Spotlight

New Delhi, 14 March 2026

Somaliland In New Middle East :Balance of Power

By Janusz Bylinski

(Expert, Centre for International Relations, Poland) 

Since December last, Somaliland has been at the centre of a cyclone that has gripped the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Israel's recognition of its sovereignty sent ripples from Turkey across Africa. Was this a catalyst for the crystallization of a new balance of power, or was it part of a planned regional reorganisation? 

On 26 December, Israel formally recognised Somaliland as a sovereign and independent state, arguing it meets "the objective criteria for statehood under customary international law, as reflected in the Montevideo Convention." As per 1933 Convention, a state must possess following characteristics: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. 

In return, Somaliland declared it would join the Abraham Accords. In early January, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sar visited Somaliland, and the official signing of the accession agreement was expected during the visit of the country's prime minister to Israel in March this year, which will probably be postponed due to the ongoing war with Iran. 

Israel has pledged to cooperate with Somaliland in agriculture, health, technology and economy, while unofficially there is talk of establishing an Israeli intelligence base capable of observing and pre-emptively responding to threats from Iran and Yemeni Houthis. On the Somaliland side, Minister of Presidential Affairs Khadar Hussein Abdi, mentioned such a possibility. President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi suggested granting Israel privileged access to his country's mineral resources. 

The recognition is not an ad hoc decision, taken in isolation from broader plans. It coincides with the new President striving to improve the country's international standing, and, on the other hand, with plans being developed in Israel to rebuild the regional security architecture. 

Throughout 2025, media platforms propagating Israeli propaganda (and, by extension, the United Arab Emirates) have been actively campaigning in support of Somaliland as a potential Western defence outpost in Horn of Africa. Since early 2026, dozens of AI-generated podcasts have continued to appeal to selected countries—Greece, Morocco, and Germany—to recognise Somaliland's sovereignty, presenting benefits of doing so. 

There is also sympathy for such a move in the US. In June 2025, influential Republicans introduced a draft resolution calling on the government to recognise Somaliland "as a separate [and] independent state." This would be a major victory for the country and its government is offering the US access to territory for construction of a military base and exclusive access to mineral resources. These efforts remain more in realm of political rhetoric than reality. President Trump's administration is uninterested in these proposals, likely due to complex interplay of interests in the region and its preoccupation with other important matters, such as the conflict with Iran. Trump himself is reported to have said: "Somaliland? What is it?" 

Somalia still considers Somaliland part of its territory. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud reacted with outrage, stating that Israel's declaration constituted "illegal aggression" and was "contrary to established legal and diplomatic principles." Other countries and regional organisations, including Arab League Council, OIC, EU, and African Union, responded to Israel's decision by reaffirming Somalia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, while some entities strongly rejected or even condemned Israel's move. 

The UAE refused to sign the joint statement of Arab League and OIC condemning Israel's recognition, as did Morocco and Bahrain, but in January 2026 it issued a joint statement with the AU defending "the sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and stability of Somalia", demonstrating flexibility also evident in its withdrawal from South Yemen in December 2025. Kenya also didn’t join the AU's position. Yemen's Houthis have warned that any Israeli presence in Somaliland would be treated as a "military target" for their armed forces. 

In response to Israel's move, Saudi Arabia took a firm stance, insisting on maintaining Somalia's unity. Turkey strengthened its military presence in Mogadishu, and during a visit to Ethiopia, Prime Minister Erdogan warned Somaliland's secession could pose a threat to the unstable region. In January, Somalia and Qatar signed a defence cooperation agreement in Doha. In February, Somalia and Saudi Arabia signed a Military Cooperation Agreement in Riyadh to strengthen bilateral defence relations, improve military training, provide technical assistance, and support Somali Armed Forces. 

In early 2026 Egypt significantly increased its military presence in Somalia, sending around 1,100 troops as part of the new AU Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia. Saudi Arabia stands for unity and integrity of existing state entities and opposes plans to dismember and reshape Middle East political structure, which could ultimately threaten its statehood. 

