Events & Issues

New Delhi, 6 December 2025

How safe are we?

Rajiv Gupta 

It has not been even a month since the horrific bomb blast at the Red Fort, but already it seems like a distant memory; news related to the incident having been relegated to one of the inner pages of newspapers. One might be tempted to believe that whatever danger was present immediately after the incident is history and we are safe now. But are we really safe?

Immediately following the blast, several of the busy markets in Delhi were “fortified” to prevent any similar incident. The term fortified is in quotes to stress the lack of seriousness this action conveys. The reason for this assertion will be examined next.

Most markets in Delhi, as also in other parts of the country, are pedestrian areas. The explosives that were blown up at the Red Fort were carried in a car, suggesting that they were larger and heavier than what could have been carried on a person. How does a pedestrian marketplace be secured when the threat is from a car bomb? Most market places in Delhi are closely integrated into residential areas and restricting car traffic is impractical as it would virtually bring a large part of the city to a standstill.

Second, securing the pedestrian areas is a very big challenge because these areas are porous and have multiple points of entry and exit. This is largely true of older markets in Delhi such as Chandni Chowk, Lajpat Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, etc. Unlike malls which have restricted points of entry and exit, the other open markets cannot easily be secured. It is interesting to note that, in the case of malls, there is usually a security check at entry even when there is no threat of violence. In the case of open markets there is an appearance of some tightening of pedestrian traffic, but that is short lived in the aftermath of a blast such as the one in the Red Fort area.

It is not only true that securing an open market poses a significant challenge, but the way in which this is done sometimes reveals a less than serious approach to maintain the safety of the common shoppers as well as the shop keepers in these markets. For example, in the New Friends Colony market barricades were put up at one end of the market. The market is open from three other sides, and nothing was done to secure those points of entry. Even the barricades that were put had a huge gap to allow people to bypass the checkpoint. To top it all, there were no security guards or policemen stationed at the barricades. A question naturally arises, “What purpose does the barricade serve?”

Similarly, in the Lajpat Nagar market, any semblance of extra security vanished after about 10 days following the Red Fort incident. What made the authorities confident that the area was safe enough to remove the security arrangements. Is there a process that the police or the government uses to determine the length of time for increased security? Why would any potential terrorist follow up immediately in the wake of a bomb blast? It would be logical for the terrorist to strike when a strike is least expected. In the above two cases cited above, it would mean after the authorities have eased controls.

The question that needs to be asked is, if malls can have security checks year round, why is increased security in markets not provided in a similar fashion? One suspects that a possible reason might be the lack of adequate police and security personnel. But, why are the existing personnel not deployed more effectively in the market areas? There is never a dearth of security personnel that are assigned to safeguard our politicians. It is well known that most public figures consider their personal security as a mark of status, and not a real safety requirement. It is time that either this practice has to be reviewed comprehensively, and without political interference, or at the very least, additional personnel recruited so that the police can truly be considered a source of public safety.

Better patrolling of crowded areas by the police could go a long way in making our cities secure. It was done very effectively during Covid, to prevent unnecessary movement of people in public areas. While the same level of patrolling may not be needed for security purposes, it would be helpful if the current level of boots on the ground is improved. The police are typically not considered an ally by the common man. This situation needs to be addressed by training of the police personnel as well as by education of the population. People need to feel comfortable and not afraid in the presence of the police. This could lead to more co-operation among people and the police where citizens would feel encouraged to report any suspicious activity that they may observe.

The police force has been used in India by political parties to seek retribution on their opponents. This has gone a long way to erode the public confidence in the police as they are seen as serving only the politicians, and not the general public. The trust deficit between the police and the people needs to be restored.

