Round The World

New Delhi, 20 February 2026

Macron Meets Modi

 An Ever-Growing Partnership

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

The jogging by Emmanuel Macron, the President of France in the streets of Mumbai is not only a story of routine physical exercise, it is also a sign of the fast-growing friendship between two countries. The bilateralism between France and India is deepening by leaps and bounds. The elevation of the ties into a Special Global Strategic Partnership indicates how the relationship is becoming comprehensive and multi-dimensional. The partnership has stood the test of time.­­­­

French President Emmanuel Macron is currently on a three-day visit to India, which began on February 17, 2026. His visit aimed at strengthening bilateral ties focusing on areas like trade, defence, innovation and technology. The highlights of the visit include the launching of India-France year of innovation, the elevation of partnership, AI Impact Summit, and defence cooperation, mainly the procurement of 114 Rafael fighter jets and joint production of helicopters. The visit reflected the growing strategic convergence between India and France with shared interests in the Indo-Pacific and global stability.

The main driver for this growing partnership is the adherence to strategic autonomy in the foreign policies of both countries. Let us recall that during the Cold War, as the West overlooked India for its Non-Aligned approach, France was more accommodative to India than its fellow-member countries in NATO. This was because France did not succumb to American pressure and refused to completely toe its line. In 1998, when India carried out the nuclear test, France was the only western power that did not impose economic sanctions on New Delhi. Not only that, Paris did not withhold cooperation with India in nuclear energy.

France has been the first country in the world that recognizes India as an independent power centre, a credible democracy, offering economic opportunities for the world. There has been a consensus in French politics that if European Union has to carve out an independent political identity apart from alignment with America or China, it must embrace India. This perspective was amply manifested in Macron’s latest visit to India.

Macron asserted that both countries oppose domination of any kind from India-Pacific to any field of technology in any part of the world. He likened friendship with India to a sovereign alliance. Prime Minister Modi in his response said, “Both countries believe in a multipolar world and are working diligently to make it happen”. He implied that France and India will collaborate on global issues without being beholden either to America or China. It is possible that a ‘third way’ may be created. This option is not without any ground. In recent times, Europe has been hurt by China’s aggrandizing policies and the insulting behavior of Donald Trump. France feels bound to explore the third way.

The ties between France and India in defence sector are growing stronger day-by-day. It is evident from the facts that France is next only to Russia in exporting defence equipment to India. It will be no surprise if France overtakes Russia in near future if one takes into account the increasing number of agreements on the sale of fighter jets, submarines, and the joint production of defence material. To counter China and consolidate power in Asia, France is set to co-manufacture Rafael aircrafts, H-125 helicopters, HAMMER missiles, scorpene submarines and the fifth generation of jet engines.

Notably, France does not sale any deadly weapons to China or Pakistan whereas Russia has been supplying sophisticated weaponry to China, and America to Pakistan. The collaboration between France and India is not limited to export of arms. Keeping the importance of emerging technologies in strategic thinking, France and India have constituted a Joint Advanced Technology Group which will co-develop emerging technologies, secure military supply chains, and maintain the competitive strategic advantage. This Group also included critical minerals, collaboration on AI, digital technology, aerospace and innovation. This initiative falls under the broader framework of 2026 India-France Year of Innovation. In the light of such agreements, Prime Minister Modi said, “Our partnership may grow boundlessly from the deepest ocean to the highest mountain”.

The partnership is evolving innovatively. Prime Minister and President Macron jointly inaugurated the India-France Innovation Forum in Mumbai on 17 February, calling it a reflection of the deepening strategic partnership, shared democratic values, and expanding collaboration in innovation and technology. This will open up scope for work for scientists, researchers, traders, and entrepreneurs from both countries. France and India are becoming active in the fields of AI, space, and aviation.

The AI World Conference, currently in progress in India was initiated jointly by France and India. Both countries are working for democratization of AI which should be used for common good. Both leaders inaugurated the Franco-Indian Centre for AI in health, jointly led by AIIMS, Sorbonne University and the Paris Brain Institute. Prime Minister Modi dreams of taking India into the top three AI powers in the world. In this journey, India would need the support of developed countries like France.

As France is perceived to be the voice of the European Union, the deepening of partnership will be good for India’s expanding relationship with the other 26 European countries. The recently concluded FTA with the European Union is one sign of such corollary dividends. Also, France is seeking to recalibrate its profile in Africa and is intending to draw India into Africa in a triangular collaboration. The French bases in the Indian Ocean and India-Pacific have lent strategic support to India. India-France friendship has yielded tangible results so far and one can be optimistic that the elevation of ties to Special Global Strategic Partnership will manifestly shine in many parts of the world.