Somaliland is a quasi-state with a functioning democratic system, government, military, and currency. Since its proclamation of independence in 1991, it has operated in a political grey zone, unrecognised but also undisturbed by its neighbours, including Somalia, which formally considers it part of a federation. Somalia itself is close to failed state status, threatened by further disintegration. Despite its lack of international recognition, it maintains representations in several countries on a reciprocal basis such as diplomatic relations with Taiwan and cooperation agreements with China. 

Somaliland is world’s fourth poorest country. Livestock exports (sheep, cows, and camels), primarily to Saudi Arabia, account for majority of its GDP. Its only remaining military base, near port of Berbera, has been owned by UAE since 2017 and the naval base has been transformed into a nearly complete facility, equipped with advanced infrastructure, including a modern military port, a deep-water dock, and a runway with hangars and support facilities. 

Of all European countries, Great Britain is most involved in economic development in its former colony. British entities hold concessions for resource exploration, while others establish themselves in the port area to provide logistical services. For UAE, Berbera is both a link in an extensive network of ports and airports stretching across Africa, and a strategic outpost whose control creates power projection and allows it to influence the vital geopolitical environment. 

The synergy between Israel and UAE, been strengthening in recent years, means their interests in Somaliland are largely aligned. For both, control of the crucial chokepoint between Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean is a stake worth playing for. Identifying and blocking threats from Iran, being able to influence maritime transport, building new logistics routes that bypass or diminish the importance of existing ones, offering transshipment and maintenance services to shipowners, and taking over the transport channels for critical raw materials all represent significant gains in themselves. 

Acquiring Somaliland as a client and protégé is part of a broader strategy to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East to Israel's advantage. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently announced a plan for a "hexagon of alliances" that would encompass Israel, Greece, Cyprus, India, and unnamed countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. This hexagon would encompass a security zone on Israel's periphery and be capable of countering two axes: a Shiite axis led by Iran and a Sunni axis of states supporting radical Islam. 

Modi's visit to Israel, two days before the launch of the attack on Iran, confirms the increasingly strong India-Israel ties and synergies of interests. India is the largest recipient of Israeli defence products. It shares with Israel Muslim extremism threat and terrorism. Both countries are vitally interested in maritime security, with India seeking to play an increasingly important role in its security architecture and build alternatives to China's BRI connecting Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean. 

However, the new balance of power in Middle East following the war with Iran will be crucial. It’s impossible to predict whether the Arab states of the Peninsula will reassess their security situation and seek alternative sources of weapons and alliances. Whether they will close ranks to oppose Israel's absolute hegemony, or whether their rivalry will deepen. And whether a victorious Israel will unimpededly pursue its future plans?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 13 March 2026

Ongoing Iran War

IMPACT ON INDIA

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

The Iran war is an ongoing conflict with serious consequences for the global security and economy. Unlike the Ukrainian war, which is somewhat confined to Europe, the war in Iran will affect the whole world. It will disrupt the energy supply as Iran has considerable oil reserve and Tehran controls the sea route, the Strait of Hormuz which passes 20 per cent of world’s oil. Due to historical links between India and Iran, mainly on trade, and Iran potentially providing the connection for India to Central Asia, the impact of the war on India is going to be substantial. 

The US and Israel launched series of strikes on Iran, targeting military and nuclear-related sites. The US hit the military capabilities of Iran – the navy and the missile and drone production infrastructure while Israel hit everything that IDF could reach. The indiscriminate bombarding, particularly on the school building killing about 176 small children stirred the conscience of the world, including the allies of the United States. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on US bases in the region and by firing randomly at Israel. 

What was perhaps strategically conceived and presented to the world as a pre-emptive, prompt and a short-term strike is still going on without immediate sight of an end. It is like the war in Ukraine which Russian President Putin called ‘Special Military Operation’ that was to end in days and weeks. Horrifyingly, the war is still continuing after four years. US President Donald Trump who initially hinted that the war will end in four to six weeks, now claims there is “practically nothing left to target in Iran”. But Iran’s supreme leader’s advisor warns of a “war of attrition that will destroy the world economy”. He also claims that the end of the war will be decided by Iran. 