Incidents such as the one at the Red Fort are stark reminders that danger can lurk in any place. These incidents cannot be completely prevented, in spite of the best efforts by authorities, but their chances can be reduced. The best example of this is Israel, where terrorist incidents continue to happen although the country uses very stringent security measures.  It is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent a suicide bomber from blowing himself/herself up. However, better intelligence about suspicious activities can help forewarn of a future incident. There are several reports which mention how a terrorist plot was foiled by information gained by our agencies. This capability should certainly be strengthened. If the police and the citizens work collaboratively, it can be hoped that fewer such incidents occur in the future and fewer unnecessary innocent lives are lost.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 8 December 2025

Trump’s Long Shadow

INDIA-RUSSIA CAREFUL ON OPTICS

By Shivaji Sarkar 

The currency crisis is bound to impact India growth. Indeed, a deep crisis is ahead. The falling rupee is likely to hit the common man’s pocket as domestic fuel prices may rise sharply despite a global thaw in crude prices. Would the Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit, his close embrace and promises, make a difference? 

Putin’s visit may help New Delhi in many spheres but not in the crude sector, which India has decided to cut sharply. The Russian crude has impacted Indians, due to overdependence on trade with the US Trumpire, though they never benefitted from the deals. The benefit was only to two companies, one Indian and the other Russian. Their profits alone swelled, while people, government and companies continued to buy fuel at high prices. 

India-Russia ties go back to the Soviet era and have endured irrespective of the changing geopolitical landscape coinciding with New Delhi’s talks with the US on a trade deal to cut punitive tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on its goods over India’s purchases of Russian oil.That’s to put it mildly. Trump has been breathing down each movement of the Indo-Russian ties. There was even news that the plane Putin was travelling to New Delhi had the most-monitored movements. Trump shadows all. 

The Putin visit is not a nostalgic return to Cold War diplomacy. “It is a negotiation over risk, supply chains and economic insulation”, says Global Trade Research Initiative. India has close ties since the Nehru-Kruschev era of 1950s, the 25-year strategic deal with Indira Gandhi, Putin renewing it in 2000 with AB Vajpayee continuing the legacy. Since then much has changed both in the Ganga and Volga, but “Russia ties like pole star”, says Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Putin promises non-stop energy. 

The Ukraine war has added a new NATO-European dimension. The UK is all for NATO but not keen on joining a war. Putin faces pressure from his European allies. Russia feels being isolated in Europe, its geographical entity. Ambassadors of Germany, France and the UK write a rare joint article in an Indian newspaper criticising Russia’s stance on Ukraine as he lands in New Delhi. 

Were the NATO allies acting on their own or at the behest of their masters? Not known but it’s more likely. Trumpian disgust for Russian oil purchases accusing India of fuelling/funding the Ukraine war ignites his sanctions to keep both the countries cornered if exactly not on leash. 

For Trump, Putin got the freedom to move out with the Alaska meet for peace negotiations on August 15, where the two leaders discussed how to end the Ukraine war. That was the first free trip of Putin outside Moscow since 2020. The next is the celebrated visit to New Delhi. Almost it is his first visit to an Asian country. This is not to mention his discussions at Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet in Tianjin, China on August 31 and September 1. 

Putin’s New Delhi visit has plenty of optics, modest deliverables but Russia or Soviet Union has been a dependable ally. The missing defence deal, even the nuclear submarine deal, spoke loudly: India is balancing Russia and America with caution. 

The visit seeks India’s august revival of free-trade talks with the $5-trillion Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). With exports weakening due to steep 50 percent Trump tariffs, two months of declining shipments, a slowdown in manufacturing, and the rupee falling past 90 per dollar, India is urgently seeking new markets. Russia and the EAEU have become priority destinations, as New Delhi works to offset rising pressure on its trade. 

India and Russia announced a major expansion of economic ties during Putin’s visit. Both sides launched a new Economic Cooperation Programme aimed at sharply increasing trade and investment, with targets of $100 billion in annual trade by 2030 and $50 billion in mutual investments. 

Putin reaffirmed the commitment to complete four more nuclear plants at Kudankulam. Two have been commissioned supposed to be India’s largest nuclear plant. The milestone advances India’s largest nuclear project highlights Moscow’s role as New Delhi’s most dependable energy partner.