Finally, Macron’s strong endorsement of the UPI system puts India into a league of its own. Macron said, “India builds something no other country in the world can…. a digital identity for 1.4 billion people, a payment system that now processes 20 billion transactions every month, a health infrastructure that has issued 500 million digital health IDs. The sheer size of coverage of any new technical initiative is unparalleled in India which is the most populous democratic country in the world. So, if India can leverage its demography, democracy and diversity, then India’s growth into a world power is unstoppable. Macron realizes it, appreciates and endorses it. But does India leadership realize its own strength and seek to preserve and build on it?---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 19 February 2026

TOWARDS INDO-U.S. FRIENDSHIP

By Inder Jit

(Released on 5 November 1976) 

Both New Delhi and Washington will need to keep their fingers crossed.  By all accounts, Dr Kissinger's visit was truly a success. Years of nagging distrust and misunderstanding has been removed in a big way. Important first moves have been made to establish a basis for what the Secretary of State so aptly described as “a new and mature relationship” between the two countries. A promising rapport has been struck between Dr Kissinger and Mrs Gandhi and other top Government leaders: Mr Chavan, Mr Jagjivan Ram and Mr. C. Subramaniam; a rapport had already been established with Mr Swaran Singh who prepared the ground for the Secretary’s visit. Early follow-up steps are already on the cards. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mr Butz, may visit New Delhi soon after the World Food Conference in Rome and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Simon in December.

Indo-US understanding is expected to be strengthened further by these two visits, which will be followed by a renewed exchange when Mr. Subramaniam, who had a useful talk with Dr. Kissinger, visits Washington for an IMF meeting in January and Mr. Chavan some weeks later for the second session of the Indo-US Joint Commission. In keeping with national dignity and self-respect, Mrs. Gandhi and her colleagues avoided broaching the specific question of U.S. aid to India and relating it to Dr. Kissinger’s visit. The emphasis all along was to seek an understanding on various aspects of bilateral relations, the situation in the subcontinent and in South Asia and a review of the global scene with particular reference to the crisis facing the world community. However, Washington has now greater (and more sympathetic) awareness of India’s economic difficulties and problems and may well initiate some measures as proof of its new outlook and approach.

Washington now appears inclined somehow to find a million tonnes of foodgrains for India, despite heavy demands on its limited stocks and in contrast to its earlier willingness to try and spare about half a million tonnes. This is likely to be made available on a 40-year credit carrying an interest rate of about two per cent. At the same time, Washington is expected to take a more helpful attitude in regard to debt rescheduling in view of the colossal problem created by the import bill for food, oil and fertilizers which is expected to go up to Rs.1500 crores --- or even Rs. 1,800 crores during the year. The World Bank has been pressing the U.S. and other aid-India Consortium countries to reschedule 40 per cent of the debt repayment. West Germany, Britain and Japan have been generally inclined to accept the recommendation. But the U.S. so far been opposing the proposal and, in the process, has provided an excuse to the other Consortium countries to drag their feet.

Mrs Gandhi and her colleagues appear determined to tackle the economic crisis on their own and with help from wherever it is available so long as this is consistent with national honour. They are not going to be influenced by the hostile stance adopted against the Kissinger visit by the CPI which alas continues to think in out-dated cold-war terms and is being a lot less practical than its Soviet friends. Barely a few months ago, a senior leftist Congress leader, who visited Moscow and met top Soviet leaders, was candidly told: "India's main problem today is production, not distribution. We are doing our best for you friends. But you need much more help and credit. Get it from the U.S. or wherever else you can." That is not all. When the D.P. Dhar delegation later visited the Soviet Union and sought, among other things, help for Bhilais expansion, it was politely told: "You know what we believe should be your priorities in production. Priority one: food. Priority two: food. Priority three: food!"

New Delhi is more than conscious of the need to give top priority to agriculture and is looking forward to studying with interest the comprehensive programme which the U.S. proposes to present to the World Food Conference “as its contribution to freeing mankind from the eternal struggle for sustenance”. In fact, Dr. Kissinger was glad to get from the President, Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, some food for though during their half-hour meeting. The President stressed the importance of long-term measures to grow food for the world community with the help of fertilizers (wherever these could be produced) and shared technology in irrigation and power. India will be happy to get such fertilizer as the U.S. can spare immediately and in the future. Incidentally, as interesting study shows that the US uses some three million tonne of fertilizer annually for its lawns and flower beds.