On a strategic note, Iran had supposedly anticipated this attack by the US and Israel. Iranian leadership had made strategic provisions for the event of decapitation of top leadership. That is what happened within hours of the strike, the Supreme Leader along with the top officials of Iran was eliminated. Observers attribute this quick assassination of top leadership to a mole in the Supreme Leader’s inner circle. Be that as it may, Iranian leadership had set up decentralised command system which meant that several military units could independently retaliate the invading forces in case the Central Command becomes inactive after such assassination. So, the war can continue from multiple sources. This is exactly what seems to be happening at the moment. 

On 28 February 2026, US-Israel began bombing Iran. In retaliation, Iran sent missiles to the Gulf states which had American bases. A few days ago, the UN Security Council passed a resolution (2817) condemning Iran’s ‘egregious attacks on Gulf states’ with 13 votes in favour and 2 abstentions (China and Russia). The Resolution demanded Iran stop attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Jordan and refrain from interfering with maritime trade.  

The expansion of the war into the other states in the Gulf region will heavily affect India. The supply of energy will be interrupted as well as India’s exports to the world. India was using countries like UAE to export elsewhere to the world. That will be hit. India imports substantial oil from the Gulf region. If the war continued for a few weeks, India could use its strategic reserves of oil. But if it lasted longer like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, India’s economy will be badly hit. 

Some oil exporters are exploring other routes through Africa, as the Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable. That will shoot up the transport costs. From available reports, hundreds of ships are stranded in and around the Strait of Hormuz. If ships passing through Hormuz are sunk, passage through the Strait may remain closed for a long time. 

So, the rise on energy price will have a cascading effect on all other prices. Reportedly, prices are already rising and shortages are appearing, resulting in black marketing. Agriculture, textiles, tiles, glass, plastics, hotels, restaurants, airlines and energy-intensive products are already impacted. More the war protracts the worse will be the impact. The ‘balance of payment’ will be upset. Iran may not support India on the Chahbahar Port which was gateway for India to the Central Asia. 

Furthermore, since Iran has attacked airports and critical infrastructure in the Gulf region, the oil-producing countries have curtailed production and their crude is stuck. It is assumed that even after the war ends, they may not be able to immediately ramp-up production. So, energy deficits in many countries will persist for some time. 

As the air and sea routes are disrupted, trade and travel through and around the Gulf – a critical geographical space that connects the West with the East – have virtually stopped. Difficulties in travel will impact hotels, tourism and the entertainment industry. According to Government of India, there are about 1 crore Indians working in the Gulf region. Remittances from them into NRI accounts are substantial. These will decline, weakening the capital flows. Many NRIs are wanting to return to India due to the conflict and decline in production in West Asia. This will hurt the employment situation in India. 

How is India coping with the impact of the war? First, India is seeking to diversify its energy sources and is exploring alternative suppliers. The government has reportedly held discussions with major oil producers like Russia, Saudi Arabia and UAE to ensure stable energy supplies. The US seems to have reconciled to the disruption of oil supply and therefore has agreed to waive tariffs if India decides to purchase oil from Russia which is already in the sea. 

Admittedly, India will experience price rise and some temporary inflation although GOI is assuring its citizens not to panic. To mitigate the price shocks, the Government is considering temporary relief measures such as LPG subsidies and fuel tax adjustments. 

Some observers argue that India’s economy and security will be negatively impacted as New Delhi chose to stay in the US-Israel camp. This was evident from Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel 48 hours before the war started. But India’s economy would have been hit as it is now irrespective of which side it was on. The fallout of the war has to be faced in any case. 

As I said in this column last week, New Delhi has made a conscious choice of aligning with the democratic world while maintaining friendly relations with other powers. This is a right choice as so-called neutrality in a war has its costs. India was already paying some of it because of its non-committal approach to the war in Ukraine. Prime Minister Modi made quick corrections in case of Iran which has been a bigger friend than even Ukraine.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 12 March 2026

SPEAKER, CONVENTION AND THE POLL

By Inder Jit

(Released on 11 December 1979) 

Talk in New Delhi for most of last week was dominated largely by the India-Pakistan Test. It provided the Union capital with some healthy excitement and relaxation. The game was happily played in its best spirit. Even controversial decisions by the umpires were accepted without demur. But the Test will have served a larger purpose if it brings to our politicians at the Centre one overdue realisation: no game can be played smoothly without adhering to its ground rules and established conventions. Parliamentary democracy, too, has its rules. Unfortunately, however, these have been followed more in their breach. Not enough has been done to set up healthy conventions. In fact, a welcome reminder has come from a former Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr Hukam Singh and three eminent jurists. They have, in keeping with the finest parliamentary traditions, urged leaders of all political parties to agree to the uncontested return of the Speaker, Mr K.S. Hegde, in the forthcoming poll to the Lok Sabha.

