Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the tallest bronze statue of Lord Rama on Friday, 28th November. This 77-foot-tall statue stands at Shree Sansthan Gokarna Partgali Jivottam Math in Partgali village, Canacona, South Goa. The statue was crafted by the famous sculptor Ram Sutar, who also created the Statue of Unity in Gujarat. Lord Rama is depicted holding a bow and arrow to show his divine and gentle nature.
VIDEO | Canacona, Goa: PM Modi (@narendramodi) unveils 77-feet-tall bronze statue of Lord Ram at Shree Samsthan Gokarn Jeevottam Mutt in South Goa.
Goa Governor Ashok Gajapathi Raju, Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, Union Minister Shripad Naik, and other ministers attended. PM Modi first prayed at an ancient temple inside the monastery complex.
PM Modi’s words on the Math and Statue
Addressing the gathering, PM Modi highlighted the rich 550-year history of the monastery. He said, “Shri Sansthan Gokarna Partgali Jivottam Math has endured the test of time for over five centuries. Despite all changes and challenges faced by society and the country, this monastery has remained a guiding light for the people.”
A memorable programme in Canacona, marking the 550th-year celebration of the Shree Samsthan Gokarn Partagali Jeevottam Math. Here are some glimpses. pic.twitter.com/WVGnE0xTRr
He praised India’s cultural revival, mentioning the restoration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the grand restoration at Kashi Vishwanath Dham, and the expansion of Mahakal Mahalok in Ujjain. These developments, he said, show how India is waking up to its spiritual heritage with renewed energy and confidence.
Referring to Goa’s past hardships, PM Modi said the state’s temples and traditions once faced challenges, and language and culture were under pressure. However, these difficulties only made the cultural spirit stronger. Goa’s uniqueness lies in how its culture stayed true and even revived over time, with institutions like the Partgali Monastery playing a vital role.
Highlighting current developments, PM Modi spoke about the newly unveiled Lord Rama statue and a Ramayana theme park inaugurated alongside it. He said these additions will be permanent centres for meditation, inspiration, and spiritual learning for generations. The monastery is also developing a museum and a 3D theatre with modern technology to connect youth to their traditions.
During the event, PM Modi urged the people to commit to nine important resolutions, including conserving water, planting trees, helping the poor, adopting Swadeshi, promoting natural farming, leading a healthy lifestyle, practising yoga regularly, preserving ancient manuscripts, and visiting heritage sites across India.
Shree Sansthan Gokarna Partgali Jivottam Math
The Shri Samsthan Gokarna Partgali Jivottam Math is the oldest Vaishnava monastery of the Gaud Saraswat Brahmin community. It was founded in the 13th century by Jagadguru Madhvacharya, following the Dvaita Vedanta tradition. The monastery’s headquarters are in Partgali, a peaceful town on the banks of the Kushavati River in South Goa, where the current complex was built around 370 years ago.
This math is one of India’s oldest spiritual institutions, known not only for its religious importance but also for promoting social and cultural values.
The monastery historically provided strength and hope to Hindu families during difficult periods like the Portuguese colonial era, when Hindu temples were often under threat. It became a symbol of unity and resilience for the community, rallying Saraswats and preserving their identity.
Math actively supports education, too. It runs schools and a Vedic pathshala, a traditional learning centre, drawing students from all over India to study Sanskrit and old religious texts. This keeps Hindu educational traditions alive.
Over centuries, it expanded its reach with centres across India, including Varanasi, Mangalore, and Belgaum, and supported education, Sanskrit studies, and Vedic traditions.
Recent developments and celebrations
To mark its 550th anniversary, the monastery is creating a Ramayana theme park and a Ram museum, designed to bring devotees closer to Lord Rama’s story and encourage cultural tourism. The anniversary celebrations from 27th November to 7th December are drawing thousands daily, with 7,000 to 10,000 visitors attending bhajans, spiritual talks, and cultural programs that showcase the rich heritage of the math.
The Goa Public Works Department recently renovated the complex, adding modern amenities to serve visitors better. Goa Minister Digambar Kamat remarked, “This centuries-old spiritual centre has now received a modern facelift that will carry its legacy forward to the new generation.”
How the Math had powered India’s cultural renaissance
At a time when India is reclaiming its civilizational confidence, the Partagali Math stands as a living example of how ancient institutions can drive a modern cultural renaissance. The Math is not merely preserving heritage; it is actively revitalizing it. By installing a monumental 77-foot bronze statue of Lord Rama, launching a Ramayana theme park, and building a state-of-the-art museum and 3D theatre, the Math is ensuring that timeless dharmic values are communicated through contemporary forms. This blend of tradition and technology reflects the very ethos of New India, where cultural identity is not a relic of the past but a foundation for the future.
The Math’s cultural impact also lies in its centuries-long commitment to education, Sanskrit learning, and Vedic scholarship. In an age where rootlessness and civilizational amnesia pose real challenges, institutions like Partagali Math offer continuity, clarity, and grounding.
Its Vedic pathshalas, heritage programmes, and spiritual camps ensure that the younger generation reconnects with their linguistic, philosophical and spiritual inheritance. By nurturing both knowledge and character, the Math helps cultivate the very consciousness that fuels India’s ongoing cultural resurgence, from Ayodhya to Kashi to Ujjain.
Above all, the Partagali Math embodies the civilizational resilience that PM Modi often highlights. For centuries it protected Hindu faith in Goa during adversity, kept traditions alive through colonial suppression, and provided refuge, unity, and leadership.
Today, that same spirit of service is being channelled into building a culturally confident India, a Bharat that is modern yet rooted, progressive yet anchored in dharma. As India experiences a nationwide spiritual revival, the Math stands as both a symbol and a catalyst, proving that when ancient institutions rise with renewed purpose, an entire civilization rises with them.
Bangladesh is passing through one of the toughest periods in recent history. Energy shortages, a weak financial sector, high interest rates, and stubbornly high inflation join forces to bring the country’s economic activity down. Ordinary people work under the pressure of low wage growth, coupled with falling purchasing power, and businesses struggle hard to survive in an atmosphere that can be described as uncertain. However, the situation worsened after the interim took charge last year on 8th August.
The highest inflation in South Asia
One of the most visible problems for people in Bangladesh is inflation. Even after months of monetary tightening by the new central bank governor, inflation is still above 8%, making it the highest in South Asia. In October, inflation stood at 8.17%, according to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. That is well above India’s 0.25%, Sri Lanka’s 2.1%, Nepal’s 1.47%, and even Pakistan’s 6.2%. Only Bhutan and the Maldives show slightly higher figures than Pakistan, but all remain far below Bangladesh.
That means the cost of food, fuel, rent, and essential services keeps rising for ordinary households. People in this country have been saying that their lives have not become easier, even though the political situation has changed. The long economic pain, starting with the COVID-19 pandemic, never went away. For five straight years, Bangladesh has lived with high inflation and very slow wage growth. As a result, real incomes have fallen sharply, and poverty has gone up again.
Private surveys estimate the current poverty rate at around 28%, although government data places it at 18.7% in 2022. Many families who were earlier considered “just above” the poverty line are now slipping back into poverty because their earnings can no longer keep up with rising prices. This growing gap between income and expenses has created widespread frustration.
A steep drop in investment
Another major concern is the steep drop in investment. Bangladesh has not seen such a low level of investment activity in many years. Even though inflation is high and interest rates have increased, experts say that investment in Bangladesh has never been extremely sensitive to interest rates alone. Instead, businesses point to issues such as frequent power cuts, corruption, extortion, bureaucratic delays, poor law and order, and constant changes in the exchange rate.
But the biggest reason entrepreneurs give for not investing is instability. After months of violent protests, political uncertainty still hangs over the country. Many businesses do not feel confident enough to inject fresh capital or start new projects. Without restoring trust between the government and the private sector, economists warn that the investment slump will continue, keeping the economy stagnant.
Government borrowing adds to the pressure. When the interim government took charge, government borrowing was rising at 11.61% year-on-year. Today it has more than doubled to 27.22%. At the same time, private sector credit growth has fallen to just 6.29%, the lowest in more than two decades. This means banks are lending more to the government and far less to businesses.
A large share of government funds is spent on salaries, subsidies, and administrative costs, while development spending has sharply declined. In the first four months of the current fiscal year, only 8.33% of the Annual Development Programme was implemented. Rural areas are suffering because development work is slow, and new job opportunities are not being created.
Non-Performing Loans: A financial sector under strain
On top of these problems, Bangladesh’s banking system is facing its own crisis. The country now has the highest non-performing loan (NPL) rate in all of Asia. The Asian Development Bank reported last year that Bangladesh’s NPL rate in 2023 was 9%. But after the interim government exposed previously hidden NPLs, the figure has shot up drastically to more than 28%.
Globally, Bangladesh is now among the worst performers in banking health, surpassed only by a few troubled economies such as Equatorial Guinea, San Marino, Ukraine, and Chad. This makes borrowing more difficult and expensive for businesses and weakens public confidence in banks.
The Awami League government left behind a banking sector weighed down by bad loans, weak governance, political interference, and large-scale loan defaults. The interim government has tried to fix the situation. A special committee was formed to restructure the NPLs of 280 institutions, and the central bank issued new circulars based on these recommendations. But several state-owned banks are reportedly ignoring the guidelines. There are also allegations that some groups are still profiting from the crisis instead of helping resolve it.
Merging weak banks with stronger ones has been suggested, but this is easier said than done. Governance reforms require political will, transparency, and strong legal enforcement, things that will be challenging once the next elected government takes office.
The Asian Development Outlook (ADO) April 2025 report by the Asian Development Bank paints a cautious picture of Bangladesh’s future. Bangladesh, the report said, is expected to witness a GDP growth of only 3.9% in FY2025 against the 4.2% growth it recorded in FY2024. Growth could improve to 5.1% in FY2026, but political stability and structural reforms will become decisive in that.
According to ADB, garment exports have continued to rise, but domestic demand is weak due to political transition, high inflation, industrial unrest, and natural disasters. Remittances may somewhat boost consumption and investment, yet overall demand will stay under pressure as fiscal and monetary policies are tightened.
Inflation, on the other hand, is expected to rise further, from 9.7% in FY2024 to 10.2% in FY2025. The reasons include limited competition in wholesale markets, poor market information, supply chain issues, and the weakening taka. High global tariffs, especially the new U.S. trade measures announced in April, could slow Bangladesh’s export growth in the coming years.