The economic side is, however, the least part of the mutual Indo-US gain flowing from Dr. Kissinger’s visit. The most important aspect lay in establishing a new basis for peace and friendship. Both sides will hereafter act maturely and not be quick to air differences stridently in public and even to exaggerate them. They will air them privately as in the case of the Soviet Union. Actually, both New Delhi and Washington have already been practising this for some time, thanks to the quiet initiative taken earlier by Mr. Swaran Singh and the efforts of the Ambassadors of the two countries, Mr. Kaul and Mr. Moynihan. Significantly, the US did not hit the roof following India’s peaceful nuclear explosion at Pokhran as in the case of Canada and Australia and, to an extent, the U.K. Washington also avoided any public stance on the recent developments in Sikkim. On India’s part, Mr. Swaran Singh’s speech at the UN was noted for its restrained references to the U.S.

India is pleased to see the U.S. face reality in the subcontinent and recognise that India’s size and position give it a special role of leadership in South Asian and world affairs. It is happy to have the Indo-US Joint Communique welcome India’s affirmation to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. It is also glad to get from Dr. Kissinger the assurance that the U.S. will not seek to promote a balance of power in the subcontinent or encourage an arms race. But it is not fully satisfied with the latter formulation and would, therefore, like to be assured that Dr. Kissinger will not yield to Mr. Bhutto’s pressure and resume supply of military hardware merely because Mr. Bhutto once acted as “a bridge” between the U.S and China. It hopes Washington will accept India’s basic stake in Pakistan stability and progress and that, contrary to Islamabad’s simulated stance, New Delhi has no interest in the dismemberment of Pakistan.

Dr. Kissinger impressed one and all by his brilliance, sophistication and statesmanship --- and was equally impressed by the warmth and hospitality extended to him. He spoke the right words and was remarkably categorical in assuming both Government leaders and the Press that there would be no U.S. interference in India’s internal affairs. He answered questions candidly at his Press Conference and left no one in doubt that he was not willing to allow American newsmen to foul up his efforts. When an American correspondent asked if India had “asked for food and, if so, how much” he firmly replied: “I do not like to have the question put in terms of: has India asked…” he listened patiently to the FICCI leaders at a brief get-together and offered to put in a word for expeditious passage of trade liberalization laws. In the final analysis, however, New Delhi will judge Dr. Kissinger not by what he said but by what he does.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 18 February 2026

Creating Employment

BUDGET, FTAs & AFTER

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The hype around the budget will be over within a few days but the recent trade deals need analysis, keeping in view the total potential in creating jobs. The scenario does not look quite encouraging though there are some positive points that cannot be denied. Questions have been raised about efforts made with regard to job creation in the budget? Is it not another attempt to woo the upper echelons of society? Another distressing aspect is the low female labour force participation in India, which is low compared to even Bangladesh and Pakistan. Women professionals have been wondering why a woman finance minister has not taken any initiatives in this regard. These questions remain unanswered in the budget.    

However, the most important thing that needs to be highlighted at the very outset is the fact that around 45 percent of the population is still engaged in agriculture, obviously, the reason being lack of better and dependable employment in the country. Agriculture as a sector is growing far slower than the Indian economy – 4.4 percent vs 7.4 percent. Thus, India’s protectionist stand in trade deals is undoubtedly justified. However, economists ponder over the question of how many decades will it take to reduce agricultural population, say, to around 20 percent. 

The first thing that strikes us is that the government slashed the allocation for the Pradhan Mantri Viksit Rozgar Yojana (PMVBY), an ELI scheme by over 90 percent in the RE over the budgetary estimate. Moreover, the government allocated just Rs 95,692 crore for VB-GRAM G, that is set to replace MGNREGA, is believed to be much less than the required funds as the scheme seeks a guaranteed increase of employment per year to 126 days.  It is quite obvious that the new scheme might see a decline in performance as the fund sharing formula has changed with the states having to bear 40 percent of the expenditure, up from 10 percent under the MGNREGA. It would thus be easy for the Centre to blame the states if the new scheme delivers less than that of the MGNREGA as is bound to happen. 

The unequal income distribution skewed to urban centres results in severe lack of employment opportunities in rural as well as semi-urban areas. While the government refers to World Bank data to show the decline in poverty levels, nobody questions what is the income improvement of the segment that has crossed the line and whether they can afford the basic necessities. Something favourable would have worked if the government would have allocated more money for the job scheme and now, depending on the states for 40 percent contribution may lead to a fiasco. The promise of 125 days of work per household will obviously not be met though the Centre can’t be blamed.  

