Political Diary

New Delhi, 10 February 2026

Parliament Face-off Again

KYA  YEH  UCHIT  HAY?

By Poonam I Kaushish

“Jo uchit samjho woh karo. I was handed a ‘hot potato’.” Two sentences which have brought Parliament’s Lok Sabha to a grinding halt, yet again. All over retd Army Chief Gen Narvane’s unpublished autobiography ‘Four Stars of Destiny’ which has triggered a maelstrom.

It has its genesis during the Motion of Thanks debate on President Murmu’s address Tuesday when Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi referred to parts of Naravane’s unpublished memoir on the 2020 India-China Ladakh border tension.  Predictably, he set the cat among pigeons leading to chaos as Congress MPs climbed tables, tore papers and hurled them at the Speaker  amidst sharp political confrontation between Government and Congress-led Opposition MPs resulting  in 8 MPs suspended and loss of hours of productive work in the House.

Since then the issue has become a political flashpoint with Opposition demanding transparency and Government insisting on procedural norms and security protocols as releasing or discussing what may be sensitive defence content and classified operational details which could harm national security. 

Pertinently, at that time, there was a standing order that Indian forces should not open fire unless they got explicit political clearance, even if Chinese forces crossed into areas India considers its territory. Gen Naravane repeatedly sought clear directions but did not receive a specific operational order. 

The General’s book has not been officially released as it is still undergoing security clearance process by Defence Ministry.  Under rules, retired senior military officers who write about defence and operational matters must get Government approval before publication if the manuscript contains anything that could touch on national security. Hence, it cannot confirm or deny contents as quoted by Gandhi. 

Government sources aver “Rajnath Singh conveyed he’d spoken to the top leadership (including Prime Minister) and averred “Jo uchit samjho woh karo.” The reason for not giving a clear, specific order when Naravane asked him during the 2020 India-China Ladakh border tension was because the political leadership did not want to issue direct battlefield commands and instead effectively delegated authority back to Army Chief rather than providing a direct command, not necessarily an outright refusal to decide.

Adding, “Political leaders typically articulate strategic intent and set boundaries but do not issue detailed battlefield orders which is normally the military commander on the ground role.”

Opposition counters: This is failure of leadership, underscoring it left the Army Chief uncertain and “alone.” It’s a calculated attempt at plausible deniability, designed to leave the military commander exposed and doomed if manoeuvre fails, while keeping the door open to claim credit if events break the right way. That is not leadership. It is opportunism and cowardice masquerading as a “free hand”.

Arguing “it’s unpublished” sounds like a technical shield rather than a substantive response. A near-war was decided without clear civilian direction. In a democracy, decisions about war cannot be left to generals on their own. What happened to the 56-inch chest when China was before us and advancing?

Clearly, politically, the optics are different: Opposition MPs quote passages in Parliament, author himself doesn’t deny content and Government remains mum. Whereby, lack of “reply” isn’t really a direct refusal to answer the substance of Naravane’s claims.

Whether one finds Government’s stance reasonable depends on which principle one prioritizes more in this situation. If one talk’s of democratic transparency then it stands to reason when policy decisions are being questioned, explain them. From the Government’s perspective it reflected trust in professional military judgment rather than abdication.

This apart, the Lok Sabha’s face-off does not bode well for Parliament. Barely into the Budget session one has lost 19 hours, 13 minutes in the first week. To prevent the Leader of Opposition from speaking by citing the rule book or invoking “national security” goes against the democratic letter and spirit. The Government gives the impression that it’s thin-skinned even as excerpts from the book are public and are neither damning nor revelatory.

Also, the drama does not cast a flattering light on Gandhi and Congress. Certainly, Gandhi must ask questions and demand answers from Government be it India-China stand-off or India-US deal etc. But by reducing serious questioning to insinuation about “Pradhan Mantri ka character” as he sought to do is not correct.

Alas, session after session, India’s temple of democracy Parliament is increasingly becoming a mockery, tamasha and circus wherein crores of tax payers’ money is being swept away by the verbal torrent of tu-tu-mein-mein leading to muscling-muzzling, walk-outs and pandemonium without even the slightest tinge of remorse. With ruthless politics taking over, all spewing sheer contempt!

More disgusting and perturbing is our polity largely continues to drift along smugly without any shame or desire to turn a new page and prevent Parliament’s crumble. Why then is hard-earned tax payers money being wasted on their salaries and maintaining their VIP life-style? Thus, in this deteriorating political culture and ethos, Parliamentary proceedings have little material bearing on the course of politics.

