leadership. Massive projects were launched under his governance ranging from setting up steel industry and to the creation of hydroelectric plants.

    Another aspect that I appreciate about his outlook and his personality was his stand on secularism. His thoughts on religion were broad minded and accommodated religious belief’s of all sects of the Indian society. He was instrumental in launching uniform civil code which fostered social equality and created common platform under the Laws for all the religious groups represented in the country. I strongly believe that there is no place for religious bigotry and extremism in any democratic country.

    While I do commend and acknowledge Nehru’s immense contribution in igniting the much needed growth and development, especially in those initial years of the country when it was still taking its toddler steps, I strongly disagree his policies and decisions on three fronts.

    In 1947, Pakistani mercenaries and tribesmen attacked the princely state of Kashmir and occupied what is now called the “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir”. The Maharaja of Kashmir appealed to India for assistance and it took several days for Nehru and his administration to send in the Indian armed forces to counter the Pakistani assault. It is even speculated that Nehru did not intimated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the situation, a grave mistake considering the role that the “Iron man” played in uniting Princely states with India. Even after the army was sent in, Nehru made another diabolical mistake by approaching the United Nations for mediating in calling the ceasefire. Did we missed an opportunity to take back the entire Kashmir region had the UN not stepped in or our advancing army not stopped? I think yes. Had Patel played a more decisive role in getting back Kashmir instead of Nehru? I again think, yes.

    Nehru’s appeasement policy with China is another front where I think he displayed his incapability, or rather feebleness. He signed Panchsheel, or the five principles of peaceful co-existence with China in 1954. His imprudence in judging our larger adversary cost us dearly in the 1962 debacle when the Chinese army invaded Indian northeastern states and parts of Kashmir region. The loss is still imprinted on the minds of Indian people and our armed forces. His “unwavering” trust on China reflected an enormous gap in his foreign policy.

    I am also critical of Nehru’s (and Congress to a larger extent) policy of inclining towards Soviet Union rather than towards the Western block. USSR was a communist country and it is widely reported that it funded the Communist Party of India and shaped the Indian polity to its benefit. While I do agree that Soviet invested in India laying the foundation of much of our infrastructure, our Space program and our defense ecosystem, I do not believe in the basic tenets of communism. The ideology curbs personal freedom, liberty, and enterprising spirit of an individual. India’s policy of shifting towards the United States started with the rise of Jan Sangh, but the major change came in under Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao and the then Finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. I firmly maintain that had we joined the Western block in our early stages of independence, we would not have experienced the economical crises that we faced in 1991 following the disintegration of USSR.

    Overall, while I do think that the bedrock of development laid by Nehru in our nascent years which focused on self reliance took us far ahead than our neighbor Pakistan, his policies on Kashmir and China unfolded insurmountable challenges for our country that we continue to face to this day

  • Should there be mandatory Military service in India?

    There is a famous adage by John F. Kennedy which says “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”. In a world ravaged by wars and conflicts, patriotism, or the emotion of love for one’s country has never been been more cardinal. From Israel-Hamas conflict to Ukraine-Russia conflict to Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute and now the ongoing India-Pakistan standoff, we are finding ourselves engulfed in an increasingly hostile global environment.

    Contrary to what some thinkers and philosophers opine that a country is just an abstract concept and patriotism is an “idiotic” sentiment, I would argue that serving one’s country and upholding its ethos is absolutely a moral and conscientious duty of its citizens. Plato, the Greek Philosopher, in his seminal work Crito states that one should be ready to die for one’s country. A nation is a lot more than just a geographical area. It embodies within it a rich culture, its history, its traditions and its virtues. It gives a unifying identity to its inhabitants and binds them into a common strand.

    There are umpteen ways to serve one’s country and its interests. In my opinion, conscription or a mandatory military service for a limited period of time is one of the foremost ways to participate in nation building. This takes me back to the year 2003 when I had an opportunity to join the National Cadet Corps or NCC. Personally, it was one of the most enriching experiences of my life. The fourteen days that I spent with the valorous soldiers of the Indian Armed forces transmogrified not only my physique but my mental state of mind.

    NCC was formed in 1948 with direct involvement of Jawaharlal Nehru and headed by H.N Kunzru. Since its inception, it has played a constructive role in serving national interests. Serving time in Army or getting trained in an organization like NCC fuels the patriotic feeling and enhances a sense of belongingness among its citizens. It transforms people into valuable resources which can be used during any state of emergency, irrespective of whether it is internal or external. This service creates a large pool of “human capital” that can be channelized for societal development.