Graph via The Business Standard
Asian Development Bank (ADB) also notes that service growth will stay slow due to reduced purchasing power and political uncertainty, while agriculture may suffer because of repeated floods. Manufacturing could improve slightly because of garment exports, but only if the global market remains stable.
Rising poverty in the post-crisis period
The World Bank released a report on Tuesday, 25th November, which has also raised red flags for the Nation’s poverty rate. Their latest projections show that Bangladesh’s poverty rate is climbing again after decades of improvement. According to the World Bank’s micro-simulation model, the poverty rate may cross 21% in 2025. The number of poor people is estimated at around 36 million.
Image via Prothomalo English
Even more worrying is the large number of people living just above the poverty line, 62 million in 2022. These households are at high risk of slipping back into poverty because of inflation and reduced income. The period between 2022 and 2025 has been described by experts as a phase of “reversal,” meaning Bangladesh is undoing years of progress in poverty reduction.
Several analysts say this reversal is tied to a change in political priorities. Between 2016 and 2022, poverty reduction slowed as the government focused more on debt-driven mega-infrastructure projects while ignoring governance reforms and social investment. Corruption increased, political accountability weakened, and economic inequality widened.
The PPRC’s own poverty survey in 2025 estimated an even higher poverty rate, 27.93%. Taken together, these reports suggest the interim government has inherited a country where poverty is becoming more widespread and harder to manage.
Trump tariffs and their impact on Bangladeshi economy
Adding to the challenges is the new tariff regime announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. Bangladesh managed to negotiate the tariff on its garment exports down to 20%, a significant relief compared to the initially proposed 37%. This is crucial because Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest garment exporter, and the sector contributes more than 80% of total export earnings while employing about 4 million workers.
The reduced tariff brought Bangladesh in line with other major exporters such as Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. India, meanwhile, faces a higher 25% tariff after failing to reach a broader deal with Washington.
Bangladesh’s negotiators emphasised that they safeguarded the garment sector while also agreeing to purchase more U.S. agricultural products, an exchange designed to help their food security plans and build goodwill with American farming states.
Although the 20% tariff will still raise costs and reduce competitiveness slightly, industry leaders believe Bangladesh is better positioned than many of its rivals. But they also admit the sector is nervous, as long-term impacts could affect export earnings if global demand weakens or if other countries negotiate even better deals with the U.S.
Unrest, violence, and uncertainty after the Awami League’s fall
The economic crisis cannot be separated from Bangladesh’s political turmoil. The fall of the Awami League government in August 2024 created a long period of unrest. The country had already gone through waves of protests, strikes, and clashes, but things got drastically worse in July 2024.
Violent clashes between protesters and security forces paralysed the cities of Bangladesh for weeks on end. The roads were blocked, transport services were disrupted, and many factories remained closed. There was unrest in the countryside, too, with broken supply chains aggravating inflation and slowing down economic activity even further.
In these months, the collapse of governance hurt business confidence. Many investors pulled out or postponed projects. Foreign investors, too, put their plans on hold, waiting to see whether Bangladesh could stabilise politically. The interim government tried to calm the situation, but rebuilding confidence takes time, especially after such widespread violence.
How Sheikh Hasina was removed from power
The protests against government actions that eventually forced Hasina out of office started in July 2024, when people launched large-scale demonstrations against government actions. The situation quickly escalated into widespread violence. On 5th August 2024, after weeks of clashes that left hundreds dead, the military forced Hasina to leave the country.
The interim government took over and declared parliamentary elections for February 2025. But the Awami League says elections under the ban will not be free and fair. It claims thousands of its workers have been arrested across Bangladesh in the past year.
There is still no agreement on how many people were killed during last year’s uprising. A United Nations report released in February estimated that up to 1,400 people might have died. The interim government’s health adviser put the toll at more than 800, with nearly 14,000 injured. Hasina rejected both figures, calling for an independent international investigation into the deaths and injuries.
A nation struggling to find stability
There was a time when Bangladesh used to be recognized as a country that showed phenomenal economic growth, steady poverty reduction, and impressive human development. Today, violent unrest, political instability, and the rising influence of hardline Islamic groups have created deep uncertainty. The collapse of an elected government, along with widespread protests and military intervention shook the very foundations of democracy.
Simultaneously, the economy is fighting high inflation, weak investment, a failing banking sector, and increased poverty. New U.S. tariffs and global uncertainty add to the pressure.
Bangladesh now stands at a crucial crossroads. Whether it can overcome these economic and political crises will depend on restoring trust, strengthening governance, and ensuring a peaceful transition to an elected government. Only then can the country return to the path of stability and growth it once enjoyed.
In a landmark move to modernize India’s financial regulatory framework, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Friday announced the issuance of 244 Consolidated Master Directions, effectively scrapping 9,345 outdated and redundant circulars that had accumulated over seven decades. This sweeping overhaul, described by RBI officials as a “paradigm shift in its regulatory communication”, aims to consolidate fragmented guidelines into a single, accessible reference for banks and financial institutions, ensuring greater clarity and efficiency in compliance.
The initiative, finalized after extensive public consultation, repeals instructions dating back to as early as 1944, including British government era regulations, while preserving the core regulatory regime. Of the scrapped circulars, approximately 5,673 were deemed obsolete and fully withdrawn, with the remaining integrated into the new master documents.
The oldest obsolete circular was from 1944, dealing with loans against bonds issued by the British govt during the second World War. Another pre-independence circular is from 1946, dealing with Profits on Sale of Securities & Shares.
Apart from consolidating the existing regulations across baking and financial sectors under RBI’s regulation, new directions also have been issued pertaining to digital banking.
The directions issued by Reserve Bank of India span 11 categories of regulated entities, which are Commercial Banks, Small Finance Banks, Payments Banks, Local Area Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Urban Cooperative Banks, Rural Cooperative Banks, All-India Financial Institutions, Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCS), Asset Reconstruction Companies, And Credit Information Companies.
The process involved consolidation of over around 9000 existing circulars, directions, and guidelines into 238 function-specific Master Directions, plus seven new ones focused on digital banking channels, such as requirements for explicit customer consent for digital services and mandatory transaction alerts. The RBI has also consolidated instructions issued by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to Regional Rural Banks, State Co-operative Banks and Central Cooperative Banks.
During this consolidation process, only around 3,500 directions, circulars, and guidelines, were consolidated into 238 Master Directions across 11 types of regulated entities. The rest of the over 9000 circulars were found to be completely obsolete, and therefore they were scrapped altogether.
The drafts were released for public feedback on October 10, 2025, garnering over 770 comments, many of which were incorporated into the final versions issued on November 28. The RBI also published list of all circulars proposed to be repealed. The most recent circulars to be withdrawn are from 29 September this year, dealing with Basel III Capital Regulations and other issues.
As a result of his reform, the RBI today issued the final documents for the 244 maser directions. With this, The existing set of Master Circulars issued on various subjects will stand withdrawn. These Master Directions will serve as the sole library of regulations administered by the Department of Regulation. The full list of the consolidated directions have been made available on RBI website.
One Master Direction have been issued for each subject matter covering all instructions on a type of entity regulated by the RBI. The Master Directions are organized by entity type, covering critical areas such as licensing, governance, capital adequacy, risk management, customer protection, and emerging priorities like climate finance.
Any change in the rules, regulation or policy will be communicated during the year by way of circulars/press releases. And then the Master Directions will be updated suitably and simultaneously, whenever there is a change in the rules/regulations or there is a change in the policy. All the changes will get reflected in the Master Directions available on the RBI website, ensuring that only the updated and relevant guidelines are available.
RBI also stated that explanations of rules and regulations will be issued by way of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) after issue of the Master Directions in easy to understand language, wherever necessary.
This reform builds on RBI’s earlier efforts since 2016 to replace “master circulars” with directions. This initiative marks the most comprehensive cleanup to date, targeting legacy clutter that often leave banks sifting through thousands of documents for routine compliance.
How this reform eases banking for everyone
Beyond streamlining operations for financial institutions, the RBI’s overhaul promises tangible benefits for everyday customers by creating a more efficient, transparent, and customer-centric banking ecosystem. With clearer, consolidated rules, banks will spend less manpower and resources for bureaucratic compliance, enabling them to improve service delivery, which will lead to faster processing times for loans, account openings, dispute resolutions etc.
The new guidelines for new-era banking are also crucial improvement. For instance, the new digital banking directions mandate explicit opt-in consent and real-time alerts, empowering users with greater control and reducing fraud risks, making online and mobile banking safer and more intuitive.
With thousands of different circulars and orders issued over the decades, the RBI rules had become a complex web with overlapping and sometimes even conflicting regulations. There were legacy regulations which are no longer relevant, but entities need to comply with them. In case of disputes, this led to lengthy debates with even top lawyers struggling to clarify things. Entities and users often faced the risk of violating rules due to such unclear regulatory framework.
This reform fixes that scenario by providing clear regulations categories by types of entities and functions. Regulatory clarity also minimizes errors in areas like KYC (Know Your Customer) norms and credit reporting, potentially shortening onboarding processes and improving access to credit for underserved segments, such as small businesses and rural borrowers.
By scrapping obsolete requirements, banks will face lower operational costs, which could translate to competitive interest rates on deposits and loans, benefiting depositors and borrowers.
The comprehensive regulations on digital banking are also crucial reform, as it consolidates various directions issued by RBI in the last few years to combat online financial frauds and improving consumer protection.
Ultimately, this positions India’s banking sector for quicker adoption of fintech solutions, from UPI enhancements to AI-driven advisory services, ensuring customers enjoy seamless, affordable, and inclusive financial experiences in a digital-first economy. RBI’s reforms will play a crucial role in making India’s financial regulatory landscape clearer and more predictable with fewer ambiguities.
On 27th November, in a crucial development for public safety, particularly for children, patients, commuters and citizens, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) finally issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 7th November order in the suo motu case titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price”.
It has to be noted that since 2001, when the ABC Rules came into effect for the first time, the country has been facing an increasing stray dog menace on a year-on-year basis. Replies to OpIndia’s RTIs showed how grim the situation has become. In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of the matter and since then, a lot has happened. Initially, the apex court ordered the removal of all stray dogs from Delhi on 11th August. However, the resistance from the self-styled dog lovers worked and within a few days, the case was forwarded to a larger bench and the order got modified.