Bilateral trade already hit a record $68.7 billion in 2024–25 from a mere $ 8.1 billion in 2020. Key agreements were signed in energy, finance (including national currency settlements), fertilizers, healthcare, steel, shipbuilding, coal, and banking. India also plans to open new consulates in Russia to deepen official engagement. Defence cooperation remains central, anchored by an existing military and technical pact that runs through 2031. Commodity exports to Russia minimal in millions dollar. 

The national currency settlement reiterated by Putin is a commitment to BRICS.He held talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, attended a business forum and announced the launch of Russia Today (RT), a Kremlin-funded state-controlled TV network. Interestingly Trump has a dislike for the RT. 

Even with relatively few major deliverables, the visit provided enough substance for Moscow and New Delhi to reaffirm their “special and privileged strategic partnership.” President Putin praised efforts to expand cooperation, underscored by agreements such as the Russia–India Economic Cooperation Programme, a framework for collaboration on critical minerals and supply chains, and a commitment to strengthen pharmaceutical ties, including a joint factory in the Kaluga region. 

It may be recollected Soviet Union helped build the medicinal plant company Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (IDPL) (and other drug units) in the 1960s, providing crucial technology and aid for public sector drug production in India. It provided inexpensive necessary drugs for decades before the plant was closed. 

Optics did not stop at economics. Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, were not invited to the dinner hosted for Russian President Vladimir Putin at the President’s residence on Friday, though Congress MP Shashi Tharoor was.This comes a day after Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi alleged the Modi government is going against “tradition” and doesn’t want him or a representative of the Opposition to meet Vladimir Putin because of its “insecurity”. 

The Putin visit may have more optics left in the domestic and international scenario. Uncanny Trump, sceptical European leaders and neighbourhood developments in Afghanistan and Iran may have lot to unfold. Is it the beginning of a new era – peace, conflict or tranquil?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 4 December 2025

PARLIAMENT AND THE OPPOSITION

By Inder Jit

(Released on 15 January 1985) 

All eyes are on the new Lok Sabha, which is due to assemble today for its first sitting. How will it fare? Will Parliament continue to slide downhill, as during Indira Gandhi's time, and decline further? Or, will it recapture some of its lost glory and elan and play its due role as during Nehru's time, widely acknowledged by experts as Parliament’s “golden period”. Incredibly enough, most people seem to feel that the Lok Sabha poll has raised a big question mark over Parliament. Some have even gone to the length of writing off Parliament arguing: “Rajiv Gandhi has won 400 seats. The Opposition is down to a bare hundred. Atal Behari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar, Bahuguna, Satyasadhan Chakraborty and other Opposition stalwarts have been defeated. You can now forget Parliament”. But in saying so these people seem to miss out on one basic fact of life. Quantity has never been a substitute for quality. You can have a large but ineffective Opposition. Equally, you can have a small but effective Opposition. 

Parliamentary democracy provides for a Government by discussion, debate and consensus. The Opposition is an integral and vital part of the system and is hence known in Britain as Her Majesty’s “loyal” Opposition. But the prefix “loyal” does not detract from the Opposition’s basic responsibility. Its principal task is to keep Ministers and civil servants on their toes and ensure good government. Numbers are undoubtedly important. They are, however, not crucial. In fact, India’s first Lok Sabha faced a somewhat similar situation. The Congress Party, led by Nehru, bagged 364 seats. The Opposition totalled 119 members. Nevertheless, the Lok Sabha was effective, thanks to two factors. First, Nehru bent over backwards to encourage the Opposition and to set up healthy conventions. He also proved through word and deed that no democratic Government should ever ride roughshod over the Opposition, howsoever weak and divided. Second, the Opposition, which included some eminent public men, conducted itself with great responsibility. 

Most Congress-I men seem to have a wholly erroneous understanding of parliamentary democracy. Over the years, they have come to believe that they can do what they please as the majority party. But parliamentary democracy is not rule by a brute majority. Indeed, Nehru sought to make this quite clear, recognising the harsh reality that the Opposition, though small, represented a majority of those who had voted. As the Leader of the House, in addition to being the Prime Minister, he rose above party considerations time and again and expressed himself in the best interest of healthy parliamentary functioning. On one occasion, he even ticked off one of his Ministers and came to the rescue of the Opposition. The Opposition wanted some information but the Minister stalled on the plea: “This cannot be given in public interest.” A visibly agitated Nehru was soon up on his feet and intervened to state in so many words: “Mr Speaker Sir, I see no public interest involved. The Minister should give the required information”. 