Regrettably, this phenomenon is yet another symbol of sharply polarized politics that has unfortunately erased any middle ground or space for Parliamentary manoeuvre. Recovering that tradition will take more than semantics.  Bluntly, our jan sevaks need to show willingness and sincerity to lawmaking, priortise discussion over acrimony, debate over disruption. This will need accommodation and sagacity from both sides alongside commitment to showcase the best of our hallowed tradition of Parliamentary procedures, speeches and rebuttals.  

Today it faces two challenges: One, growing chasm between Treasury Benches-Opposition. The last few sessions of Parliament were disrupted by both sides retreating into their respective ideological positions. BJP feels its democratic mandate is being disrespected, Opposition is upset by Government using its numerical superiority to ram through legislation and short-circuiting Parliamentary process.

Two, there is need to bolster Parliamentary process as its primary function of scrutinizing bills drafted by Government is suffering. Lawmakers will need to look at measures that carve out dedicated time for both sides to raise issues and have sufficient scope to scrutinise key legislation. This will need accommodation, sagacity and commitment to showcase best of our hallowed tradition of Parliamentary procedures, speeches and rebuttals from both sides.

Besides, given Parliament’s legatee of rich legacy our leaders should stand on tiptoe and look to the future, be more judicious in their decision making mindful of its long term positions be it the din of hoots and heckles, raised fists, chairs and mikes, stalling Parliament indefinitely, walking out of the Houses repeatedly. 

The value of this session will be gauged by its success in moving the national conversation forward. Modi needs to remember a good statesman always learns from his opposition than from supporters.  Alongside, MPs need to create a compact on Parliament’s structural reforms. They must introspect about what kind of legacy they are going to leave behind. Or will they allow Parliament to sink under the weight of its increasing decadence? India’s democracy deserves transparency and honest intent. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Spotlight

New Delhi, 7 February 2026

More Africa, Less of G20 Group

By Prof. Adam Burakowski

(Expert, Centre for International Relations, Poland) 

Preparations are well under way in the United States to host the G20 Leaders’ Summit in December 2026 in, Miami, Florida. A big question remains how different the agenda from South Africa’s G20 presidency will be, which ended December last year. A lot and perhaps the victory of the African perspective last year would turn up to be only temporary. 

South Africa was the fourth country from the Global South to hold the G20 presidency. In 2022 it was Indonesia, 2023 – India, 2024 – Brazil. The perspective imposed by its predecessors was also used in 2025 and creatively deepened with African themes. It’s worth to revisit the presidency again. 

The motto of the South African presidency was: “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.” This set of slogans emphasized priorities characteristic of those promoted by contemporary Africa. Solidarity – in the sense of solidarity between rich and poor countries. Equality – rejection of the “concert of powers” and the need to include smaller and less significant countries, as well as communities and individuals. Sustainable development – ​​in this context, opposing the treatment of Africa as a raw material base and raising awareness that environmental protection should not only concern wealthy countries. 

South Africa sought to demonstrate that climate disasters affect the Global South disproportionately more than developed Western countries. Therefore, to ensure equal opportunities and based on solidarity, wealthier countries should assist the Global South in increasing their resilience to such threats. This priority focused primarily on preventing disasters, rather than mitigating their consequences. 

One of the concrete achievements of the South African presidency in this area was its work to include Global South countries in global early warning systems. This priority is particularly important for Africa, as many countries on the continent are unable to reduce their foreign debt or are even increasing it. 

South Africa sought to pressure creditors to improve loan repayment management, including the application of more transparent loan agreement terms and equal treatment of borrowers. There were also calls to link loans to climate issues. Countries of the Global South, and especially African countries, are under pressure not only from debt but also from climate policies, which hinders stable development. Therefore, South Africa encouraged creditors to provide loans for achieving climate goals and to be able to defer repayments due to natural disasters caused by climate change. 

South Africa's approach to this issue was characterized by pragmatism. By setting this as one of the priorities, the topic was not allowed to disappear from the agenda; on the contrary, it was one of the main themes of discussion during the leaders' summit in Johannesburg. On the other hand, unrealistic demands, such as the cancellation, even partial, of debts, were rather decorative. This tactic proved successful – the pressure on creditors was clear and palpable, while at the same time it was difficult for them to call the demands absurd. It is difficult to assess whether this will simplify lending procedures and make them more transparent, but it is undoubtedly a positive step. 

