The evolving landscape of global anti-terror consensus: Implications for India & the US
Donald Trump
's meeting with Syria's Ahmed al-Sharaa, a.k.a. Abu Mohammed al-Julani, a UN-designated terrorist who ousted the Assad regime to become president, is now a measure of the new bar in Washington. It's the same new rationale that has also let a convicted LeT associate become part of a White House religious advisory panel.
Ismail Royer, a member of the Virginia jihad network and convicted for his links with LeT, served his sentence, and is now with Religious Freedom Institute, trying to retrace his old hardline position. But he still has a special place for LeT, distinguishing it from al-Qaeda. 'I liked the folks in LeT. I had been very opposed to Bin Laden. I thought al-Qaeda was a group of deviants,' he had said after his release from prison in January 2023.
At one level, it may just seem to be another point of view. But, for India, when it looks at it from the context of Royer's appointment to a White House body, it signals a reversal of decades-long India-US anti-terror cooperation that brought LeT into al-Qaeda's tent by designating it under the 1267 UN al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee. And, now, there's resistance even within the UNSC to name The Resistance Front (TRF) for the Pahalgam terror attack, let alone accept linkages with LeT.
Play Video
Pause
Skip Backward
Skip Forward
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:00
Loaded
:
0%
0:00
Stream Type
LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
1x
Playback Rate
Chapters
Chapters
Descriptions
descriptions off
, selected
Captions
captions settings
, opens captions settings dialog
captions off
, selected
Audio Track
Picture-in-Picture
Fullscreen
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text
Color
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Text Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Transparent
Caption Area Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Transparent
Semi-Transparent
Opaque
Font Size
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
300%
400%
Text Edge Style
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop shadow
Font Family
Proportional Sans-Serif
Monospace Sans-Serif
Proportional Serif
Monospace Serif
Casual
Script
Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values
Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
넓어지는 모공, 레이저 대신 이걸 매일해요
미그닥
Undo
Clearly, deep state priorities driven by a new Cold War mindset have taken root, where there's a loosening of controls over doing business with terror groups, their handlers and sponsors. Back in the 1970s, that's exactly how mujahideen groups were fostered by the US with the help of the Pakistani deep state - ISI's crowning moment - to take on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Two decades later, it came to bite the US. Just over two decades after 9/11, the lesson appears to have been forgotten.
The anti-terror consensus is now giving way to a new version of the
Great Game
. Which is why India must up its engagement with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. If Trump can shake hands with Julani and talk of waiving sanctions on Syria, cosy up to Turkiye and let his family acolytes do business with the Pakistani army and Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh, then political engagement with the Taliban is now a security necessity for New Delhi.
Live Events
Significance of S Jaishankar's telephonic conversation with his Afghan counterpart Amir Khan Muttaqi, thanking him for Kabul's support following the Pahalgam attack, also points to different kind of new normal. The Taliban regime came out promptly to refute Pakistan's claims in the middle of Operation Sindoor that an Indian rocket had hit Afghanistan.
India's engagement with Afghanistan was so far restricted to official- level deliberations. Now that there has been a political reach-out, physical meetings at the political level may follow. The Taliban regime has been looking for political recognition, which Pakistan has sought to block with support from the US and other Western countries.
As a non-permanent UNSC member, Pakistan is also canvassing hard to become the 'penholder' on Afghanistan in UNSC with the purpose of discrediting the regime in Kabul. It also wants to be part of 1988 UN Taliban Sanctions Committee, which decides on periodic exemptions for leaders in Kabul to freely travel and operate funds.
But Islamabad's hostile relationship with the Taliban, since the withdrawal of Nato troops, has nullified its military doctrine of using Afghanistan as 'strategic depth' in a conventional conflict with India. Conversely, it may have opened a rare opportunity for India to turn it into a 'strategic pincer' on Pakistan.
Yes, games are afoot. China as principal weapons supplier to Pakistan is looking to corner mines in Afghanistan, but has a big Baloch problem that continues to target Sino-Pak interests in the region. Access to Gwadar port has also been hit, its viability also now in question with India and Iran finding ways to take forward the Chabahar project with benefits to Afghanistan. The Biden regime had given exemption to the project from Iran sanctions. Trump wants it reviewed afresh.
The US deep state has stepped up its outreach in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar by finding new pathways of support within the Trump establishment. Hopes have revived in Islamabad that it can once again aspire to position itself as a conduit between Washington and Beijing through a complex web of intelligence and military games. For India, however, it's the entry of an unfriendly Turkiye into the equation that could get worrying, given how Trump is resetting the dial with Recep Erdogan.
Amid all this, the already stressed UN system now runs the risk of witnessing its carefully-crafted anti-terror frame crack. Technical teams of UN terror sanction regimes are viewing proposals first from a national perspective, then stalling with questions over 'merit of evidence', just like Pakistan and China have always wanted. As a result, the entire edifice is on test, unable to leverage its own value effectively, let alone create pressure.
A chaotic security situation is likely to play out with
non-state actors
finding active state sponsors and, therefore, a route to legitimacy. Dangerous as this mix is, it's vital for India to protect, project and advance its economic interests with the US, EU and Quad, knowing that these would still be the best stakes to build in a play that has not only reached its neighbourhood, but could well surpass the extent of the original Great Game.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
17 minutes ago
- News18
"Only Way Democrats Can Get Elected" Does Donald Trump Have The Power To Ban Mail-In Ballots?