Few even today appreciate the key role of the Speaker in a parliamentary democracy without whom, according to Erskine May, "the House has no constitutional existence." Jawaharlal Nehru understood fully the importance of the office of the Speaker and laid emphasis on its prestige and authority time and again. Speaking on March 8, 1958, on the occasion of the unveiling of the portrait of Speaker Vithalbhai Patel in the Lok Sabha, Nehru candidly observed: "The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that his should be an honoured position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality." Nehru also showed the greatest respect to the Speaker and by his own conduct as the Leader of the House encouraged the Chair to be independent and impartial.

I recall seeing Nehru once clash with free India's first Speaker, G.V. Mavalankar, on the floor of the Lok Sabha in the early fifties when the latter firmly disallowed him from making a second statement in one day in contravention of the rules. But Nehru soon realised his mistake and, though visibly agitated, gracefully bowed to the Speaker's firm ruling. Curiously, however, nothing concrete came to be done to establish tried conventions designed to recognise and ensure the Speaker's impartiality and independence. One sure way of achieving this was to depoliticize the office of the Speaker well and truly and to see that he was enabled to keep himself entirely aloof from party politics. Another and more important was to provide for his uncontested return to the House. But even Nehru failed to do the needful despite the clear lead given initially by Vithalbhai Patel in the pre-independence days and the healthy convention sought to be established by Mavalankar following independence.

Vithalbhai, who succeeded Sir Frederick Whyte as India's first Indian Speaker in 1925, dissociated himself from the Swarajist Party of which he was an active member prior to his election and kept himself aloof from party interests during his entire term of office. What is more, in the election of 1926, he did not stand on Congress ticket but contested as on independent and was returned unopposed. In 1951, before the Constitution came into effect, the Conference of Presiding Officers, under Mavalankar's leadership, expressed the view that the Speaker should dissociate himself from party politics and, towards this end, "a convention should be established that the seat from which the Speaker stands for re-election should not be contested". But this suggestion went unheeded and Mavalankar was forced to contest on Congress ticket -- opposed by the Ram Rajya Parishad, the Scheduled Castes Federation and the Krishak Lok Party.

Two years later, in 1953, the Conference of Presiding Officers at Gwalior adopted a resolution reaffirming its stand that a Speaker should be returned uncontested and expressing the view that "steps for making a beginning in that direction may be pressed upon the Government." Mavalankar then took up the matter with Nehru. The Congress Working Committee considered the issue and sent a communication to Mavalanker which was disclosed by him at the Conference of Presiding Officers in Srinagar in 1954 in the following words: "Obviously, they (the Congress Working Committee) accept the desirability of laying the wider convention that the Speaker's seat should not be contested but that the will require concurrence of other political parties which they felt was not possible to obtain. But the important point is that they have accepted that it is a right convention and further they have also accepted the position that so far as possible they should not set aside a Speaker while considering his nomination for general election and then his election to Speakership..."

The Congress Working Committee's decision was welcomed by Mavalankar as a good advance in the desired direction. "All conventions", he added, "grow bit by bit... we have laid the first brick very firmly and we have now to strive further". Mavalankar then significantly proceeded to spell out the "necessary counterpart of this convention" -- the obligation on the Speaker. "The counterpart", he said, "is that the Speaker has to abstain from active participation in all controversial politics. The essence of the matter is that the Speaker has to place himself in the position of a judge. He has not to become a partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view and thus inspire confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality. If we are able to build up this convention on our own, then only we shall be able to justify, in course of time, the other one about the Speaker's seat being uncontested."