This priority is, to some extent, linked to the previous one. The main assumption is a combination of three factors: justice understood as equality and equal opportunities between countries and regions, promoting climate and environmental protection goals, and economic development, investment, and new technologies in less developed countries.The combination of these three factors should result in sustainable development, one of the slogans of the South African presidency. 

South Africa also called for increased activity of the "Just Energy Transition Partnerships" (JET), special programs that allow for a shift away from coal and fossil fuel-based energy and a transition to green energy while maintaining employment, securing local communities, and guaranteeing development goals. JET programs are usually enormous in scale, with budgets reaching tens of billions of USD. They are coordinated by the developing country concerned, which enters into contracts with a group of developed countries, international development banks, and private entities. 

The importance of this priority lies in emphasizing that key minerals (including lithium, cobalt, rare earth metals, and platinum group metals) belong to the nations inhabiting the territories where they are extracted. This is a fundamental issue for Africa. South Africa's idea is to use both the minerals themselves and the profits from their export to build infrastructure that enables economic development and protects the natural environment. 

Many of Africa's natural resource deposits are in foreign hands, and the profits are also reaped by external corporations. The extraction process is often carried out by foreign engineers, meaning that the mines do not generate high-paying jobs for local communities. Another problem is environmental destruction during extraction and the construction of logistical infrastructure without considering other transport needs than transporting goods to the nearest ports and then to destination countries by sea. 

South Africa sought to use its G20 presidency to increase the benefits for African countries from the exploitation of resources located in their territories, or at least to raise awareness among other Group members about this problem. South Africa emphasized several aspects. According to the South Africans, African countries should derive greater direct profits from the extraction of key materials. 

Processing should take place in the countries from which they are extracted. The export of raw materials should cease, and the focus should be on ensuring that the greatest possible share of added value is generated in the countries of origin. There should also be greater transparency in transport services. Local communities are to share in the profits, and companies investing in mining districts are to ensure that as many jobs as possible are created for local residents. All of this is intended to lead to greater industrialization of the regions, but in a way that also protects the natural environment and facilitates the energy transition. 

All priorities were therefore related not only to the Global South, but primarily to Africa. It can be said that Africa, which was previously one of the agenda items of the meetings, became an actor co-creating that agenda. This was also evident in other topics not directly related to the African continent – ​​many issues were presented from this perspective as well. 

Africa's voice in the G20 was also strengthened politically. The African Union, admitted to the Group at the request of India, was already a full participant, on terms analogous to the European Union, meaning it spoke on behalf of all member states. 

Recall, the handover of the presidency to the United States took place amidst a scandal. Immediately after the summit in Johannesburg, there was an exchange of diplomatic unpleasantries between Pretoria and Washington. The US has been criticizing South Africa for a long time; this stance was not initiated by Trump, but by the Biden administration. In 2023, the US ambassador to Pretoria publicly accused the South African government of trading arms with Russia. These accusations were rejected, and a special commission was even appointed to investigate the matter, which concluded that this had not occurred (however, the credibility of these results is difficult to assess). 

Since then, relations have not improved, and the Trump administration added three new elements to this picture: accusations against the South African government of racism and persecution of Afrikaners, the removal of the South African ambassador to Washington, EbrahimRasool, in March 2025 and declaring him persona non grata, and the imposition of additional tariffs of 30% on the country in August 2025. 

The rapid deterioration of relations between Pretoria and Washington did not, however, lead to a significant rapprochement with Moscow and Beijing, at least at the leadership level. Putin still remembered that South Africa had decided to abide by the rulings of the International Criminal Court, which prevented him from attending the BRICS summit in August 2023. Therefore, despite very active cooperation at the working and interpersonal levels (numerous invitations and scholarships for South African citizens), Moscow was not eager to provide diplomatic support to Pretoria regarding its G20 presidency. Similarly, China, which derives significant profits from its economic presence in Southern Africa, was rather reserved in its actions regarding this issue. 

Of the major players, the European Union was the most favorably disposed towards South Africa, actively participating not only in the summit but also in the deliberations of various groups, as were India, although Prime Minister Modi mainly used his visit to Africa to promote his country and his agenda. 