    A mandatory military service instills leadership qualities and provides mental and psychological strength. It increases civic sense among its people and creates a “caring attitude” towards the society and the country at large. To add to that, it generates immense pride and appreciation for the Armed forces who sacrifice their lives for the nation. Many countries like Singapore, Egypt and Israel already have conscription enacted by the laws of their respective countries.

    Given the geographical position of India and its discord with Pakistan and China, I strongly think that having mandatory service in armed forces is not only productive but creates a second line of defense. It is empowering not only at the individual level but also at the national level.

  • Factors that led the Britishers to leave India

    There is an entrenched belief among many Indians that the country got its independence from the Britishers because of the non violent, non cooperation movement led by M.K Gandhi. Many also believe that it was a combination of the “peaceful protest” led by Gandhi and the revolutionary forces led by the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose that paved the way for India’s freedom.

    Before I ponder on the real factor that ended the “Raj” in the Indian subcontinent region, I would like to opine on how effective civil disobedience movement based on non violence can be. I do agree that Gandhi did played an instrumental role in unifying the country giving it a sense of identity and that his efforts focused on empowering the distraught peasants and promoted the religious pluralism but was it enough to free India from the shackles of British rule? Were his anti colonial measures potent enough to give that knockout blow to the powerful imperialist regime? I would argue they were not. Non violence can undoubtedly create civil disobedience in a society, but it is not impactful to an extent where it can cause a ruler to fret and run away.

    Like his personality, Gandhi’s mechanism of protest was controversial too. He preached peace and “Satyagraha” to the world but launched a campaign to enlist Indians to join the British efforts during World War – I. He encouraged Indians to stop using the British clothes but was invited by the Britishers to attend the second round table conference in London. There is a famous picture of him posing with British ladies with a smile on his face. On one hand, the revolutionaries or the so called “terrorists” as the Britishers labeled them, were brutally tortured in the jails, Gandhi was given the “luxury” of writing his autobiography during the time he spent in jail. What kind of an agitation is that?

    More than a foe, I think Gandhi was a confidante of the Britishers. If that would not be the case, why would the Britishers “invite” him and sit with him on the negotiating table? Did the Britishers had the same “soft corner”for Bhagat Singh or Bose. These people were a greater threat to the the empire than the non violent Gandhi. I do agree that there is a merit in the argument that since Gandhi exerted an influence on the Indian masses, it was a diplomatic strategy for the Britishers to negotiate with him. But was it an impossible task for the “cunning” and politically dexterous British officers to subdue him? I think it was not.

    The rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and more importantly, the rise of communist ideology fostered by the Hindustan Republican Army posed a serious threat to the empire. The influence of Bhagat Singh on the youth of the country and the formation of Indian National army by Bose fueled nationalism in Indians. However, Britishers were extremely canny in their approach in handling Indians. The famous (or I would say notorious) “Divide and Conquer” method proved successful for them in segregating the Indian society. India, unfortunately has a history of producing its “Jaychand’s“. The British think tank was extremely apt in pitting Indians against Indians. For an empire as powerful and as shrewd as the the British empire, it was not impossible to crush the revolutionary movement.

    The aforementioned factors did played a role in the Indian independence, but they were not suffice in sending the Britishers back home. I strongly believe that what really led the Britishers to “quit” India was World War – II and the impact it had in weaking the empire. To run and administer any region, especially a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent, a country requires massive resources. Let me draw a parallel with why the Nazis were not able to hold off the Allied invasion during D-Day in 1944. It is widely believed that had the Nazis not launched Operation Barbarossa, the allied army would still have been fighting the Nazis. A lot of Nazi army units got “chewed up” in the eastern front in the conflict with the Soviet forces that they could not maintain their hold on the western front.

    World War – II dented the British economy gravely. Their foreign reserves dwindled and the Debt grew enormously. Adding to this quandary, the country lost approximately four hundred thousand soldiers in the war with many more injured. The country’s infrastructure was damaged and it took them several years to rebuild it. This depletion of resources was the primary reason that the empire lost its grip on its colonies, especially India. This, along with the growing internal pressure against colonialism, consequently ended their reign.

    The notion that we “seized” the control back from the Britishers is falsified and not based on the complete analysis of the factors that resulted in our Independence.

  • Response to the Dawn News Article

    I detest Jingoism in all its forms, irrespective of any country that engages in it. I recently read an article by Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed in Pakistan’s most trusted English language newspaper, The DAWN. The article discusses the nonsensical role that the Indian media is playing in creating a false narrative against Pakistan and its armed forces.