There can be no two opinions that Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and some others among the Opposition leaders will be greatly missed. Many Parliament watchers, therefore, hope that the BJP’s plans to bring Mr Vajpayee -- and Mr Chandra Shekhar -- back into the Lok Sabha will succeed. Nevertheless, the Opposition still has several distinguished leaders on its side to make Parliament both lively and effective, provided they take their job seriously. (Parliament calls for concentrated hard work and vigilance – and got just one “great” speech in a session!) Prominent among those who will continue to adorn the Lok Sabha are Mr Jagjivan Ram, Mr Charan Singh, Prof Madhu Dandvate, Mr Indrajit Gupta, Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan, Mr Biju Patnaik, and Mr G.M. Banatwala. The House will also have the benefit of the ability and long experience of Mr H.M. Patel, who was a member of the Janata Government and held the portfolio of Finance initially and then of Home. In addition, the new members include Dr Dutta Samant, metropolitan Bombay’s well known labour leader and stormy petrel. 

Happily, for the new Lok Sabha, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has made it known that he will do all within his power to make Parliament both effective and purposeful. He is clear that this will not be possible without the active cooperation of the Opposition. Accordingly, he has taken certain actions which have pleased even his critics and roused hopes. In the first place, Parliamentary Affairs has been made the full-time responsibility of one Cabinet Minister. Mr. H.K.L. Bhagat has been elevated to Cabinet rank; earlier he was number two to Mr Buta Singh, who proved to be a highly successful Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. At the same time, he has been given two able Ministers of State -- Mrs Margaret Alva and Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad. Secondly, Mr Gandhi has made an unprecedented gesture to the Opposition as proof of his intent. He got Mr Bhagat as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs to call on top Opposition leaders in Parliament and seek their support and cooperation -- apart from his decision to invite them individually for talks on major issues confronting the nation. 

Outwardly, Parliament has appeared to get on with the job. Inwardly, however, its health has deteriorated. Not many realise that Parliament provides a forum for an open and honourable struggle for power. Various recognised conventions, rules and procedures essential for the smooth running of Parliament have been broken and defied. Ineffective and shouting has often taken the place of argument and reasoning. Parliamentary privilege has been repeatedly and wantonly abused to sling mud and character assassinate adversaries in the style of the market place. Often, the Opposition has appeared to be the villain of the piece. But it is more sinned against than sinning. True, they shout, create pandemonium and even walk out on occasions. But what are they to do when questioned are not answered or truth brazenly suppressed, notwithstanding India’s motto of “Satyameva Jayate” which blazons in a neon tube above the Speaker’s chair. It needs to be remembered that Parliament’s greatest power lies in its ability to ask questions from the Government and, indeed, from the Prime Minister himself. 

In sharp contrast to the sorry spectacle in India, the mother of Parliaments continues to grow. New initiatives have been taken and ideas implemented without diluting Westminster’s strength in any way. Some eight years ago, the House of Commons, chronically dissatisfied with its procedures and anxious to adapt them to changing demands made upon it, set up a Select Committee on Procedure to make recommendations for the more effective performance of its functions. The Committee, which sat between 1976 and 1978, carried out a broad and significant review of the way the Commons worked and held as many as sixty-eight meetings before finalising its report. Expectedly, the Committee divided on many details. But it was agreed on many major points, especially the following basic diagnosis: “the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree... which is inimical to the proper working of parliamentary democracy.” 