South Africa made every effort to ensure that the G20 in 2025 addressed topics most relevant to the Global South, and particularly to the African continent. But these priorities were not necessarily consistent with the interests of many G20 member states. How Washington offers will be under close scrutiny. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 5 February 2026

WEST BENGAL POLL: FACTS & FICTION

By Inder Jit

(Released on 16 March 1982) 

Fiction appears to be playing havoc with facts over the West Bengal poll and, more specifically, over the electoral rolls. Confusion has been worse confounded by all manner of charges by the leaders of various political parties --- and the Calcutta High Court's stay on the publication of final rolls by the Election Commission. Over two months back, the Prime Minister said in a public speech in West Bengal that 30 per cent of the State's rolls were fudged. On March 1, the Prime Minister repeated her allegation in the Lok Sabha though she worded it discreetly as the President's address, Mrs Gandhi said that all political parties had been demanding that the electoral rolls should reflect the "correct position" and added that to ask for this, according to the twisted logic of some people, was anti-democratic. West Bengal's Chief Minister, Mr Jyoti Basu, asserted on March 11 that the Centre had hatched a "conspiracy" to delay the poll and somehow bring the State under President's rule. 

Many independent observers in West Bengal support the CPM's view, as a brief visit to Calcutta early in February showed. One top commentator said: "The CPM is sure to romp home unless the Congress (I) succeeds in delaying the poll and rigging the rolls." A prominent State Congress (I) leader told me in Calcutta Club: "Take it from me, there will be no Assembly election this year. Our State will go to the polls only in February 1983!" How? Pat came the reply: "Our leaders know what to do -- and how." This was a few days before the rolls issue was taken to Calcutta High Court and Mr Justice Sabyasachi Mukherji gave the stay order. The stay has since been vacated by the Supreme Court. But the basic issue remains: What is the truth? Has the Election Commission, which is charged with the responsibility of conducting all elections to Parliament and the State legislatures, sinned? Has the CPM had its way in West Bengal? Or is the Commission more sinned against than sinning? Is the faction-ridden Congress (I) in West Bengal trying to make the Commission a scapegoat for its own lapses?

My enquiries have yielded a fund of interesting information. More than anything else, the record has been put in perspective by the Commission in its 35-page affidavit filed before the Supreme Court. Since the general elections to the Assemblies of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal were normally due this year, the Commission ordered on December 12, 1980 that the rolls in the three States be "thoroughly and intensively revised" with reference to the qualifying date of January 1, 1981. In West Bengal, this programme commenced for some constituencies in January, others in April, and some in July and was completed on December 31, 1981. The detailed programme of this intensive revision was given wide publicity through mass media and unprecedented advertisements in newspapers. Simultaneously, detailed communications were sent by the State Chief Electoral Officer from time to time to various political parties. As a special case, two copies of the electoral rolls of 1980, then in force, were supplied to recognised political parties in January 1981 to secure their co-operation in the revision of rolls.

In accordance with the directions issued by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer, there was house to house enumeration of electors. Electoral cards containing the names of eligible persons as furnished by each household were signed by the head of the family or any other senior member present at the time of enumeration and also by the enumerator. One copy of the electoral card was handed over to each household and the duplicate retained in the offices of the Electoral Registration Officers. This process was adopted to ensure that all the eligible names in the household were entered in the card. On the basis of these cards, manuscripts were prepared and draft electoral rolls printed and published for 274 Assembly constituencies on September 7 and for the remaining 20 Assembly constituencies on October 22, 1991. Claims and objections were invited giving 21 days time for the purpose in accordance with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The rolls were made available for inspection by the public in every polling area covered by every part of the electoral roll.

Two copies of the printed draft electoral roll for each constituency after house to house enumeration were supplied to the political parties and claims and objections invited. The rolls were finally published on December 31, 1981. These showed that the claims and objections filed and those accepted and rejected in respect of 284 Assembly constituencies out of a total of 294 were as follows: claims filed in Form 6 totalled 3,98,518 of which 2,88,462 were admitted. Objections filed in Form 7 totalled 1,09,148 of which 64,938 were allowed. West Bengal had an electorate of about 3 crores in 1981. Thus, the valid claims in prescribed forms accepted for inclusion were less than one per cent and valid objections less than 0.2 per cent. This very low percentage pales into insignificance when one takes into account the lapse of nearly 8 months after house to house enumeration. Deaths, absenteeism and shifting of population would have occurred requiring rectification.