Though it looked like a win for stray dog lovers, the Supreme Court extended the scope of the case countrywide and ordered the transfer of all such cases from High Courts to itself. In the following months, State Secretaries were ordered to be physically present in the court as they failed to submit affidavits about the compliance of ABC Rules and the situation in their respective states.
Finally, on 7th November, the court passed an interim order and directed the authorities to remove all dogs from schools, colleges, hospitals, sports complexes, railway stations and bus stands. While the order faced criticism from self-styled dog lovers for unknown reasons, as it is unclear why they want to leave the dogs on streets where they are not only a danger to the vulnerable but remain in constant fear and danger themselves, AWBI, for a change, issued an SOP that is in favour of humans more than dogs.
With the SOP in place, the country now has a legally enforceable operational framework that mandates the removal of stray dogs from a wide range of institutional premises. These include schools, colleges, hospitals, bus depots, railway stations, religious places, tourist sites and other spaces where vulnerable groups are present.
Source: AWBI
The SOP was circulated to all Chief Secretaries on 27th November. It marks the first time that AWBI has formally accepted and operationalised the Supreme Court’s recognition that dog bite incidents inside institutions have reached alarming levels and it requires immediate action from the authorities. With specific responsibilities placed on municipal bodies, managements of institutions and State governments, the document leaves no room for misinterpretation. Human safety has finally been restored as the central priority of the law.
What led to the SOP
In the 7th November order, the court specifically expressed concerns about dog bite incidents inside institutional areas, which house children, patients, travellers and the elderly. The Court observed that the rising number of attacks inside school campuses, hospital compounds, bus stands and transport hubs represented a failure of governance and waste management, and deserved urgent action.
Section 25(j) of the apex court’s order directed the AWBI to formulate and circulate the SOP for the prevention of dog bites and for the management of stray dogs in institutional premises. In its order, the court gave AWBI a four-week timeline to issue the SOP for all the States and UTs.
This background is important because for years, debates on stray dogs were clouded by activist narratives and misleading claims about what the law permits. The Supreme Court order, and the AWBI SOP that now enforces it, settle the matter clearly. Institutional premises cannot be shared spaces between humans and free roaming dogs. Public safety takes precedence.
Scope of institutional premises covered under the Court’s directions
One of the strongest features of the SOP is the clarity with which it defines the term institutional premises. According to the document, these include:
Government and private educational institutions including schools and colleges
Hospitals, health centres, medical colleges and district hospitals
Railway stations and platforms
Airports and helipads
Bus stands, bus depots and inter-state bus stations
Religious sites and places of worship
Tourist sites and public complexes
Children’s parks and recreational spaces
This clarity removes the scope for local administrators to claim confusion or rely on outdated interpretations influenced by activist pressure.
Identification of all institutions and responsibility of local authorities
The SOP has assigned the first tier of responsibility to local and municipal authorities, district administrations and urban local bodies. These authorities must identify every institution within their territorial limits. This is not limited to government institutions but includes private establishments as well.
The identification exercise is foundational because each institution will be required to comply with entry prevention, waste management and dog removal guidelines. Mapping the institutions is the first step in ensuring that responsibility cannot be shifted from one department to another. The SOP treats every municipal body as accountable for everything that happens within its jurisdiction.
The document also obligates local authorities to identify other public places such as religious sites, parks and tourist spots where members of the public congregate in large numbers. This exercise changes the framework from passive stray dog management to proactive prevention of dog presence in sensitive spaces.
Mandatory prevention of dog entry into institutional areas
Once an institution is identified, the SOP requires its management to ensure that stray dogs do not enter the premises. This is a major shift from earlier years when animal rights NGOs frequently argued that institutions could only remove dogs temporarily and must allow them back after sterilisation.
The SOP rejects that position, as it cannot co-exist with public safety. Measures that institutions must take include:
Boundary walls or fencing where absent
Functional gates
Regular checking of entry and exit points
Physical barriers that prevent dog ingress
The purpose is straightforward. If dogs cannot enter, there will be no chance of children facing them in corridors or playgrounds, no chance of patients encountering them near emergency entrances and no chance of travellers seeing them lying inside waiting rooms or platforms.
Appointment of Nodal Officers for monitoring and removal
In a significant governance reform, the SOP mandates that each institution must appoint a Nodal Officer. This person is responsible for ensuring that no dog is present inside or around the institution. Monitoring must be regular and recorded.
This is crucial because without a designated officer, responsibility gets diluted. The presence of a named officer means accountability is immediate. If a dog is found in a school campus or a hospital’s emergency bay, there is no confusion about who must respond.
For large institutions such as hospitals, universities and transport hubs, the Nodal Officer ensures communication with the local municipal body for swift dog removal. This establishes a chain of accountability that was previously missing.
Process for removal and relocation of stray dogs from institutional premises
The SOP states clearly that all stray dogs found within institutional premises must be identified and removed by local or municipal authorities. These dogs must then be shifted to designated shelters. The language of the SOP leaves no ambiguity. The authority responsible for removal cannot outsource this responsibility to activists or NGOs except for technical assistance.
The removal process must be carried out in a humane manner, but it must be carried out. The Supreme Court’s concern that institutional premises have become unsafe zones is reflected in the clarity of this instruction. Removal is not discretionary. It is mandatory.
Furthermore, the SOP clarifies that once removed and shifted to shelters, dogs are not to be returned to these institutional spaces. This is a direct contradiction of activist claims that sterilised dogs must be returned to their original locations. The SOP recognises that institutions are not public streets or neighbourhoods, but controlled premises where the presence of stray animals puts human lives at risk.
Rules on sterilisation, vaccination and medical handling after removal
The SOP also prescribes how dogs must be handled after removal. Municipal Corporations must ensure that all dogs removed are sterilised before being placed in shelters. If sterilisation centres are not available, veterinary hospitals under the Animal Husbandry Department must carry out the procedures.
Vaccination is also mandatory, particularly the anti-rabies vaccine. Pregnant dogs, injured dogs or diseased animals must be handled according to veterinary guidelines until they recover. These medical requirements ensure that dogs housed in shelters do not create health risks for shelter staff or for each other.
Waste management directives to curb stray dog presence and attacks
The SOP recognises that poor waste disposal is one of the root causes of the dog menace. Dogs gather around food waste, and even if removed from institutions, they will return if leftover food and garbage are available nearby.
Therefore, municipal authorities must:
Install waste bins within 100 metres of institutions
Ensure daily waste clearance
Take action against vendors or individuals who dump food waste
Prevent the creation of feeding points near institutions
Source: AWBI
This is an overdue admission of an uncomfortable truth. Many dog bite incidents happen not because citizens provoke dogs but because waste attracts packs which become territorial. Removing waste removes the incentive for dogs to gather.
Feeding related rules and prohibition on feeding around institutions
The SOP places feeding related restrictions that activists have long resisted. Food must not be provided to dogs near or inside institutional premises. This is a major step because feeding points often become aggressive territorial zones.
Food may be provided only within shelters. If volunteers wish to feed dogs in shelters, they must do so under supervision and within the rules laid down in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules on feeding costs and care.
This provision protects both citizens and volunteers. There is no scope to argue that institutions are feeding zones. Public safety cannot depend on the whims of private feeders.
Public awareness measures for schools, hospitals and public spaces
The SOP requires that institutions and municipal authorities generate public awareness about responsible behaviour in the presence of dogs, responsible waste disposal and safe interaction practices. Video clips must be displayed in multiplexes, shopping complexes and recreational areas. Mass awareness is necessary because dog bite prevention is partly behavioural.
The SOP includes guidance on reading body language, approaching unfamiliar dogs, avoiding direct eye contact with aggressive dogs, and what to do if a dog attacks. These guidelines are important, but they cannot substitute administrative responsibility. The core responsibility remains with authorities to prevent dog presence in sensitive spaces.
Guidelines for preventing dog bites, especially concerning children
The document includes specific instructions on child safety. Children must be taught:
Not to pull ears or tails
Not to hug or ride dogs
Not to make direct eye contact with aggressive dogs
How to move away slowly if confronted
This section is significant because children are disproportionately victims of dog attacks. However, no amount of behavioural caution can justify the presence of dogs in school campuses. The SOP ensures both behavioural awareness and administrative safeguards.
Monitoring, compliance reporting and enforcement expectations
The SOP instructs that implementation must be monitored by authorities concerned. States must report compliance to the AWBI. This reporting requirement is essential because it converts the SOP from a recommendation to a monitored policy. States that delay action will be accountable directly to the AWBI, and indirectly to the Supreme Court.
Compliance is expected in every district and for every category of institution. Given the Supreme Court’s concern over rising attacks, non-compliance could result in further judicial action.
Brief overview of shelter requirements
The SOP prescribes three shelter types that are 100 dog capacity, 500 dog capacity and 1000 dog capacity. Each shelter must follow minimum infrastructure norms such as six-foot fencing, kennels with demarcated open and dry areas, night shelters and veterinary access. Staffing requirements include watchmen, cleaners and record keepers. Feeding schedules and medical care must also be maintained.
Source: AWBI
These shelters represent the long-term solution for managing dog populations without allowing them to occupy institutional premises. The designs provided in the annexures give States a ready model that can be scaled as required.
AWBI has added a clause that puts responsibility of creating shelters and kennels on NGOs and self-styled dog lovers as well, which will now help in differentiating those who wants to dogs to be in safe place and those who want the dogs to suffer on the streets. AWBI noted “The animal welfare organizations and NGOs may volunteer for technical support, capacity building and other resources towards the construction, and maintenance of animal shelters and community kennels, in partnership with local bodies and institutions.”
Source: AWBI
Furthermore, the board said, “The local/municipal bodies shall facilitate the establishment of community kennels for which financial contribution can be jointly mobilised from interested Institutions, NGOs and other stakeholders willing to support the creation and development of community kennels and shelters.”
Conclusion
The AWBI’s SOP marks a major shift in India’s stray dog management framework. After years of ambiguity and activist pressure, the law now unequivocally recognises that public spaces like schools, hospitals, transport hubs and parks cannot be shared zones with free roaming dogs. Human safety, particularly the safety of children, has been restored as the central consideration.
OpIndia is doing a series on the stray dog menace in India which can be checked here.
The National capital of India witnessed the coming together of Urban Naxals on 23rd November to vent out their frustration over the gradual but decisive end of Naxalism in the country, under the protest against air pollution. These pro-Naxal protests were spearheaded by left-leaning student organisations Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (bsCEM) and The Himkhand.