    Wars and conflicts are not only about two countries exchanging artillery shells and bullets. It also entails information warfare, a potent weapon to crush the moral of enemy and boosting the moral of its own people. History has illustrated how evil a propaganda warfare can be. What the Nazi propaganda machinery under Joseph Goebbels did to the Jewish community is horrendous and abominable. Therefore, I do agree with the author but I do have my reservations, especially when it is argued in the context of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.

    While I agree that some of the Indian media houses are disseminating incorrect information thereby violating ethics of responsible Journalism but the author fails to mention what the media houses in his country have been doing. Leave aside the media houses, does the author has nerves to contemplate and share with his audience what the Army chief of his country says about Hindus? Does he reasons with what an idiotic analyst, Zaid Hamid says about Hindus and how he pompously claims that he will carry “Ghazwa-eHind” on India? Does he penalizes his Journalists and panelists from spewing venom against Hindus and threating India by creating “Khalistan”? Is the Pakistani media not giving this conflict a religious color? Can he talk rationality with the Indian women who were inconsolable after they lost their husbands at the hands of terrorists? These can be uncomfortable questions for the author to answer in a country where every aspect of its existence is dominated by its army.

    It is not hidden to the world that Pakistan is a terror factory. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad, the defense minister of that country has already admitted that it has been doing this “dirty work” for United States more than thirty years. According to the American analyst Bruce Riedel, the top three most wanted terrorist in its list are based out of Pakistan.

    And I do not blame it on the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. In my own professional and personal experience, I have met amazing people who hailed from Pakistan. It is the administration and more importantly the armed forces who have an extremist bent of mind. They are solely responsible for orchestrating nefarious plots to create instability in Kashmir and India. Their role in disintegrating India by instigating the Khalistan movement in late 1970’s and early 1980’s is evident and well documented.

    I reiterate and second that there are Indian journalists and media houses which indulge in creating war hysteria and the author did critiqued them in his piece. Now it is the turn of Asif Munir and its radical goons to get roasted by the same author in the most “rational” newspaper of Pakistan, The DAWN.

  • How successful has the Operation Sindoor been so far?

    The foreign policy of all the successive Indian government has been that of tolerance and peace. Even the Indian military’s posture has been that of defensive – offense. Never in the history has India invaded any other country or taken an aggressive stance. While some may argue that India fired the first shot in 1971 war with Pakistan that liberated Bangladesh, I would counter argue that the Indian government took action against the aggressor, which was the Pakistani armed forces, trampling the Bangladeshi people. Allied intervention and invasion of Europe against the Nazis was tantamount to what India did in the Bangladesh War of Independence.

    Indian defense strategy and foreign policy started to take a turn after 2014 when Mr. Narendra Modi got elected as prime minister. With Ajit Doval as the National security advisor, the country drastically changed its strategy to Defensive-Offence. Although, India did not launched any offence against any of its neighbor, especially Pakistan, it made it loud and clear that no terror activity on its soil would go unpunished. Albeit I am of an opinion that both the Uri attack and Balakot air strike were vague when it comes to providing concrete evidence of those assaults on the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Indian retaliation after the recent Pahalgam attack, named as “Operation Sindoor”, surpassed my wildest imagination. Is this the same India that preached peace to the world and once gullibly signed Panchsheel with China in 1954.

    Since the 1971 Indo-Pak war, this was the first time that the Indian army struck deep inside the Pakistani territory. Nine locations were targeted in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan by the Indian missiles and the Indian Air force under the able leadership of Air Chief Marshal Mr. AP Singh. Irrespective of how many terrorists died and how many building these retaliatory strikes brought down, it gave a strong message to the Pakistani administration and the Pakistani army and “enough is enough”. If innocent Indians, irrespective of their religion, bleed, there will be blood on Pakistani side as well. This message to Pakistan and the a larger global community was imperative.

    So, has the “Operation Sindoor” been a success? In my opinion, yes. Has it achieved its ultimate goal of dismantling the Pakistani “terror ecosystem”? I think no, at least not yet. We have to take into account that dealing with terrorism is not only dealing with the people and the buildings that constitute the infrastructure used to launch terror attacks on the Indian soil. We are dealing with an ideology with sinister designs. It is easy to bring down infrastructure and kill some people, but it is an extremely intricate mission to kill an ideology, especially when it is state sponsored.

    Just after the Operation Sindoor, I heard what the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attacks, Masoor Azhar stated. “No regret, No Despair” were his words. He went further and stated that all his family members who died in the Indian attacks will become the “Guests of Allah”. Now how do we deal with that kind of a mindset. Killing one Masood is certainly not the solution since he (and the apparatus supporting him)can spawn ten more Masood’s.