The Committee produced seventy-six recommendations with but one aim: “to enable the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the state for which they are answerable.” The incoming Government in 1979, headed by Mrs Margaret Thatcher, accepted both the Procedure Committee’s order of priorities as well as the essentials of its recommendations, especially in regard to the appointment of permanent select committees. Equally significant was what Mr St. John Steves, the Leader of the House, said in June 1979 while moving for the appointment of the select committees. He saw them as the means of enabling the Commons “to subject the executive to limitations and control; to protect the liberties of the individual citizen, to defend him against the arbitrary use of power; to focus the mind of the nation on the great issues of the day by the maintenance of continuous dialogue and discussion; and by remaining at the centre of the stage to impose parliamentary conventions or manners on the whole political system”. 

There is no magic remedy which can restore health to Parliament overnight. The process has to be slow and long. Nevertheless, a meaningful beginning could be made in two ways: by taking a fresh look at the rules of procedure which have reduced Parliament to ineffectiveness and, more important, by adopting the committee system with such modifications as are necessitated by our requirements and traditions. Parliament has neither the time nor is it equipped to take an intensive look at various policies and programmes always. It should normally discuss only matters of general policy and leave the details to be thrashed out in parliamentary committees. But we have ill-advisedly discarded this healthy system. A good few committees were set up in Mavalankar’s time. However, these were scrapped and we have now highly-publicised informal Consultative Committees, which have been debunked as “so much trash” by none other than Mr M.N. Kaul, who was Secretary of the Lok Sabha from 1946 to 1964, and by Mr S.L. Shakdher, former Secretary-General. 

Much will eventually depend upon Mr Rajiv Gandhi and his approach to the Opposition in practice. (The Opposition can still claim to represent a majority of the voters. The Congress-I polled 49.16 per cent of the votes polled.) The signals from Mr Gandhi so far are undoubtedly encouraging. He is also opposed to the “hulla groups” and will not permit his partymen to indulge in rowdyism. How the new members will conduct themselves is anybody’s guess. Fortunately, the Lok Sabha Secretariat, headed by Dr Subhash Kashyap, has organized an orientation course for them apart from producing ready reckoners’ on parliamentary procedures entitled: Abstracts Series. A close circuit TV has also been installed to keep members informed about the happenings on the floor. Ultimately, we need to be clear about the true nature of a healthy and purposeful democracy and of Parliament itself. Mr Rajiv Gandhi has clearly a special responsibility. But the role of the Opposition is no less crucial. Parliament can become strong and effective only if both sides are willing to go by the rules of the game and cooperate purposefully. -- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 5 December 2025

Putin Visit To India

IMPLICATIONS ON FOREIGN POLICY

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India is being closely watched by world leaders on two counts. Russia is engaged in a heavy war in Ukraine since 2022. While the latest peace talks are being carried out as Putin has just threatened Ukraine, “roll back or be ready to be wiped out”. At the same time, serious efforts are being made at the behest of America to end the war. Talks are being held regularly with multiple formulas and options to bring about a ceasefire. The American President Donald Trump put a 28-point plan on the table to end the war. After first round of discussion in Geneva last month with Ukrainian President and his delegation, the plan was reduced to 19 points. However, New Delhi will be the centre of the world attention this week for Modi-Putin bilateral meeting. 

An op-ed critical article in a leading Indian newspaper titled, “World wants the Ukraine war to end, but Russia does not seem serious about peace”, written by Philipp Ackermann, Thierry Mathou and Lindy Cameron, the Ambassadors of Germany and France respectively, and Cameron, the British High Commissioner in Delhi. In a strongly worded article, they have accused Russia of an unprovoked war on Ukraine, raised the violation of fundamental international principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They hinted that Russian appetite for territorial expansion and global destabilisation goes beyond Ukraine. The article read, ‘Russian fighters are making dangerous and escalating incursions into European space’. 

Characterising Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a humanitarian catastrophe and sets a precedent for small independent countries to be vulnerable to such aggressions from bigger powers. They have cited examples of forcible transfer and deportation of children to Russia. They wondered how Russia has escalated the aggression since the latest peace talks began by launching 22 of his largest air attacks and the last week alone, 1200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles. 