The Election Commission could have held the poll on the basis of the 1981 rolls. (The statutory obligation is to revise the electoral rolls once before every general election, This was duly done and the final electoral rolls published on December 31, 1981) But the Commission, in keeping with its own decision to go in for summary revision in the entire country with reference to January 1 of that year as the qualifying date, went in for a summary revision in 1982 with January 1 as the qualifying date. (Summary revision enables persons who have attained 21 years of age to enrol themselves in accordance with the latest qualifying date.) Thus, the electoral rolls in force were adopted as the draft electoral rolls and were published on January 1, 1982 under Rule 10 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sixteen days' time i.e. from January 1 to 16 was allowed for filing claims for inclusion of names, objections to inclusion of names and objection to particulars of an entry,

The total number of claims and objections filed from January 1 to 16, 1982 in respect of 268 Assembly constituencies of which figures were available showed the following position: Claims for inclusion totalled 3,75,197 of which 24,592 were accepted; objections to the inclusion of names totalled 1,56,460 of which 72,569 were accepted; and objections to particulars in any entry in Form 8 totalled 85,042 of which 62,389 were accepted. Thus, the total number of valid claims for inclusions accepted worked out to about 0.82 per cent of the total electorate of a crores and the valid objections to about 0.24 per cent. At one stage, some Congress (I) leaders complained to the commission that the required forms were not available. The Commission promptly responded and printed these forms widely in West Bengal newspapers and invited voters to copy them, assuring that all such typed or hand-written forms would be accepted.

Some top Congress (I) and Congress (s) leaders from West Bengal -- Mr Anand Gopal Mukherjee, Mr Ajit Panja and Mr P.R. Das Munshi -- met the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Shakdher, on January 8 and 15 and orally represented that the rolls revised suffered from irregularities. They were advised to file complaints on or before January 16 before the Electoral Registration Officers in the prescribed forms. Mr Shakdher also clarified that in case these claims and objections were not dealt with in accordance with the law they might bring specific cases to the notice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commission. Written replies to this effect were sent to Mr Ashok Sen and two others. A large number of omnibus complaints were thereafter presented to the Commission, which directed that these be filed also before the Electoral Registration Officers and the Chief Electoral Officer. It was made clear that no complaint received after January 16, 1982 would be entertained. The Commission then received many representations urging it to send a team of officers to enquire into the complaints as the Electoral Registration Officers and others were not dealing with them in accordance with the law.

A team of officers visited the State and made on-the-spot verification for sample survey of the revision of electoral rolls. They also examined in detail various basic records relating to the revision of electoral rolls in 1981 and 1982, especially with reference to the investigations made into the omnibus complaints given to the Electoral Registration Officers by the complainants. The team submitted its report to the Commission which held that there was no justification for undertaking any de novo revision of the rolls as demanded. The percentage of errors was found to be below normal. Interestingly, at no stage did the Commission receive 8 lakh claims and objections in the prescribed forms. The omnibus complaints were received in the form of lists, some without having even minimum particulars for any possible action. There was "complete lack of particulars in a majority of cases", according to the Commission, and "many of the lists had not even been signed by the complainants." Despite these large-scale infirmities, the Commission showed indulgence and asked the Electoral Registration Officers to look into these complaints under their suo moto powers.

To end a long story, the Election Commission appears to have acted without fear or favour. Of significance in the present context are some recent happenings in Haryana, where the former Chief Minister, Mr Devi Lal, made specific allegations of rigging of the electoral rolls by the present Congress (I) Government in some constituencies, including that of the Chief Minister, Mr Bhajan Lal. The Election Commission thereupon made an on-the-spot enquiry and, on a test check, found the allegations to be correct. A revision of the rolls was ordered. Subsequently, one officer was removed when complaints were received that some officers were working along political lines. In the final analysis, the West Bengal poll raises a basic issue of crucial importance to the future of our democracy. Parliamentary democracy carries public disputes from the streets into the chamber for debate and decision. The ballot substitutes the bullet. Every care, therefore, needs to be taken to ensure that nothing is done that may constrain the people in West Bengal to give up the ballot and take to the streets.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 6 February 2026

India’s Trade Deals

New Delhi to Cautiously Tread!

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

India concluded successfully the negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with European Union about a week ago. This was called “the mother of trade deals”. Again a couple of days ago, India signed a trade deal, though not FTA, with the United States, which is called the ‘father of all deals’. While both the deals mark a significant achievement for economic diplomacy of all the three contracting parties – India, the European Union and the United States – it is necessary for New Delhi to tread carefully on securing the commitments and expectations embedded in these two trade deals. 