Alas, things have not worked out the way Mavalankar hoped, the Speaker, after all, is human and it has not always been possible (or practical) for him to resist political temptation in the absence of a definite convention assuring his continuance in office through uncontested Parliamentary election. At least one erstwhile Speaker candidly told me following his acceptance of an office. "We are elected on party ticket with party funds. How can we claim independence?" In fact, many unfortunate, nay tragic, developments have taken place at the Centre and in the States during the past three decades and more deeply involving the Speakers in active politics. Some years ago, Mrs Gandhi brought the Lok Sabha down to the sorry level of some State Assemblies and appointed Speaker G.S. Dhillon a minister in her Cabinet, undermining both the prestige and the independence of the Chair. No eyebrows are raised any more in the States when politicians accept Speakership only to exploit the office for earning richer political dividends. 

The Opposition has unfortunately not always acted in its best self-interest by denying, in effect, cooperation in providing for the uncontested election of a Speaker and adopting the traditional British maxim: Once a Speaker, always a Speaker. It has failed to appreciate that its need of an independent and impartial Speaker is much greater than that of the Government which, in any case, can take care of itself with its majority. Indeed, the Speaker has been given absolute powers under the rules mainly to enable him to function impartially and give the required protection to the minority in the best national interest. The Opposition has not only acted unwisely in this matter. Worse, it has undermined the Speaker's dignity and ability to function judiciously by disobeying him time and again and even calling him names. Vithalbhai, veteran observers recall, successfully asserted the dignity and independence of his high office during the British Raj and symbolically occupied a seat beside the Viceroy when the latter attended the House for its formal opening.

It is not too late even now to mend matters. The Speaker's office can and should be depoliticized by common consent without any further ado and a Speaker enabled to rise above political temptation and maintain his independence and impartiality. (Not many are aware that as many as nine Speakers have been beheaded in Britain, two on the same day!) Various political parties should not only agree on an uncontested election of a Speaker but pledge him their full support in the event of opposition by uncommitted independents. More can follow later and agreed codes of conduct drawn up and enforced firmly. (The Speaker, for his part, must also function in a manner in keeping with the dignity of the House. A few years ago, Dr. Horace Alexander, a good and learned Speaker of the House of Commons, was removed from his office for lack of discretion in socialising!) Either we are interested in preserving democracy and strengthening it or we are not. Mere platitudes and lip service will not do.---INFA.

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 11 March 2026

Towards Green Energy

GULF CRISIS SEEKS STRATEGY

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

In the wake of the Middle East crisis, the need for acceleration of green energy in India assumes great significance more so because the country has committed to net-zero emissions by 2070. Agreeably, rapid strides are manifest in cultivating clean energy, but more concerted efforts are needed. 

Let’s start with current oil crisis. The Hormuz Strait carries 20% of the global oil supply as there is no alternative to compensate for the loss of supplies on this scale. India depends upon nearly 50% of its oil imports on countries in this region. Since February, there has been an increase of $4.54 per barrel in the price of Brent crude and since the war broke out, this has further risen. Just a one dollar increase in crude oil can result in an increase of India’s annual crude import bill by Rs 14,000 crore. With US permission to India to purchase Russian oil vide a 30-date waiver, India has swiftly procured more than 10 million barrels of Russian crude while around 15 million barrels are currently on tankers in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal and another 7 million barrels are idling near Singapore. 

Gas is, however, an area of concern as India imports LNG requirements from Qatar and the UAE which lie inside the Hormuz Strait. Qatar, which accounts for 40% of India’s LNG import, has stopped its production and export. This has resulted in the spot price of Asian LNG tripling from $10.73 to $35 per MMBtu. Regarding LPG, India imports 60% from West Asia and the longer the war lasts, households are expected to suffer. Right now, it’s important to tap other sources like Australia and Canada but, in the long-term, there is a need to scale up biogas production in the country. 

A recent Niti Aayog report reiterated that reliable, affordable and progressively cleaner electricity is essential to improve living standards, raise productivity and unlock a low-carbon transition across transport, buildings and industry. With nearly 258GW of renewable energy capacity installed by December 2025, India has emerged as the world’s fourth largest renewable energy. However, the country’s coal consumption could more than double by mid-century before plunging sharply as the country shifts towards cleaner energy, as indicated. 