Recently, OpIndia reported that bsCEM is one of the 40+ organisations that formed a collective called “Campaign Against State Repression” or CASR. One of the participants of the anti-pollution protests, where ‘Kitne Hidma Maaroge, Har Ghar Se Hidma Niklega’ slogans were raised, was a student group named Fraternity Movement.
Fraternity Movement is the student wing of the Welfare Party of India and operates with the slogan “Democracy, Social Justice and Fraternity”. Just as it is the case with most leftist outfits, Fraternity Movement also packages itself as a defender of democratic principles, secularism, the constitution, social justice and whatnot; however, beyond the shiny packaging lies the dark and disturbing pro-Islamist and divisive activism. During the anti-CAA protests in December 2019, its members even blocked Calicut International Airport.
Fraternity Movement against Ayodhya Ram Mandir
Islamists and the left liberals harbour deep resentment over the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, even as it came only after the Supreme Court of India’s verdict. Fraternity Movement shares this resentment of its ‘fraternity’.
In an X post crying over the consecration of Ram Lalla in his rightful abode last year, Fraternity Movement presented Babri Masjid, erected by Mughal barbarian Babur as a symbol of justice and democracy, while Ram Mandir and the consecration ceremony were a symbol of “violent, criminal, and immoral “victory” of Hindutva extremism.”
“The inauguration of the Ram Mandir has turned into a spectacle with the RSS-BJP government, its various machineries, and allies promoting and celebrating the violent, criminal, and immoral ‘victory” of Hindutva extremism over justice and democracy, with absolute impunity,” it wrote.
The inauguration of the Ram Mandir has turned into a spectacle with the RSS-BJP government, its various machineries, and allies promoting and celebrating the violent, criminal, and immoral "victory" of Hindutva extremism over justice and democracy, with absolute impunity. pic.twitter.com/Yd1Jybvvrg
Fraternity Movement called the judiciary ‘RSS’s tool of communal agenda’ after the court acquitted Malegaon blast accused
While the same Islamo-leftist cabal cries Islamophobia when Hindus simply call terrorist attacks like those in Pahalgam, where Hindus were singled out and shot dead for not being Muslims, as acts of Islamic Jihadist terrorism, the likes of Fraternity Movement have no qualms about labelling incidents like the Malegaon Blast (2008) as ‘Hindu Nationalist Terrorism’ and ‘Hindutva terrorism’.
In August this year, the Fraternity Movement resorted to casting aspersions on the integrity of the Indian judiciary and labelled it a “tool of Sangh Parivar’s communal agenda”. This came after the NIA court acquitted all the accused in the Malegaon blast case, including Sadhvi Pragya and Lieutenant Colonel Purohit.
“…Fraternity Movement strongly condemns the shocking acquittal of all accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, and others linked to the Sangh Parivar ecosystem. This verdict is a grave miscarriage of justice and an open assault on the democratic and moral fabric of the Indian Republic. The 2008 Malegaon blast was a targeted act of terror that killed 6 innocent civilians and injured over 100. It was not just a crime, but a communal hate act, a clear example of Hindutva terrorism…” it wrote.
It must be recalled that on 29th September 2008, six people were killed and several others were injured when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon City, Nashik. Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col. Purohit spent several years in jail without charges in the case.
Fraternity Movement cries for Bhima Koregaon case accused Professor Hany Babu
Unsurprisingly, the Fraternity Movement supports those accused of involvement in stirring unrest in the country. In July this year, the Welfare Party’s student wing came out in support of Delhi University professor Hany Babu, a defendant in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case.
Fraternity Movement claimed that Hany Babu, booked under ‘repressive’ UAPA, is under wrongful incarceration and denied proper medical care. They called Babu’s arrest and incarceration a reflection of “a broader attack on academic freedom, dissent, and democratic rights.”
Notably, the NIA chargesheet accuses Hany Babu of instigating violence and disturbing peace, among other charges. According to the NIA’s chargesheet, a letter discovered on Babu’s computer outlined a conspiracy against Prime Minister Modi. Babu refuted this, asserting that the letter was neither authored nor addressed to him. He contended that it made no mention of his involvement in the conspiracy.
Babu is accused of having links with the Revolutionary Democratic Front and the banned CPI (Maoist). Allegedly, Hany Babu was also a part of the committee supporting Naxal ideologue G.N. Saibaba.
While in 2023, Babu’s bail plea was denied by the Bombay High Court, in 2024, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court only to withdraw it, citing ‘change in circumstances’. Babu’s lawyer had informed the apex court panel comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal of their decision to pursue bail anew in the High Court. The change in circumstances essentially means an absence of a favourable judge.
OpIndia has reported earlier how even the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid’s case too, such ‘change of circumstances’ resulted in multiple voluntary bail plea withdrawals and yet his supporters outside continuously cried ‘travesty of justice’ and whatnot.
Fraternity Movement fearmongered about SIR in Bihar, calling it ‘NRC with a new name’
Months back, the Election Commission of India announced that a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in Bihar ahead of elections. The opposition parties labelled it a ‘conspiracy’ by the BJP and ECI to remove the names of Muslims and other voters who generally opposed to the BJP. The Fraternity Movement went a step ahead and linked the SIR exercise meant to weed out illegal voters from the electoral roll to Hindutva and NRC.
“Stop the ploy to implement the NRC under a new name—withdraw the decision to re-examine the voter list in Bihar!” The Fraternity Movement strongly opposes the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of the voter list in Bihar. This is demanding documents proving their citizenship and that of their parents, including those whose names were added to the voter list after 2003. This is not a simple investigation—it is a conspiracy to implement the NRC secretly and covertly. This is all part of the Hindutva ideology—to link citizenship to religion and caste. Just as the NRC and CAA were introduced in Assam to scare people, the Election Commission of India is now being used for the same purpose,” it wrote in an Instagram post.
The SIR was conducted; lakhs of fake voters were found and removed, yet no valid citizens, including Muslims, lost their citizenship or their voting right.
Fraternity Movement’s pro-Palestine activism
Much like the other ‘student’ organisations linked to the CASR, Fraternity Movement has also been regularly organising pro-Palestine protests across the country.
In one of the social media posts published this June, Fraternity Movement accused India of betraying Palestine after India. The Fraternity Movement claimed that India decided to “vote against” the resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza in the UN General Assembly. The Islamist student group accused the Indian government of handing a “silent endorsement of the genocidal violence unleashed by the fascist Israeli regime.”
However, India did not vote against the resolution; rather, it abstained from voting. The Fraternity Movement went on to invoke Hindutva even where neither Hindus nor Hindutva have anything remotely to do.
“This is not an aberration; it is the consequence of a growing ideological alliance between Zionist Israel and Hindutva‑driven India. Both are governed by ethno‑nationalist regimes, united by an imperialist mindset, an obsession with military surveillance, and a contempt for Muslim life,” the Fraternity Movement wrote.
However, neither the Indian government has taken any U-turn from its historical support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute, but has also been providing aid to Palestine. While the Fraternity Movement very conveniently invoked Hindutva and painted the ‘Hindu nationalist’ government as inherently anti-Muslim, it is a fact that the only reason Indian Islamists and their leftist cheerleaders cry for Palestine is because of their shared religious identity, not simply because of ‘humanity’. Be it in India or anywhere in the world, Islamists rejoiced when the Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas massacred Israeli civilians on 7th October 2023 for being Jews.
Fraternity Movement supports Rejaz Sydeek, who condemned Operation Sindoor against Pakistani terror establishments
In May this year, the Indian Armed Forces successfully carried out Operation Sindoor against Pakistani terror establishments and later Pakistani military targets in the aftermath of the Pahalgam Attack, wherein 26 Hindus were shot dead by Pakistani jihadis for being Hindus. At the time of supporting the forces, some pro-Pakistan voices were raised in India.
One such was Rejaz Sydeek, a 26-year-old pro-Maoist student ‘activist’ from Kerala. Rejaz M Sheeba Sydeek was arrested in Nagpur on 7th May, following his post against Operation Sindoor on Instagram. Sydeek was booked under the UAPA.
Sydeek, on his Instagram account, had condemned Operation Sindoor carried out by the Indian Armed Forces against terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Along with that, he was criticising operations against Naxalites, the First Information Report registered at Lakadganj police station in the city read. He was also reportedly brandishing firearms as well in the video.
Even as Sydeek was booked for his anti-national remarks during the Indo-Pak conflict, Fraternity Movement painted the arrest as an act of suppressing Sydeek’s voice as he was exposing ‘human rights violations’ by the Modi government in Naxal-affected Chhattisgarh. The Islamist student body was upset with the Central government eliminating the menace of Naxalism from the Dandakaranya region.
Fraternity Movement condemned the arrest of a leader belonging to the banned Islamist outfit PFI’s political arm, SDPI
In March this year, the Enforcement Directorate arrested SDPI President Moideen Kutty K, alias MK Faizy, from Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. “Investigation revealed that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), were conspiring and raising/collecting funds from within India and abroad through banking channels, Hawala, donations for committing and financing terrorist acts across India,” said the ED.
During the earlier conducted searches, ED recovered documents that provided insight into the true objectives of the PFI, describing it as an organisation committed to advancing an Islamic movement in India by “endorsing the principles of Jihad in all forms.” The investigators said that SDPI is PFI’s political arm and was dependent on PFI for its day-to-day functions, policy making, selecting candidates for election campaign, public programs, cadre mobilisation and other related activities.”
Fraternity Movement, however, deemed Faizy’s arrest a “blatant misuse of power is an attack on democratic values and an attempt to silence dissent.”
The Movement’s support for SDPI leader is not entirely unexpected, given Welfare Party of India itself is led by figures such as Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, a former member of SIMI and father of Umar Khalid, and has long been associated with Islamist-leaning activism.
Fraternity Movement’s support for Sharjeel Imam, who wanted to cut off India’s ‘chicken neck’ and 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid
Given the Fraternity Movement’s support for Islamists and anti-India elements, it is not surprising that the Welfare Party’s student wing also backs Sharjeel Imam. It must be recalled that during the anti-CAA-NRC protests in 2019-20, Sharjeel Imam faced serious charges, including inciting Muslims, instigating riots, and sedition. He was arrested on January 28, 2020, and has been undergoing trial since.
Not only Sharjeel Imam, Fraternity Movement’s heart also cries for Umar Khalid, who is accused of masterminding the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots. Fraternity Movement calls Khalid a ‘political prisoner’ and laments that he has been incarcerated for over a thousand days, suggesting that he has been jailed unfairly.