Though there has been a lot of talk on skilling programmes, it is amply clear that employment opportunities are shrinking and both the Centre and the states are oblivious to the fact. However, the emphasis on electronics and IT has been quite positive with iPhones being manufactured in the country, creating around 2 lakh direct jobs. But the lack of adequate resources for the health sector may stand in the way of creating employment for para-medical staff, lab technicians, caregivers and the like. Though the emphasis on manufacturing has rightly been given the necessary thrust over the years and specially in the recent budget, a lot depends on the private sector which is yet to come forward in a big way to invest in this sector. 

As regards innovation is concerned again the private sector does not spend adequately on R&D while most universities are starved of funds. Added to this research fellowships have not seen any increase in recent years while some have been reduced. In a situation where technology upgradation is vital for new avenues and jobs, this obviously is not the right strategy. It is necessary that both the public and private sectors allocate adequate funds for R&D in tune with other emerging nations such as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia etc. 

The emphasis on the MSME sector in the budget definitely needs to be applauded as it represents the most significant opportunity for achieving inclusive growth in this decade. To put this in perspective, with 63.4 million enterprises contributing 30 per cent to GDP and employing over 100 million people, the MSME sector’s economic footprint is much larger than the entire economy of countries like Thailand or Sweden. MSMEs have a Rs 20-25 lakh crore credit gap. Access to credit for this sector has to be ensured, specially by the nationalized banks as it has immense employment generation potential. 

While the emphasis on infrastructure is well taken, more financial allocation for social infrastructure, that is, education and health sectors could have opened job opportunities. This is something that needs to be adhered to by both the Central and state governments as these are vital areas and needs special focus. Moreover, it is indeed tragic that India attracts just 1.3 percent of the world’s tourists and this sector, which is a huge job creator, needs to be given a thrust as many smaller countries like Thailand have been centres of attraction. The regulations in starting hotels needs to be simplified while the cost structure must be brought down to withstand competition.   

Coming to the trade deals, the most important one with the US revives hopes of generating jobs in labour-intensive areas like textiles, footwear and gems and jewellery. Here it needs to be mentioned that the emphasis in the budget on apparel, particularly textile modernisation and footwear, needs to be applauded as this area has high potential in view of the trade deals with the US and the European Union. These have rightly been applauded by the prime minister at the recent ET NOW summit. But India should not just depend on them but to create enhanced employment, it should go in for aggressive marketing not just in the above markets but also in the new and unexplored ones. 

The point that needs to be made here is that exports may be boosted up and may benefit the economy of the country and create employment of skilled and highly skilled personnel cannot be doubted. Though skilling has rightly been taken up on a big scale, the hype over AI needs to be seriously considered in view of its potential to further reduce jobs. 

However, the larger question remains of what would happen to say semi-skilled, Class XII pass-outs etc. who do not even have the money to set up a micro level unit. There is a need to think of some plan to boost the rural economy so that adequate employment opportunities are created – whether through self-employment or very small manufacturing units of various types of goods. It is in this realm that an area-specific survey should be conducted, and technical training imparted to those who could benefit. An overall strategy is critical.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 17 February 2026

Anhoni Jab Honi Ho Jai

TALE OF PM, SPEAKER & RAHUL

By Poonam I Kaushish 

Fatigued and bored of first phase of Parliament’s tumultuous Budget session. Wake up. Three,   unthinkable things happened resulting in a first rate emotion-filled politico-drama.  Questionably, anhoni jab honi ho jai, tab kya hua…

One, Prime Minister Modi did not reply to President Murmu’s Motion of Thanks in Lok Sabha on Speaker’s directions that he had “credible information that several Congress women MPs would create an unprecedented incident after reaching Prime Minister’s seat.” Even as Congress denied there was any plan to carry out an “unpleasant act” or physical threat,Birla ignored it.

Raising a moot point: Is the Prime Minister unsafe in India’s temple of democracy Parliament?  How and why? Given he enjoys the highest security in the country. Besides, Parliament complex is secured by hi-tech gadgets and installations alongside its security is handled by the Central Industrial Security Force directly overseen by the Home Ministry. 

This in an extremely serious matter which should be thoroughly investigated and all loopholes, if any, should be plugged immediately.  Clearly, even by standards of current political distrust this stretches credulity. Whereby, the Speaker’s conduct invites criticism which he urgently needs to answer.