In 2025, India achieved a major milestone with 50% of the installed power generation capacity now coming from non-fossil fuel sources, five years ahead of its 2030 target under the December 2015Paris Agreement. The world’s fastest growing economy now has a total installed generation capacity of around 510GW, comprising 247GW of fossil fuel sources and 262GW non-fossil fuel, including 254GW from renewable energy sources. India is expected to add around 50GW of renewable energy capacity this year, backed by investments of nearly Rs 2 lakh crore, taking its total non-fossil fuel capacity to about 262GW. Governments expect to sustain similar pace of capacity addition in 2026, even as challenges related to land acquisition and delays in signing power purchase agreements continue to constrain fresh projects. 

The sector has already added a whopping 44.5GW of new capacity, including the large hydro capacity during the 11-month period of 2025, led by the solar power segment. India’s clean energy capacity continues to be driven by solar power, which added 35GW across all solar segments to the grid during the period compared with 25GW added in 2024. Top states in solar power installed capacity include Rajasthan (36GW), Gujarat (25GW), Maharashtra (17GW) and Tamil Nadu (12GW). 

However, the passage of Shanti Acthas thrown open doors of nuclear energy to private parties.  As is known, nuclear operates continuously, requires minimal land and provides the stable baseload power that modern economies need. The government’s target of 100GW of nuclear capacity by 2047 represents roughly 12 times its current capacity, which at present doesn’t appear an easy target. While India did not commit to tripling nuclear capacity at COP28 in Dubai, the Shanti Act shows commitment through concrete legislative action. But it’swelcome that sensitive activities like enrichment and reprocessing remain State monopolies, appropriately balancing commercial opportunity with proliferation concerns. 

The Rs 3000 crore liability threshold would be grossly insufficient in a worst-case event. The new Act hinges on private investors committing substantial capital – this is questionable given global evidence of nuclear projects running 2-3 times over budget. Nuclear projects require 30-year payback periods, far exceeding private sector horizons of 10 years-odd. Whether venture capital would be forthcoming and the Act be a watershed movement in the realm of green energy, time will tell. Experts suggest designing financial mechanisms that make private nuclear investment viable, accelerating indigenous SMR development to prevent technology lock-in and ensuring liability provisions. 

As India is fast developing, it can’t do without fossil fuel, and its effects and those on environment needs to be understood. Doctors opine the most direct impact of such fuel is on the respiratory system. Toxic air pollution directly affects the human body, increasing risk of dangerous infections like pneumonia, cancers and chronic respiratory conditions. Evidence has shown air pollution increases cardiovascular diseases, risk of strokes and dementia among other neurological conditions.  

Children are particularly at risk because their organs are still developing and, as they grow, they are exposed to these toxins that generate long-term impacts. Several countries subsidised fossil fuels for one trillion dollars last year and over one trillion the year before. Yet, the enormous public funds subsidising fossil fuels should be directed to support improved health, better access to clean energy and making new infrastructure that benefits well-being. Experts believe that though India’s usage of fossil fuel led to huge economic development at the same time, it must be acknowledged this is now doing more harm than good. 

Numerous questions arise while maintaining balance between rapid development and implementation of clean energy. A section feels government is steadily moving towards green energy while another, including environmentalists, opine it’s lagging in addressing environmental concerns, which plague primarily the poor. For a country geared to a faster development trajectory, it’s impossible to abandon fossil fuels. 

What should government strategy be? While balancing power needs, it’s vital to ensure pollution in all forms is controlled with an iron hand to check the looming environmental threat. Industrial fumes, emission-emitting vehicles we see on roads and highways should immediately be banned and other steps taken to ensure that deterioration of air and water pollution is kept at bare minimum. Reports indicate that authorities are surprisingly lenient in such matters as bribery does play a part.  

Meanwhile, though globally efforts are on to shift to renewable energy, the US decision to pull-out from all major climate-linked global bodies, including India headquartered International Solar Alliance (ISA) and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a setback. However, most nations are determined to curb emission though stronger initiatives. India must do its bit.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)