Contrary to the false narrative peddled by Islamo-leftists to garner support and sympathy for Umar Khalid, OpIndia has reported earlier that out of the 14 adjournments in 2023 and 2024, 7 delays and adjournments were sought by Umar Khalid himself. It therefore becomes evident that the withdrawal was certainly not because of the famed “delay” in hearing. While the Islamo-leftist ecosystem continues to cry ‘injustice’, it is the alleged failed forum shopping attempts of the accused’s lawyer that have Khalid rotting in jail for so long.
In fact, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, had also said earlier this year that the real problem lies in the mindset of some lawyers and political groups who want their cases heard only by certain judges. Highlighting what OpIndia has reported multiple times, the former CJI said that court records showed that Khalid’s legal team, led by Sibal, had sought at least seven adjournments before finally withdrawing the bail plea in February 2024, citing “a change in circumstances.”
Fraternity Movement’s ‘revolutionary salutes’ to Naxal ideologue GN Saibaba
Besides Islamists, the Fraternity Movement also glorifies Naxalites like GN Saibaba. The Movement claims that Saibaba was booked under fabricated charges and was tortured while in jail, leading to his death.
Notably, G N Saibaba, a professor of English in Ram Lal Anand College of the Delhi University, was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Gadchiroli sessions court in 2017 for waging war against India for his Maoist links and involvement in anti-national activities. He was convicted under sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.
G N Saibaba was first arrested in May 2014 on charges of being a member of the banned CPI-Maoists, plus providing logistics and carrying out recruitment for them. He was then provided bail for three months on 30th June 2015 in view of his worsening health. He was given bail again in August 2016, this time by the Supreme Court against the wishes of the Maharashtra Government, which thought freeing Saibaba would render him free to propagate his views and brainwash students.
Afreen Fatima and Aysha Renna: The Fraternity Movement-linked ‘activists’ sympathise with Islamic terrorists and oppose the Ayodhya Ram Mandir
Several controversial activists are linked to the Fraternity Movement, including Afreen Fatima and Aysha Renna. Fatima has publicly defended Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, repeatedly urging people to “revisit” his verdict.
Sharing an article published in terrorist-sympathising The Caravan magazine dated January 15, 2020, written by the far-left propagandist journalist Arundhati Roy, infamous for support towards Jihad in Kashmir and Naxals, Afreen Fatima took to Twitter to appeal to ‘revisit’ Afzal Guru’s verdict ‘again and again.’
Revisit, again and again. Read the verdict, again and again. Never forget.https://t.co/bsgz38CNwp
She has also questioned the Supreme Court over decisions like the Ram Mandir judgment. Renna, celebrated by sections of the media, openly backed Sharjeel Imam, calling police action against him a “witch hunt” and demanding that cases against him be dropped, despite his inflammatory secessionist speeches.
Aisha Renna had also condemned the action by Assam and Uttar Pradesh Police against “Anti-CAA Activist and PhD scholar of Jawaharlal Nehru University” under the UAPA. Renna, in her Facebook post, lies that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) denies citizenship to Muslims in India. This came even as CAA merely fast-tracked Indian citizenship of persecuted religious minorities from three neighbouring Islamic countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. CAA had nothing to do with Indians, Muslims and non-Muslims, in any way.
Fraternity Movement against Irfan Mehraj’s arrest
Fraternity Movement has also extended support to Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj. In one of its social media posts, the Movement claimed that “Kashmiri Muslim journalist” Irfan Mehraj’s arrest under the UAPA amounted to criminalising ‘journalism’.
However, contrary to the Islamo-leftist concocted narrative, Mehraj was not arrested for his journalistic work but for his alleged involvement in a terror funding case.
Mehraj was closely associated with ‘activist’ Khurram Parvez and a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies (JKCCS). The NIA had said that the JKCCS was funding terror activities in the valley and had also been in the propagation of the secessionist agenda in the Valley under the garb of protection of human rights. In a Facebook post from June 2020, Irfan Mehraj was seen in awe of controversial activist Khurram Parvez. “You keep inspiring us every day,” he wrote.
Conclusion
From opposing the Ram Mandir, glorifying Naxalites to hailing Islamists involved in terrorism, Fraternity Movement, contrary to its claim of spreading the message of “democracy, social justice and fraternity”, is actually disseminating the message of undermining democracy, mocking justice and weakening ‘fraternity’.
Pakistan always finds opportunities to claim victory over India even when none exists. Sometimes they steal the trophies of Cricket tournaments after losing the match, sometimes they use video game footages and morphed images to claim military victory. This time, the Pakistani government has claimed victory in debate at Oxford University, because the Indian side didn’t attend the debate after they were told that the Pakistani side has not arrived.
The Pakistani High Commission in London yesterday posted a lengthy post on X, claiming that the Indian delegation scheduled to participate in the ‘high profile’ debate at the Oxford Union on 27 November withdrew at the last minute, effectively handing a walkover to the Pakistani side.
The parliamentary style debate was to be held on the motion, “This House Believes That India’s Policy Towards Pakistan Is a Populist Strategy Sold as Security Policy”, the high commission stated. According to them, the participants from Pakistani side were General (Retd) Zubair Mahmood Hayat, former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Hina Rabbani Khar, former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and Mohammad Faisal, High Commissioner of Pakistan to the United Kingdom.
According to them, the participants from the Indian side were General M. M. Naravane, former Chief of Army Staff, Dr Subramanian Swamy and Sachin Pilot.
The Pakistani High Commission claimed that the Pakistani speakers had already arrived in London and were scheduled to proceed to Oxford today. The added, “Earlier this morning, however, the Oxford Union informed the organizers that all three Indian speakers had decided to pull out, offering no substantive explanation for their inability to attend a debate they had previously confirmed.”
Indian Delegation Backs Out Of Oxford Union Debate At Last Minute, Hands Walkover to Pakistani side
The Pakistan High Commission in London @PakistaninUK regrets to announce that the Indian delegation scheduled to participate in a high profile debate at the Oxford Union…
Pakistan claimed that this withdrawal has caused considerable embarrassment for the Oxford Union, adding that they believe that “this last minute decision reflects a lack of confidence on the part of the Indian delegation in defending India’s Pakistan policy in an open, rules based forum.” They further boasted that Pakistan’s delegation came prepared to argue its case on the strength of facts, international law and regional stability considerations.
The high commission also reportedly claimed that India later proposed “obscure and low-profile replacements,” adding that the replacements “did not match the level of the Pakistani delegation and undermined the credibility and balance of the debate.” “The collective retreat of the Indian delegation amounted to an unchallenged victory for Pakistan,” the High Commission stated.
The comments of the High Commission were widely reported by Pakistani media, claiming that India backed out of the debate against Pakistan.
However, today Supreme Court lawyer Sai Deepak J exposed the lies of Pakistan, as he revealed how the Indian side was misled to not attend the debate with false information, resulting in the walkover for Pakistan. According to him, the original participants from India were himself, Dr Subramaniyam Swami and General Naravane, which means Sachin Pilot was not scheduled to participate, as claimed by Pakistan.
Sai Deepak posted screenshots of mail sent to him by Moosa Harraj, the president of Oxford Union, confirming his participation at the debate. Notably, Moosa Harraj is the son of Muhammad Raza Hayat Harraj, the Minister of Defence Production in Pakistan’s federal government.
1. Trust the Pakistanis to make a pigsty even out of the @OxfordUnion. And as always, they are genetically incapable of being truthful. So here's the complete story of how this so-called debate played out. https://t.co/I74r18vZR6
However, 2 days before the debate, the Oxford Union informed Sai that Dr. Swamy and General Naravane would be unable to attend the debate, and asked him to propose alternative names. Before he could suggest names, they called him again to inform that Suhel Seth and Priyanka Chaturvedi will be joining the event, and they have confirmed their participation.
However, again on 26 November, a day before the debate, the Oxford Union called Sai Deepak saying that Seth and Chaturvedi also can’t attend at such a short notice. They asked him to propose alternatives from the UK so that there is no travel hassle. Accordingly, Pt Satish K. Sharma, author and MD of Global Hindu Federation, and writer-commentator Manu Khajuria, both based in London, were selected and they accepted to participate in the debate.
As a result, Sai Deepak travelled to London for the event on 27th November morning, and attended his hearings in the Supreme Court virtually. However, at 3:13 PM, just 3 hours before the debate, he got a call from the Union informing him that the Pakistani side hadn’t even landed in London. Unhappy hearing this, Sai conveyed his displeasure at the abysmal handling of the event.
As they were told that the Pakistani side hadn’t turned up, the Indian side didn’t see the point in going to Oxford. Therefore, they decided to stay back in London. Sai Deepak sent a mail to Union president Moosa expressing unhappiness over the development, the Moosa replied with an apology. Moosa claimed that he received a call at 10 am a day earlier that the Pakistani team wouldn’t be coming.
However, it turned out that Oxford Union led by Pakistani Moosa Harraj was lying all along. As it was later learnt that the Pakistani side had already arrived in UK and were put up at the George Street Hotel in Oxford. This same hotel was also booked by the union for Sai Deepak. The Pakistani debaters attended the event, and was declared winner without debate as the Indian side was not present.
Satish K Sharma, who was scheduled to debate on behalf of India, confirmed the development. He said that they were on the way when Oxford Union ‘pulled the plug’.
Aptly put @kk_OEG . We were on our way when the @OxfordUnion pulled the plug. The prospect of a legal mind such as @jsaideepak, a real J n K Hindu human rights expert in our @KhajuriaManu , and myself a Dharmic Scholar versed in the true Partition story, was clearly too daunting… https://t.co/6OLAzM2SME
— Pt Satish K Sharma MBCS FRSA FRAS (@thebritishhindu) November 28, 2025
He posted on X, “The prospect of a legal mind such as @jsaideepak, a real J n K Hindu human rights expert in our @KhajuriaManu, and myself a Dharmic Scholar versed in the true Partition story, was clearly too daunting a prospect. They came, they screamed, they fled, without even a verbal volley across the bows.”
In his thread, Sai Deepak said, “if the Pakistani team is still at Oxford, they should find the courage to debate us on the topic instead of doing an Operation Manhoos ki phati hui Baniyan where their Defense Minister couldn’t even produce evidence of their so-called success.” He asked why the Pakistani team hiding behind kids like their terrorists, instead of facing the Indians in a live debate for the world to see.