The article ends by reaffirming their countries’ unwavering commitment to support Ukraine both with military and non-military means. The Ministry of External Affairs has issued a mild reaction suggesting that such articles, just on the eve of a visit of foreign dignitary to India as an invited guest, is “unusual and unacceptable diplomatic practice. 

America has been highly critical of India’s buying of Russian oil despite the war and the sanctions. President Donald Trump had imposed additional 25% tariffs on Indian exports to USA. In his inimitable temperamental style, he had said, “India and Russia, two dead economies, cannot make any impact”. In the meantime, Indian purchase of Russian crude oil has dipped since last August. It was 17% less by September and could fall to a record low in December. 

India was buying 1.8 m barrels per day (cbpd) crude oil. It is estimated to be 60,000-65,000 bpd in December. Indian refineries including the one owned by Ambani have begun reducing their purchase of Russian oil to avoid violation of American, European and British sanctions. According to Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CRECA), India has been the second largest importer of Russian oil preceded by China with 7.75 b USD. 

Let us scan what is on Putin’s mind during his two-day visit to India, 4-5 December; what does he seek to achieve? How does India navigate its foreign policy while deepening ties with Russia? Some analysts anticipate strengthened ties and closer collaboration, while quite a few others including myself are sceptical of Russia’s intentions of meeting potential benefits, and are questioning the current partnership. 

To read between the lines of two statements, one by Dimitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman in a virtual press interaction with Indian media, and another by the President Putin himself, Peskov said, “We are looking forward to ensuring our rights to sell to those who want to purchase oil and their rights to buy our oil”. He added that Russia is willing to address India’s concern over the ballooning trade deficit. India’s trade deficit stood at record high as India 68.7 billion, India exported to Russia $5 billion worth goods in trade and imported 63.7 billion out of 68.7 b total trade in 2024-25. Bulk of the trade consisted of India’s purchase of Russian oil and defence items under the ‘Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership’. 

Putin said about the purpose of his visit, “main part of the plan on India visit is to elevate cooperation with India and China to qualitative new levels”. He added that “he would discuss expanding Indian imports to Russia”.  What raises the hackles of analysts and strategists is Putin hyphenating India and China. Since early this year because of Trump’s tantrums, New Delhi seems to be moving closer to Russia and China. One would have thought the bonhomie with the latter (China) is symbolic and for optics. But Putin’s statement indicates a possible Troika (India-China-Russia) vis-à-vis USA and Europe. 

That is risky and serious shift in India’s foreign policy since the first NDA government under Vajpayee and even 10 years of Manmohan Singh which marked a steady growth in India-America bilateralism. The jury is still out wheher Narendra Modi can balance the two rival blocks America and Europe vs Shino-Russian forever-pact. I tend to believe that it will be a hard and tortuous path to tread upon. New Delhi will have to eventually choose either or. 

On bilateral issues, Putin will be co-chairing with Modi the 23^rd India-Russian annual bilateral Summit. The annual bilateral Summit between the two countries began in 2000. During the visit, talks will include renewed cooperation in trade, defence, energy, political, economic, scientific and people-to-people ties. New Delhi is likely to ask for the safe return of Indian nationals recruited in Russian military. 

Another significant deal would be the signing of an Agreement in order to enable India’s skilled and semi-skilled professionals to work in Russia which is desperately short of man- power in various sectors. Formal negotiations on such an Agreement started with signing of the TOR in August 2025. India’s new Consulate General in Russia’s Yekaterinburg will deal with the mobility issues of such workers going to Russia. 

Another important item on the agenda would be a Free Trade Agreement with Euro-Asian Economic Union (EAEU), comprising Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. A bilateral trade under the FTA is aimed at $100 billion by 2030. Currently, India has a large deficit with EAEU mainly due to heavy Indian imports of Russian oil. FTA is supposed to address this imbalance. 

The discussion on Ukrainian war will be what the world is pontificating on. Whether Ukraine will figure in public joint communiqué made by the two leaders, is also a question. If it does, it will have significant implications for India. If it does not, then also India would be a subject of criticism by Western powers. Let us watch and wait. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)