    Even though Indian state of Punjab is largely peaceful now, have we been able to stem out the Khalistan separatism completely? Absolutely not. Has United States and the western world succeeded in subduing the “Islamic terrorism” to the full extent? Absolutely not. Even in my country of origin, have we achieved victory in curbing the nefarious plots of organizations like “Bajrang Dal” targeted against the minorities? The answer in my opinion is again no.

    I strongly think that terrorism cannot be completely erased only by the use of muscle power. It is a long term struggle requiring diplomatic, political and military measures. It also requires empowering and enlightening the youth, providing them with opportunities, and brining these disgruntled minds back into the mainstream.

    Operation Sindoor was an absolute military necessity but it is still incomplete and not yet reached its fruition. We are in a long term game here.

  • Three events that changed Indian history forever

    For any country, there are certain defining moments that change the course of its history. In my opinion, for India, there are three decisive events that not only changed its history but also altered the dynamics of its power and strength in the South Asian region. Although I do not agree with many policies of Congress party in general and that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in particular , I strongly agree that there have been three events under the Congress government that changed the course of Indian history.

    The first is the nuclear test carried out on 18th May 1974 by the Congress government under the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi. The test was done under the garb of peaceful use of nuclear energy but some reports and experts assert that the test was done to give India minimum deterrence against China. India had lost 1962 war with China . China conducted its first nuclear test in 1967 and with Pakistan on one side and the nuclear armed China on another side, it became imperative for India to become “nuclear capable”. The test conducted in Pokhran located in the state of Rajasthan was the first one conducted by a non permanent member of United Nations thereby making India the sixth nuclear powered nation in the world. It does not matter if the test was meant for peaceful purpose or to develop nuclear deterrence against China, what matters is that India developed capability to channelize the nuclear energy to its benefit. This test paved the way for future research and development of nuclear energy. Two prominent figures who played a vital role in “Smiling Buddha”, as it was codenamed, were Homi Bhabha, also considered as the father of Indian nuclear program, and Raja Ramanna, who was also instrumental in weaponizing the nuclear energy for India.

    The second event was the liberation of Bangladesh by the Indian armed forces in 1971. There has not been a single event in the world history after World War – II where a nation was created by use of military might. The thirteen day war with Pakistan freed Bangladesh from the shackles of ethnic violence and discrimination perpetrated by the West Pakistan on the East Pakistan, as Bangladesh was called prior to 1971. It was not only a grand success of the Indian armed forces but it garnered reverence from around the world for India as a global emerging power to reckon with.

    The third moment was the Liberalization of Indian economy in 1991. India experienced a spiraling economical downfall after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1989, mostly due to our reliance on the Soviet block for almost everything that is required to run a country. Under the leadership of P.V Narsimha Rao and the finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India opened its economy to the western world, especially United States. The policies led to massive investments by United States in India which led to the spawning of call centers across the country. U.S and the western world capitalized on India’s large English speaking population that created thousands of well paid jobs thereby rescuing the country out of its economical predicament. This surge in the creation of “call center” jobs was just the beginning. The next wave of investment from the U.S into India focused on the Information Technology sector creating a plethora of technology related jobs. It changed the outlook of many Indian cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune, Mumbai and Delhi which transformed into “Tech hubs”. Innovation became a synonym of the Indian IT workforce. Indian professionals began travelling to the U.S thereby further enhancing the image of India from merely a country of snake charmers to a country with a large tech savvy population. Another outcome of this transformation was that it brought millions of Indians out of sheer poverty and destitute.

    Like any other country, India too had its share of unwise decisions and grave mistakes, but in my opinion, the aforementioned events changed the destiny of the country forever.

  • Is Pakistan’s nuclear threat a bluff?

    The horrors of the atomic bombs dropped by United States on Japan in 1945 shook the soul of humanity. Never had the world seen devastation of this magnitude before. Thousands perished within a few hours of the explosion and many thousands died in the following months. Those who survived suffered malnutrition and developed fatal skin diseases due to the radioactive smoke. Infrastructure of the two Japanese was severally damaged and it took years and years of rehabilitation efforts to pump in life back to these cities.

    The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan has brought the two arch rivals close to a nuclear conflict again. Pakistani administration has reiterated as always that in case matters escalate and in case if it faces existential threat, it will strike India with its nuclear arsenal. India, on the other hand, is calling it a bluff.

    Dealing with a rogue state like Pakistan, which has a dwindling economy and internal instability is not easy. Pakistani army is loosing ground to Baluchistan Liberation Army and is facing causalities on that front every day. To add to its predicament, the country is encountering violent unrest from Afghan Taliban and TTP in its Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. There are reports that the people of Pakistan are already losing faith in their armed forces. Given the historical track record of Pakistan being a safe heaven for terrorism, there is always a risk of some one pressing the nuclear button.