15. @UniofOxford, you have allowed the current President of the @OxfordUnion & his coterie of compatriots to drag your institution in muck. You have allowed the @OxfordUnion to become a concubinal mouthpiece of @PakistaninUK, perhaps reflecting the general state of affairs.
Addressing the Oxford University, he said that they have allowed the Union President and his coterie of compatriots to drag the institution in muck. “You have allowed the Oxford Union to become a concubinal mouthpiece of Pakistan, perhaps reflecting the general state of affairs,” he added.
Therefore, this makes it clear that the Oxford Union, and its Pakistani president, misled the Indian side to not attend the debate, by lying to them that the Pakistani side has not arrived. While in fact, the Pakistani representatives were already in Oxford, and were in the hotel arranged by the union for the event.
As a result of India’s absence, they were declared the winner. The claims of Pakistani High Commission that India decided to pull out is completely wrong.
For decades, Indian leaders boasted of the country’s “potential,” but it frequently sounded like a promise postponed. The figures now reveal a different picture. India is currently ranked as a major power in Asia by the Lowy Institute’s 2025 Asia Power Index, with a comprehensive power score above 40 and a strong third place behind only the US and China. In other words, India is now in the center of Asia’s geopolitical balance rather than on the outside of discussions about great powers.
This change did not occur by coincidence or in a vacuum. Over the last decade, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has attempted to transition from a cautious “balancing power” to a more confident “leading power,” a phrase Modi popularised and envisioned under his regime. Even if there are still significant obstacles, the most recent data from Lowy, the World Bank, the IMF, and significant think tanks indicate that this goal currently depends on increasingly strong strategic and economic foundations.
A new label: Major power in Asia
The Asia Power Index is a comprehensive quantitative ranking that uses 131 indicators across eight broad measures which are economic capability, military capability, resilience, future resources, economic relationships, defence networks, diplomatic influence, and cultural influence, to assess the relative power of 27 states, ranging from Pakistan to New Zealand. It is not a feel-good pamphlet. This makes the pace of development of India all the more essential.
India’s influence in Asia “continues to grow steadily,” according to Lowy’s 2025 edition, and its overall power score has, for the first time, surpassed the 40 point level that the Index considers to be indicative of a “major power.” In addition to holding onto the third spot it first took in 2024, India also gains ground on Japan, which is still barely below the major power cutoff.
However, Lowy acknowledges that India’s ascent is still unfinished. It emphasizes that India’s power is still “well below the potential of its resources” and that there is a significant “power gap” between the country’s actual impact and what its resources indicate it could accomplish. India’s current story is summed up by the twin image of quick rise but untapped potential.
The economicengine behind India’s ascent
Economic strength is ultimately what determines power, and India’s position has drastically shifted in this regard. Despite a difficult global climate, India’s economy continued to grow at the quickest rate among major economies, rising by roughly 6.5% in FY24/25, according to the World Bank’s India Overview. Further back, the India Development Update notes that solid manufacturing, resilient services, and significant public infrastructure investment drove India’s 8.2% growth in FY23/24.
According to multilateral forecasts, this is not a singular increase. India’s Ministry of Finance referenced the April 2025 IMF World Economic Outlook, which states that India would continue to be the fastest-growing major economy for the next two years and anticipates growth rates of 6.2% in 2025 and 6.3% in 2026. A estimate of approximately 6.7% growth, far higher than the global average, is also highlighted in a different World Bank linked report from early 2025.
This consistent momentum has significant implications. India’s Chief Economic Advisor has stated that the nation’s GDP has already surpassed $3.9 trillion and is expected to surpass $4 trillion in FY 2025–2026. IMF statistics indicates that the $5 trillion level is probably a few years away. This is a huge shift for a nation whose economy was just about $2 trillion ten years ago.
This reality is reflected in the Lowy Index. According to the 2025 edition, India’s economic capability, a composite of size, technology, connectivity, and international leverage has grown. In a startling change, Lowy also notes an improvement in India’s economic ties for the first time since the Index’s inception. According to ten-year cumulative capital flows, India has surpassed China to become the most desirable location for inward investment after the United States, despite the country’s still developing Asian trade ties. With its promise of a stable, rules-based market democracy, New Delhi has been counting on precisely this kind of geoeconomic reorganization.
In this case, it is hard to overlook the policy decisions made by the Modi administration. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, digital public infrastructure like UPI and Aadhaar linked direct benefit transfers, and an aggressive push for roads, ports, railroads, and power have all undergone structural reforms over the past ten years in New Delhi. The importance of Production Linked Incentive (PLI) programs in industries like solar PV, advanced cell batteries, and specialty steel is further highlighted by international evaluations of India’s industrial and climate strategy, which integrate industrial policy with a net-zero 2070 goal.
Modi’s “leading power” vision is based on these economic reforms, which go beyond simple technocratic changes. If a nation isn’t growing faster than its peers, drawing in investment, and developing its industrial capacity, it can’t legitimately claim a seat at the top table of the world economy. In these areas, the evidence is increasingly stacked in India’s favor.
Hard power: Geography, military capability and the Indian Ocean
Economic strength is required but not sufficient. India’s increasing hard power status in Asia is highlighted by both the Asia Power Index and strategic literature.
According to Lowy’s 2025 study, India’s military capability has progressively increased, partly due to recent operational experience and improved expert assessments of its troops. It even uses the May 2025 launch of “Operation Sindoor” as an illustration of how India is expanding its fighting experience in ways that affect views in the region. Only the United States, China, and Russia rank higher among Asian actors in terms of overall military capabilities than India.
Geographical factors contribute to this military profile. India has significant influence over maritime trade and security due to its location, which dominates the Indian Ocean and sits atop the major sea routes from the Gulf to the Malacca Strait. The strategic significance of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India’s coastline, and its increasing capacity to project power into the larger Indo-Pacific through naval deployments and cooperative drills are highlighted in contemporary Indo-Pacific assessments.
It is evident that India has viewed this geography as a strategic advantage rather than a passive inheritance under the Modi administration. Defence modernisation has been associated with “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliance) in defence manufacturing, maritime domain awareness, and naval infrastructure have drawn renewed attention. India has strengthened military logistics and interoperability agreements with important allies, ranging from Australia and Japan to the United States and France. A portion of this narrative is captured by the Lowy Index’s measure of defence networks, which monitors alliances, defence diplomacy, and international partnerships.
Once more, the trend is evident. India is now viewed as a crucial maritime player in the Indo-Pacific balance of power rather than just a continental power concentrated on its land borders.
Diplomacy and the Modi-Jaishankar doctrine: From Non-alignment to multi-alignment
Diplomacy is a rising power’s nerve system if economic might and military might are its spine. Under PM Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, India’s progress in this area has been especially noticeable.
According to the 2025 Asia Power Index, India’s diplomatic influence has somewhat increased due to more active diplomacy as measured by bilateral discussions and expert evaluations of the country’s improved diplomatic service. It also emphasizes how India’s cultural influence has increased, primarily as a result of increased interpersonal interactions and improved air travel, especially new direct links like the one between India and Brunei.
The report also subtly warns that India’s ranking for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s regional and global leadership did not improve despite the country’s apparent activism. This suggests that India’s strategy of multi-alignment, strategic autonomy, and leadership of the Global South does not automatically translate into rapidly expanding strategic influence. Here, analysis from important think tanks aids in understanding New Delhi’s intentions.
According to Ashley Tellis’s study for the Carnegie Endowment titled “India as a Leading Power,” Modi’s proposal for India to become a leading power represents a conceptual shift away from the more traditional rhetoric of cautious balancing and non-alignment. According to Tellis, a “leading power” is basically a great power, a state that uses strong governmental institutions, solid economic foundations, and reliable military prowess to influence its surroundings. He presents a challenging argument. Only by strengthening those three pillars over decades would India be able to attain that status.
Other analyses describe the Modi-Jaishankar Doctrine as a pragmatic mix of issue based coalitions, strategic autonomy, and multi-alignment, in which India collaborates with Western partners on technology and Indo-Pacific security, maintains close ties with Russia on energy and defense, and advocates for the Global South on development and climate. An excellent illustration of this diplomatic balancing act is how India managed its G20 presidency, positioning itself as a voice for the Global South while keeping all major powers, including the West and Russia, at the table.
In other words, Modi’s foreign policy has attempted to use India’s strategic and economic clout as diplomatic leverage while remaining independent of any particular bloc. According to Lowy’s analysis, New Delhi still has a ways to go before the rest of Asia fully internalizes India as a default leader, even though this strategy has begun to pay off in terms of influence.
Soft power, diaspora and Digital India
India’s rise is fueled by soft power, including its culture, people, and digital reach, in addition to hard figures and military rankings. India is ranked among the top Asian states in terms of cultural influence by the Asia Power Index, which highlights the country’s increasing appeal as a tourist and tourism destination, its growing educational connections, and the amount of people-to-people interactions with other Index nations. This reservoir of goodwill is bolstered by India’s vast diaspora, music and film industries, yoga, food, and literature.
Digital India has taken on a new dimension in recent years. India’s digital public infrastructure, particularly UPI and Aadhaar linked services, has been cited by international observers from development banks to commercial consultancies as a model for financial inclusion and e-governance in emerging nations. A purposeful soft power strategy that supports the hard power narrative includes Modi’s enthusiastic utilization of diaspora gatherings, the international promotion of the International Day of Yoga, and the export of India’s digital stack.
The feet of clay debate: Constraints inside the rise
India’s internal limitations cannot be disregarded in any meaningful evaluation of its rise. It’s interesting to note that some of the most skeptical evaluations still begin with the idea that India is a rising power; their argument focuses on the strength of its foundations rather than the reality of its rise. This is exactly how the topic is framed in a study report titled “India’s Rise: On Feet of Clay?” by the German think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). While acknowledging India’s increasing international prominence, Christian Wagner’s research highlights socioeconomic disparities, administrative bottlenecks, state capacity shortcomings, and governance issues as potential roadblocks to long term power.
Tellis presents a similar argument from a different perspective, the “leading power” objective will remain aspirational unless India keeps strengthening its state institutions, modernizing its military, and deepening its economic reforms. These criticisms are significant because they highlight the fact that India’s biggest strategic issue is internal change rather than only external conflict.
Even these skeptics, however, are unable to ignore a fundamental reality, which is that India is already regarded in international studies as a crucial pole in Asia’s developing multipolar order. The question now is not whether India is rising, but rather how quickly and how far it can go, as well as whether domestic reforms can meet the expectations raised by its exterior posture.