Why the trade deals in reference are significant for all the parties? The FTA with European Union should be hailed as a success simply because it could be concluded. Remember, the negotiations between India and the European Union lasted about two decades, beginning in 2007. The talks got stalled in 2013 and were seriously resumed in 2022. They were equally quickly concluded in January 2026. The concluding summit between India and the European Union was preceded by the state visit of two top leaders of the Union, the President of the Council, Antonio Costa and the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Their visit was preceded again by the Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, the most powerful economy of the European Union. 

The main driver for the conclusion of FTA negotiation is said to be the American President Donald Trump. His disrupting style in conducting American foreign policy has prompted many countries for economic and geo-political realignment. Trump’s focus on MAGA – Making American Great Again – has ironically led his country to withdrawal and isolation. Trump withdrew from 66 international affiliations and diluted the most powerful security alliance, NATO which nudged the European Union to look for new allies and fresh initiatives in their economic and security policies. Such a shift in European Union’s strategic thinking led them closer to India resulting in the signing of the FTA. 

The trade deal with the United States is significant as the bilateral relations between both the countries had nosedived in Trump’s second term, for various reasons. This downward development was a matter of worry for both Americans and Indians. A relationship which was steadily built over two decades was being torpedoed by Trump by his temperamental behaviour. The main grudge Trump was carrying was born out of New Delhi buying Russian oil despite Moscow continuing to militarily pound Ukraine after an outright invasion four years ago. 

Whatever may have been the triggers for these trade deals, they are certainly solid foundations for taking the ties forward. Taking into account criticism of the deals, which are expected in any democracy, it is in order that we analyse these deals and sound caution to each signatory to make them work for the benefit of all stakeholders, not just for domestic political constituencies in each country. From my studies of India and European Union bilateralism since the Union began as European Economic Community in 1957, there were both structural impediments as well as operational issues which stemmed the growth of the ties. 

On structural issues, both European Union and the Union of India suffered from a mismatch between their economic and political aspirations in their foreign policies. The European Union was mainly driven by their economic interest whereas India by political priorities. This seems to be changing as it should. The major reflection of this mismatch was EU’s growing trade with China and New Delhi’s pivot to USSR now Russia in lieu of the West – America and Europe. 

On operational issues, India was consistently unable to meet the delivery commitments. In 1980s, European Economic Community had introduced a quota system for its various imports like textiles, garments, mangoes and so on. Indian exporters were not able to utilise the quota allotted to them. Again things might have changed. The other drawback Indian exports suffered from, was the quality. European standards are quite high in international market. In order to secure their standards, they used a Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs). Since India’s international trade has been receiving a renewed focus by all political regimes, the quality should have improved. But the best way to maintain export quality is to demand quality products for domestic market and consumption. 

Thankfully, both India and European Union are pursuing assertive foreign policies, especially in breaking the mould of international politics which was marked by bipolar competition. It was between USA and USSR after the Second World War through the Cold War until the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1992. Then, during the period of globalisation, it was USA and Sino-Russian axis. This is when Union of India and the European Union are seeking and striving for a multipolar world with multiple power points. I have been critical of this approach, treating it as a utopia not born by history. But, with Trump disrupting international economy and politics in a big way, a new geo-political system may not be ruled out. 

On the US-India trade deal, it gives a strategic boost for bilateral ties. United States reduces tariffs on Indian goods from 50 per cent to 18 per cent, at least a 1 per cent lower than ASEAN competitors of India. India commits to import 100b USD worth of US goods annually for five years in energy products, aircraft, technology and agricultural goods. This seems a tall order as US exports of goods to India were roughly 42b USD in 2024. The structural bottlenecks, regulatory frictions, and sectoral constraints will likely to limit how quickly trade volumes can increase. 

Secondly, China still looms over the bilateral equation between India and USA. Donald Trump has been seen courting both China and Pakistan in recent times. This will not secure the confidence of Indians. Third, Donald Trump remains as an unpredictable as ever. Indian leadership had decided to wait out Trump’s second term as was indicated by India’s NSA Ajit Doval to the Secretary of State, Mark Rubio. 

At any rate, the trade deal is portrayed as bearing rich potential for geo-political dividends. This could be seen in India’s energy security, strategic realignment – strengthening Quad and India emerging as a reliable sourcing partner reducing US dependence on China and reshaping the balance of power in Asia. Handled carefully the deal’s impact could extend beyond trade, enhancing India-US strategic partnership and promoting global stability. As of now, the deal reflects India’s growing economic and geo-political importance with potential long-term implications for regional stability and global trade dynamics. All these will depend on New Delhi treading cautiously and dealing with Trump quite carefully.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)