    It is evident that the incumbent chief of army staff of Pakistan has a Jihadi mindset. His hatred for Hindus is not hidden from the world, especially after his press conference in which he stated that Hindus and Muslims are different in all aspects and cannot live together. The most dangerous mindset in the world is the one which is driven by religious extremism. Those who think that they are fighting a “holy war” and will go to heaven after killing people of a particular community are the most difficult to subdue. It is almost impossible to subdue an ideology, especially if it is centered around dying for one’s religion or a believe system. Although, I strongly believe that the people of Pakistan are generally kind and generous, the Pakistani administration and its Army reflects this “Jihadi” ideology.

    There is an argument from the Indian defense experts that Pakistan did not conducted nuclear strike during Kargil War and therefore, will not do it in future conflicts as well. I think there is a gap in this line of thought. Kargil war was limited to a certain geographical area and did not escalated. The Indian army was strictly ordered to not to cross the line of control at any cost. To add to it, it had been proven to the world that Pakistani army personal and the insurgents had captured the Indian peaks, therefore exposing the country in front of the international community. The scope of a nuclear exchange between the two countries was further diminished with the intervention of Mr. Bill Clinton and the U.S administration.

    Things have a taken a different turn after Kargil war. The unsuccessful “Operation Parakaram” launched by the Indian army in wake of the Parliament attack in 2001 led India to adopt “Cold Start Doctrine” which states that smaller integrated units of armed forces would quickly mobilize and launch strikes into the POK or Pakistani territory thereby rendering it unnecessary for an escalation. Pakistan in turn changed its nuclear doctrine to include the use of “tactical Nuclear weapons” with less impact and lower yield aiming at the advancing Indian armed forces. Indian position on this that that any attack on Indian military with these TNW would be met with a crushing response of a full fledge nuclear strike.

    Now what does Pakistan considers as an existential threat? There is no lucid answer to this but as per the defense minister of Pakistan, if the country looses vast territory or if India carries out a blockade of Pakistan either through the sea route or aerial route, it would be considered as an existential threat. He also implied that if India stops the water entering into Pakistan by abolishing the Indus Water Treaty completely, that would also be considered as an existential threat.

    Given all these factors, I am of an opinion that Pakistan’s nuclear threat to India is not a bluff, especially in case of an all out war.

  • Is opposition right in demanding quick action from Indian armed forces?

    In 1939, the Nazi Germany launched “Blitzkrieg” on Poland which caused the entire defense machinery of Poland to collapse within less than a month. Element of surprise plays a vital role in any conflict. However, it requires years of preparation to launch a surprise assault on the enemy. It took around seven years of rigorous preparations for the Nazi Germany to plan and implement its aggressive policy on Poland and the eastern Europe.

    In context of the ongoing friction between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam attack, some opposition parties are questioning the delay in giving a befitting reply to Pakistan. I disagree with opposition’s stand on this and think that it is making these statements to gain political milage. While the leader of the opposition, Mr. Rahul Gandhi has stated that he firmly stands with whatever action Indian government takes, some of the leaders in his party have expressed their concern over delay in kinetic action by the Indian armed forces.

    These leaders have to go back into history and contemplate what Chief Marshal Sam Manekshaw said to Mrs. Indira Gandhi when she asked him to cross the Bangladesh border. Chief Marshal Sam clearly conveyed to the then Prime minister that in order to guarantee a hundred percent victory, he needs a few months to prepare. In another statement by Major General (Retired) G.D Bakshi, Indian army (or as a matter of fact, any army) works best when it prepares methodically.

    It is always better for an army to prepare itself for a conflict instead of diving in with blind eyes and losing a war. There is no bigger embarrassment for an armed force of any country to face a loss in the battlefield. It puts a blemish on the face of a country and makes people loose faith in its armed forces. Consider what happened to IPKF in Sri Lanka in 1989. Indian army went in there and had to face causalities. We should never lose sight of the reality that these are two nuclear armed countries locked in horns. Even a strong country like Israel took around twenty days to launch its attack on Hamas, and they were dealing with an organization, not a nuclear armed country like Pakistan.

    I do have a strong stand that the terrorist ecosystem of Pakistan cannot be completely dismantled though military might alone, but if the war is imposed on India and if it is absolutely unavoidable, then it is better to prepare for it meticulously.

    It is the time that the opposition leaders taking a dig at the Indian armed forces take a step back and unite with the country in these trying times. It is a time when people, especially at the helm, take a rational approach and take into account repercussions of every action without just beating the war drums.