Conclusion: From potential to responsibility
The narrative surrounding India has changed in less than a generation. With a total score above 40 and a definite third place in the regional hierarchy, it is now seen by Lowy as a major power in Asia, having previously been characterized as a “potential power” perpetually restrained by its inherent contradictions. Both the World Bank and the IMF predict that in the upcoming years, India’s economy would continue to grow at the fastest rate among major economies, with growth rates continuously above 6%. Its military might and defense networks are continuously growing, its economy is approaching $4 trillion, and its diplomatic activism from G20 leadership to outreach to the Global South has become unavoidable.
India has changed its perception of itself under Narendra Modi. It is no longer satisfied with being a cautious balancer, instead, it speaks openly as a “leading power” and serves as a vital swing state in the Indo-Pacific. That goal is still being worked toward. Tellis’s stress on the need for more significant institutional and economic reforms, SWP’s concerns about the “feet of clay,” and Lowy’s “power gap” all serve as reminders that the road is not yet complete.
However, for the first time in decades, the world’s most reputable indexes, projections, and think-tank assessments are supporting the claims made by India’s leadership since 2014 that the country is an emerging pole in the global system rather than just another developing market. It will take time, reform, and self-control to transform that position into long-term, stable leadership. However, the direction of travel is clearly visible. The era of India as a long-term “potential power” has ended, and the era of India as a responsible big power has quietly but firmly begun.
When blatant lies do not serve the purpose, Islamo-leftist propaganda outlets resort to twisting and even withholding facts as per their convenience. Recently, a controversy erupted over the majority of the MBBS seats at the newly opened Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME) being allocated to Muslim students. On 26th November, leftist propaganda outlet, The Wire, published a piece claiming that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Medical Institute received a Rs 121 Crore grant from the Jammu and Kashmir government.
The leftist propaganda outlet claims that, contrary to the claims made by Hindu right-wing groups that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence, without government funding, the SMVDIME did and continues to receive grants in aid from the “only Muslim-majority government”. The subtle assertion here is that a Hindu shrine-run educational institution is receiving grants from a Muslim-majority government; thus, instead of outrage over more Muslim students getting medical seats than Hindus, the Hindu right-wing should be thankful.
In the article titled: “Contrary to Hindutva Claims, Vaishno Devi Medical Institute Got Rs 121 Crore in J&K Govt Grants”, author Jehangir Ali claims that the “documents show that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi (SMVD) University, which runs the institute continued to receive official financial support even when the erstwhile state was bifurcated and downgraded into two Union Territories.”
Screengrab of the article by The Wire
The propaganda piece says that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University received Rs 10 lakh ‘grants in aid’ from the J&K government in 2017-18. Rs 50 lakh in 2018-19 and Rs 5 crore in 2019-20.
“From Rs 19.70 crore in 2020-21, budget documents show that the J&K government grants to the Vaishno Devi University consistently increased from Rs 21 crore in 2021-22 to Rs 23 crore in 2022-23, Rs 24 crore in 2023-24 and Rs 24 crore in 2024-25,” the article reads, adding that for the present fiscal year, the Jammu and Kashmir government has allocated Rs 28 crore ‘grants in aid’ for the university.
The Wire plays the ‘number’ game to lend credence to its half-truths
The Wire’s central argument is that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU), which manages the Institute of the Shri Mata Vaishno Medical Excellence (SMVDIME), received Rs 121.30 crore ‘grants-in-aid’ from the J&K government since 2017-18.
Excerpt taken from the relevant The Wire article
It says that since SMVDU has been receiving grants-in-aid from the ‘Muslim-majority’ government of Jammu and Kashmir, and it manages the newly opened SMVIME, the Hindu right-wing groups are wrong in claiming that the institute is built and being run solely on donations by Hindus.
The Wire further insinuates that since a Hindu religious body runs an educational institution, which is not marked as a minority institution, and gets grants from a Muslim-majority government, it is fine that it gives more seats to Muslim students than Hindus.
While the numbers pertaining to the grants-in-aid received by the multi-disciplinary Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University are correct, the all-time Rs 121.30 crore grant-in-aid was given to SMVDU and not the SMVDIME, which is the epicentre of the ongoing controversy.
It is essential to note that while SMVDIME is affiliated with the SMVDU for academic purposes, it operates as a distinct entity under the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (SMVDSB). SMVDIME became operational in November 2023 from SMVDU’s administrative block as a temporary measure. It is not structurally part of the university’s core funding or operations. In short, there is no direct funding flow between SMVDU and SMVDIME.
Not a single penny from the grants-in-aid was diverted for setting up the newly opened medical institute. Had The Wire author, who repeatedly emphasised words like ‘documents’ and ‘data’, had the SMVDIME’s Detailed Project Report (DPR), they would know that the nearly Rs 600 crore project cost has been sourced entirely from Hindu pilgrim offerings/donations. This means that no government-provided ‘grants-in-aid’ or university funds were allocated directly to SMVDIME’s construction, operations or salary-related expenditures.
SMVDIME’s own submission to the National Medical Commission (NMC) in 2025 explicitly mentions that it received no financial support from the Union Territory administration.
In fact, the submission says that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Charitable Society, which is being funded by the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, is setting up a new medical college in Katra. It is thus clear that the SMVDIME is not built or run using UT government-provided grants but indeed is funded by the donations of Hindu devotees.
The Wire article provides no documentary evidence which suggests any diversion of the Union Territory’s ‘Muslim-majority’ government-provided grants towards the SMVDIME.
The Islamo-leftist propaganda outlet cherry-picked university funding-related data to counter Hindu right-wing or Hindutva claims; however, either deliberately or otherwise, it ignored the independent shrine funding.
Additionally, on its website, the SMVIME makes no mention of having received UT government funding or having diverted grants received by SMVDU for the institute’s establishment.
The SMVDIME controversy, the technical reality and many unanswered questions
Earlier this month, a controversy erupted in Jammu and Kashmir over the first MBBS admission list of the newly opened Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Sciences and Excellence (SMVDIME) in Katra. Several political and social leaders have questioned the fairness of the selection process after it was revealed that a large majority of the selected students do not belong to the Hindu community, despite the institute being funded entirely by the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (SMVDSB), a Hindu religious body.
The institute, built with nearly Rs 600 crore collected through donations from Hindu devotees, was seen as a proud example of faith-driven development. However, the admission list for the 2025-26 session has stirred controversy. Out of 50 selected students, 42 belong to the Muslim community, 7 are Hindus, and one is Sikh.
In no time, an outrage erupted with BJP leaders criticising the selection ratios and calling for an open review of the admission process carried out by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (JKBOPEE).
Meanwhile, Hindu rights organisations like Jammu Rashtriya Bajrang Dal said the outcome was discriminatory and urged Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha to act immediately. The group warned of large-scale protests if corrective steps are not taken soon.
Notably, India’s Constitution does not allow reservations based only on religion. Some states have minority sub-quotas within other categories, but Jammu and Kashmir has no such rule, and SMVDIME does not fall under any government quota. This makes the uneven representation even more confusing for many devotees and leaders alike.
Neither SMVDU nor its affiliate SMVDIME is are religious educational institution or even a “deemed university”. They are state universities or state-controlled institutions governed by the rules applicable to any ordinary government-controlled university. The SMVDU was established under a State Legislature Act: The Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act of 1999. It never applied to become a deemed university. SMVDU’s legal status also remains that of “a private/shrine-board-funded medical college affiliated to SMVDU (a State University).”
Thus, despite being a Hindu-donation-funded institution, its state university classification puts it under the JKBOPEE’s counselling, State reservation rules, and State seat distribution norms.
Due to this, SMVDIME’s first MBBS batch was filled via the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (JKBOPEE) and not through the All-India Quota (AIQ) counselling by the Medical Counselling Committee.
However, there are many unanswered questions. Why did the SMVDIME not include an institutional preference for Hindus, as it happens in the Aligarh Muslim University and Baba Gulam Sha Badshah University? Both AMU and BGBSU, despite being Muslim-run institutions, do not hold minority status.
Why was no local district quota created for Reasi, Udhampur and Jammu? BGBSU has set aside a 25% quota for the permanent residents of Rajouri and Poonch.
Why, despite using Hindu devotee donations for SMVDIME, did the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board not work out a special admission model?
And most importantly, will SMVDU and SMVDIME consider applying for Deemed University status, seek conversion into a Central University or continue by state-controlled?
Until these questions are answered, the reality will remain that a Hindu donation-funded and Hindu religious shrine board-run but government-controlled SMVDIME will have more Muslim students than Hindus. However, The Wire’s claim that somehow SMVDIME is funded by the Muslim-majority government of Jammu and Kashmir, simply because SMVDU receives grants-in-aid from the UT administration, is false and misleading.
The Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) on Thursday (27th November) issued new Rs 100 currency notes featuring a revised map of Nepal, misrepresenting three Indian territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura as part of Nepal. The new currency notes bear the signature of the previous Governor, Maha Prasad Adhikari. The date of issuance of the bank note is 2081 BS, which denotes the last year, 2024.
An image of Mt Everest is displayed on the left side of he new Rs 100 currency note, and a watermark of Nepal’s national flower, Rhododendron, is featured on the right. The centre of the note shows a faint green coloured map of Nepal with an image of the Ashoka Pillar printed next to it. The words “Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha” are printed at the centre of the bottom of the note.
Notably, the map’s design has not been changed, it is in circulation for several years. But the map on the note has been changed, as per the Nepal govt’s decision to revise the country’s map to include three Indian territories.
A picture of a one horned rhino with a cub is printed on the back of the note, which has a security thread running through it and an embossed black dot, to help visually impaired people recognise it.
According to an NRB spokesperson, the map on the new Rs 100 note was already there, and it has been revised as per the decision of the government. He added that among the banknotes of various denominations, such as Rs 10, Rs 50, Rs 500, and Rs 1,000, only the Rs 100 currency note bears Nepal’s map.
Nepal revised its map under the previous Oli-led government
Notably, in June 2020, the previous K P Sharma Oli government had revised the country’s map through a Parliament endorsement to include three Indian territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura in it. Reacting sharply to Nepal’s move, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs rejected the updated map of Nepal, saying that the artificial enlargement of the map is not based on historical facts, hence it is not tenable.