Two, 118 Opposition MPs submit a no-confidence notice seeking Lok Sabha Speaker Birla’s removal. Accusing him of favouring BJP-led NDA and not letting Opposition members speak during the Session. Opposition’s anger centres on Birla not allowing Rahul Gandhi to speak in the House about ex-Army Chief Naravane unpublished memoirs accusing him of openly espousing the ruling Party’s version on all controversial matters.

In a climate of polarisation there has been long-simmering friction between the Speaker and Opposition reaching a flashpoint during the Winter Session when eight MPs were suspended even as he let BJP MPs get away with similar conduct. Birla stands accused of his “aggressive” posture during Opposition protests and his partiality to BJP.

Although Government has the numbers and the motion against Speaker will be defeated when the House reconvenes 9 March, Birla, has taken a moral high ground and decided he would not attend House proceedings until a decision is taken on the no-confidence motion.

Who is to blame? BJP which has hailed Parliamentary disruptions as a form of democratic protest and indulged in them extensively in the past? Or Speaker who allegedly seems to appear keen to protect the interests of the ruling dispensation? Or is it the gradual erosion of democracy where, on one side, decorous debate has become impossible, and on the other, even the prestige of a hoary position cannot make office-bearers cast aside their private political leanings.

Till date, no Speaker has been removed from Office though attempts have been made. In 1954 MPs moved a motion against Speaker Mavalankar which was defeated, in 1966 against Hukam Singh was not admitted as it lacked requisite number backers and in 1987 against Balram Jakhar again defeated with them continuing to hold office. 

Forgotten in the quintessential position, is the Speaker who is essentially servant of the House has fast become its master, thanks to rules of procedure. Highlighting, falling standards in conducting legislative business in Parliament and the need to clearly define these.

Undoubtedly, the Speaker’s position is paradoxical. He contests election for Parliament or State Assembly and then for the post on a Party ticket, and yet is expected to conduct himself in a non-partisan manner, all the while being beholden to the Party for a ticket for the next election. Confided a former Lok Sabha Speaker: “We are elected on Party tickets with Party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming Speaker, we would still have to go back to the Party for sponsorship for next election.”

Three, a BJP MP initiates a substantive motion against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for termination of his Lok Sabha membership and a lifetime ban on contesting elections for being “an urban Naxal, hand in glove” with “anti-national” forces. Adding, he has engaged with Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, USAID, travelled to US, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to engage in “anti-India” activities.

Besides, “he is very cleverly fomenting public sentiments, levelling unsubstantiated allegations against Election Commission, Supreme Court, lowering Government’s dignity without any evidence.” It’s another matter the motion comes a day after Gandhi tore into the India-U.S. trade deal, accusing Government of compromising national interests.

Countered Congress, “We are not bothered about any motions and if you want to hang us, we are ready for that also. Which privilege has Gandhi broken? They removed him last time. What happened afterwards people ensured his victory with more votes compared to that of Modi...” 

The key question is whether Government will allow the matter to proceed to a vote. There have been past instances where matters did not reach voting stage. Political analysts assert many such motions are political statements rather than steps to remove someone.   

What’s the likely outcome? If the motion is discussed, it will become a political debate in Parliament. The Speaker decides if any further action is warranted whereby the motion could remain symbolic rather than resulting in disqualification. Succinctly, the motion is serious politically and symbolically, showing a strong BJP pushback. First, it must navigate Parliamentary processes. But as of now it is not an immediate legal removal or ban on Gandhi.

In this milieu is deflection the new accountability?  Is comparison the new conscience? And is attacking an opponent answer to a moral question?

Where does one go from here? Time to look afresh at the Speaker’s powers, depoliticize his office and promote neutrality. Under Westminster model, Speaker resigns from his Party on his election and is re-elected unopposed in subsequent elections in the House of Commons. Lok Sabha and Assembly Speaker’s impartiality is more important as he has more absolute powers than his House of Commons’s counterpart.

Succinctly, the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. He has to place himself in a judge’s position, not become partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view thus inspiring confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.

The three anhonis signal a breakdown of trust and harmony between Treasury and Opposition benches leaving no room for manoeuvres for both sides. Having ratcheted up the pitch both sides need to ask where they can go from here: Bury the hatchet and restore Parliamentary ethos and honour through negotiation, not removal.

As for Speaker the onus is on him and his Office to earn the confidence of the Opposition, motion or no motion. Parliament functions best when procedure is respected and political battles stay within democratic norms. The moment of decision has arrived. There is no middle ground left. What gives? ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)