Nepal’s action came after India inaugurated a link road in May 2020, linking the Kailash Mansarovar route in Pithoragarh in Uttarakhand to Lipulekh. The Nepali foreign ministry issued a statement claiming that the link road passed through Nepal’s territory. Nepal, in the past, has called for diplomatic discussions with India to resolve what it perceives as a territorial dispute between the two countries. India has, however, denied any territorial disputes with the country, maintaining that Nepal’s claim on the territories in question lacks a historical and factual basis. Nepal raised the issue again in August this year after India announced the revival of commerce through Lipulekh with China. It reacted strongly to the announcement and regurgitated its claim on the territory.
Nepal picking up fights with a valuable neighbour
The former Hindu Rashtra recently went through a phase of political instability, which resulted in the ouster of the Oli-led government. The country is currently being governed by an unelected government. Considering these circumstances, Nepal’s decision to raise an imaginary territorial dispute with India appears like a poor diplomatic decision. At a time when the country, which is recovering from the impact of large-scale protests against corruption, should be focusing on its own political stability, it is choosing to manufacture conflict with a generous neighbour like India, which has stood by the country through thick and thin.
Given the country’s unique geopolitical position and its common security concerns with India, Nepal should prioritise domestic and bilateral peace. However, overlooking the longstanding traditional, cultural and civilisational ties with India, the country has adopted an aggressive diplomacy towards India under pressure from the United States.
What is the Lipulekh Dispute
Lipulekh Pass is situated in a tri-junction region claimed by Nepal and India. Nepal incorporates Lipulekh, along with nearby Kalapani and Limpiyadhura territories, into its official maps and constitution, claiming them in accordance with the Treaty of Sugauli’s designation of the Kali River as the frontier. But Nepal’s claim is disputed by India, which claims that the river originates downstream and hence this land belongs to Uttarakhand. India contends that Nepal’s claims lack a historical and factual basis, seeking dialogue while maintaining control over the land. The Lipulekh route, which connects India and China along their contentious Himalayan border, is strategically important. Lipulekh has also been at the centre of a historic bilateral commercial arrangement between India and China, which was renewed recently.
The Treaty of Sugauli was signed on December 2, 1815, and ratified on March 4, 1816, between the Kingdom of Nepal and the British East India Company, ending the Anglo-Nepalese War. Under the treaty, Nepal ceded parts of its territory, including areas west of the Kali River, which includes the territories disputed by Nepal, up to the Sutlej River and the Tarai lowlands. Nepal is now asserting its claim on the territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura, which lie west to the Kali River, based on its interpretation of the treaty.
On the evening of Thanksgiving, on November 27, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he is about to announce a sweeping immigration crackdown. The latest outburst is triggered by the shooting of two National Guard personnel near the White House by an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal. Lakanwal had entered the USA via a Biden-era resettlement program.
“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen, and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization”, Trump’s post reads.
Trump’s post on Thanksgiving
What is a Third World country?
The term originates in the Cold War era, where US-USSR rivalry that intensified in the 1950s had virtually split the world into 3 political sides. The First World meant nations that were on the US side, basically NATO and their allies like Japan.
The Second World meant nations that were aligned with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, like the USSR, East Germany and Cuba etc.
The Third World broadly meanth non-aligned nations during the Cold War era, like India, China, and generally the newly independent nations in Asia and Africa that did not align themselves with the two rival superpowers of that time. French demographer Alfred Sauvy had first used the term Third World, referring to the “Third Estate” during the french Revolution, which comprised of the poor masses, ignored, exploited and potentially hostile.
Over time, though, as the Cold War abated, the Third World term lost its Cold War meaning of non-alignment and was gradually morphed by the media and expert commentators a more generalised term for poor, underdeveloped nations wth low per capita income. Low industrialisation, weak institutions and political instability were other marks of these nations called the Third World’ by Western commentators.
Most NGOs, and academics now avoid using the term Third World, because, they think the term has become pejorative and outdated. More sophisticated terms have been invented to differentiate between the rich nations and poor nations, such as ‘Global North-Global-South’, ‘high income-middle income and low-income’ countries are the more accepted terms now.
The UN, however maintains a list of 46 Least Develped Countries (LDC), which name the poorest 46 nations of the world.
Countries like China, Singapore, South Korea, India and Indonesia etc have more or less managed to escape the ‘Third World’ label, due to robust economic growth and improved trade relations with the ‘Global North’.
Central African Republic, Niger, Chad, Malawi, Burundi, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and South Sudan are some of the nations that are stuck with the label of Third World, LDC and the general idea of war-torn hellholes with political unstability and widespread poverty among the masses.
How the latest declaration is different from the 2017 ‘Muslim ban’
US President Donald Trump’s declaration of permanently banning immigration from Third World countries is built on his earlier stance of a large scale travel ban from ‘high-risk’ nations, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Venezuela and Yemen. The ban was labelled as a ‘Muslim ban’ by the Leftist press, despite including Venezuela.
This time, the US President’s intention is not limited to a mere travel ban. A general ban on immigration from these nations means an indefinite halt on all forms of immigration, visas, asylum, refugee resettlement, family reunification etc. Trump’s post on Truth Social also mentions ‘Reverse Migration’, which means mass deportation of non-citizens and a halt in the ongoing naturalisation process.
“Somalis have caused us a lot of trouble, and they cost us a lot of money. What the hell are we paying Somalia for?”, Trump has stated recently.
TRUMP: If you look at Somalia, they are taking over Minnesota.
REPORTER: What do the Somalians have to do with this Afghan guy who shot the National Guard members?
TRUMP: Ah, nothing. But Somalians have caused a lot of trouble. They're ripping us off. pic.twitter.com/zbIUr03EWU
Throughout his messaging and declaration, Trump has made it clear that he wants to allow immigration from ‘compatible’ cultures and bring in people who ‘bring value’ to the USA, while halting mass immigration from hostile, low-education, low-potential groups that are a drain on the US resources, a very MAGA stand.
Can this ban be really effective?
The effectiveness of short-term steps like halt on travel, processing Visas can be immediate. The USCIS has already started reviewing green cards from ‘countries of concern’. The 2017 travel ban from high-risk nations was upheld by the US Supreme Court. So USCIS actions have a high chance of success.
As of now, the countries of concern are: Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Yemen.
Deportations, ICE funding increase and rejection of visa applications alone will halt majority of new and potential immigrants from the high risk nations.
At the direction of @POTUS, I have directed a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.
USCIS Director Joseph B Edlow has just posted that as per orders from the President, he has “directed a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.”
However, in the long term, denaturalisation and deportation of citizens and green card holders may invite lawsuits over allegations of discrimination. Family separations and sending back refugees also invite backlash and legal challenges. Apart from the legal and political challenges, mass deportations are an expensive affair. Detention, logistics and deportations via aeroplanes or ships, all need huge dollars and human capital.
Somali community in the USA: Fraud schemes and more
In recent days, Trump has been exlicitly calling out Somalia and the Somali immigrant community living in the USA, especially in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota hosts the largest Somali diaspora in the USA. The Somali community in Minnesota is estimated 80,000–100,000 people. Many of them have been resettled as refugees since the 1990s amid Somalia’s civil war and al-Shabaab insurgency.
This month, US prosecutors charged dozens of people in a massive fraud scheme involving embezzlement to the tunes of 250-300 million dollars from government programs like child nutrition, autism aid, housing schemes and COVID relief. Among those charged were many Somali immigrants who have allegedy cooked up elaborate schemes to funnel the money back to Somalia. Reports indicated that millions of US taxpayer dollars may have gone to Islamic terrorist organisations like Al Shabaab in Somalia, either through extortion or direct commission.
Last week, Trump announced that he was Trump declared he was “immediately terminating” Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 700 Somali immigrants, with over 430 of them from Minnesota.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Somali immigrant herself, have called the TPS termination illegal and discriminatory.
Somalia has been a consistent feature in Trump’s anti-immigration efforts. It was also among the ‘Muslim ban’ nations from where the former Trump administration had banned travel, citing ISIS and Al-Shabaab affiliations and national security risks.
How did the USA end up with hundreds of thousands of Somali people?
Somalia has been at the rock bottom of every development index of the world for decades. The reasons are many. Essentially, it has the worst possible combinations of almost all factors responsible for a nation’s downfall. It never truly existed as a country before external powers drew random lines and glued unrelated territories together. There was no natural cohesion, economy or culture, just separate clans that were asked to identify under one country name. When Siad Barre’s two-decade dictatorship ended in 1991, the infighting among the clans was already weaponised, the economy and society were wrecked with a failed experiment that tried to run the country with an unhealthy mix of Islam and communism. There was no government, no army, no structure left. Al Shabaab rose from the chaos and now controls half the territory. It enforces blockades and feeds from desperation. Most of the livestock has been destroyed, consecutive famines have wrecked almost all agriculture, and external powers to this date have only fuelled clan wars. Almost all the educated populace has fled the country long ago, and humanitarian aid is the only reason the remaining population has not starved to death yet.
The USA has over 250,000 Somali immigrants, excluding their US-born children and grandchildren. After the collapse of the Siad Barre dictatorship, refugee programs and humanitarian efforts brought thousands of Somalis into the USA. UNHCR camps in Kenya and Ethiopia were filled with hundreds of thousands of displaced Somalis in the early 1990s. USA started accepting them under the standard refugee program. Priority was given to women-at-risk, persecuted minorities like especially Bantu Somalis, and people who had ties to the US government, like former employees and translators, and aid workers.
After the first waves of refugees came to the USA, they started bringing their family members. Christian charity organisations brought in thousands of Somalis under their aid programs. During the Obama term, that is 2008-2016, another wave of thousands of Somalis were brought under the P-3 ‘family reunion’ program. Later reports highlighted that many of the DNA tests done during that period to bring Somalis may have been fraudulent. However, there were no efforts to stop the inflow, which was up to 12,000 Somalis per year, and most of the people who had arrived stayed.
When the Biden administration later raised the refugee ceiling, Somalis benefited again. Reports say that another 30,000-40,000 may have come to the USA during the Biden administration alone. US cities like Minneapolis and St Paul today have the largest concentration of Somalis outside Somalia itself.
Trump has cited rising crime rates, resource draining and lawlessness for his anger against certain immigrant communities, and his concerns echo among his support base. Though his earlier calls for halting H1B visas, which sees most Indian skilled professionals entering the USA for high-paid jobs, have been largely toned down, the decision to halt immigration of unskilled people from high-risk nations may find wider support in the USA.