"Only Way Democrats Can Get Elected" Does Donald Trump Have The Power To Ban Mail-In Ballots? | 4K Last Updated: Crux Videos President Donald Trump plans to get rid of mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 elections for the House of Representatives and Senate. "An executive order is being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they're corrupt," Trump said. During a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, Trump also showed a political motivation, saying that mail-in voting is "the only way" Democrats "can get elected". With Democratic voters traditionally more likely to use mail-in ballots than Republicans, Trump's pledge is his latest effort to reshape the midterm election battlefield to his party's advantage. n18oc_world n18oc_crux
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Pushed by the US, India may return to the world's largest trading bloc
New Delhi: Pushed by escalating trade tensions with Washington and with its relations with Beijing on the mend, New Delhi is warming up to a deeper embrace of the East by signalling a potential return to an eastern trade bloc that it had walked out of nearly five years ago. According to two senior government officials aware of the matter, India is weighing the possibility of rejoining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a trade group of 15 countries. India had left the group in November 2019 just before the pact was signed, citing concerns over market access, widening trade deficits, and risks to farmers, domestic manufacturing, and small businesses. According to one of the officials cited above, internal discussions have begun in the Indian government on reassessing the costs and benefits of RCEP membership in light of global supply chain realignments, tariff wars, and the urgency of diversifying export markets. The second official cited above said, 'The fresh rethink is being explored as part of a broader strategy to deepen India's trade engagement with neighbouring countries, especially after strained trade talks with the US." Both officials spoke to Mint on condition of not being named. In the latest development, China has lifted export curbs on rare earth magnets, fertilizers, and tunnel-boring machines for India following a meeting between Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and India's external affairs minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Tuesday, a move seen as a thaw in India-China trade relations amid the current US tariff regime. On its part, India is weighing easier rules for Chinese investments in select sectors as part of another step to improve ties ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the eastern neighbour to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit, as reported byMint on 18 August. The Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), an autonomous body under the ministry of external affairs, has been tasked with conducting an impact assessment of India becoming a member of RCEP, particularly as the Trump tariffs are expected to remain in place for a long period, the second official said. 'India is pushing for written assurances from China and ASEAN nations to ensure greater market access for Indian products in order to make the pact a more balanced agreement," said the first person. 'The idea at this point of time is largely in terms of the opportunities that an FTA can create, and India has also brought in some changes," said Sachin Chaturvedi, director-general of RIS. 'If you look at trade compatibility and scope, the ambit within which we had earlier thought of two- or three-tier tariff structures, and the new momentum we are seeing in India-China trade relations, both would have to be factored in. Then some framework for assessment should come up." Queries sent to the spokespersons of the Prime Minister's Office, Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, and the ministries of commerce, external affairs remained unanswered till press time. The RCEP is the world's largest free trade agreement. As per World Economics, a UK-based data and analysis platform, the RCEP group accounted for 32.6% of Global GDP in 2025 and is home to over 2.35 billion people. The trade bloc comprises 15 member countries, including all the ASEAN member states — Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam — plus China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. Notably, Japan and Singapore had included a special provision allowing India to return to the bloc at any time. Pushed by the US Experts said punitive US tariffs are pushing eastern economies to make RCEP a more compelling platform. 'The US under President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs of 15-20% on several ASEAN economies, with higher duties of 40% on Laos and 19% on Cambodia," said Srikanth Kondapalli, professor of China Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). 'Such tariff barriers have made exports uneconomical, pushing these countries to reconsider their trade options within the RCEP framework." Trump, meanwhile, imposed the highest 50% tariffs on India, including a 25% penalty for buying Russian oil. The first set of duties came into effect on 7 August, while another 25% is scheduled to come into force on 27 August. 'Since both China and India are among the largest markets in the region, it is essential that they work out a more workable arrangement to make effective use of the RCEP platform," said Dattesh Parulekar, assistant professor of International Relations at Goa University. 'Without mutual understanding between the two, the benefits of such a mega trade pact will remain underutilised." Why India left RCEP in 2019 India's earlier opposition was shaped by key concerns such as an unfavourable trade balance with China, fears that Chinese goods would flood Indian markets through third countries, and New Zealand's plan to supply milk and milk products to India that would hurt India's small farmers and dairy cooperatives, experts said. 'China had been using Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and other ASEAN nations as platforms to reroute exports into India under existing free trade arrangements, leading to charges of unfair trade practices," said Kondapalli. 'Out of nearly 14,000 tariff lines offered to China under its trade pact with India, Beijing increasingly exploited indirect channels, which became a major sticking point for New Delhi." In the present setup, India's strongest export sectors, such as pharmaceuticals and IT services, face heavy restrictions in China and do not have market access there. Recalibrate China trade strategy Amidst the thaw in India-China relations, a new study by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (Icrier) has called for a recalibration of India's trade strategy with Beijing, noting that the trade deficit touched a record $99.2 billion in FY25. According to data from the ministry of commerce & industry, India's imports from China increased from $94.57 billion in FY22 to $113.45 billion in FY25. In contrast, exports to China declined from $21.26 billion in FY22 to $14.25 billion in FY25. In the current fiscal, inbound shipments from China during April-July stood at $40.66 billion, up 13.1% from a year earlier. Exports to China, too, jumped 20% to $5.76 billion during the same period. While India's FDI (foreign direct investment) inflows from China have been negligible at $886 million over the past decade, the Icrier study led by professor Nisha Taneja highlighted that India's untapped export potential to China is as high as $161 billion —nearly 10 times the current exports. Strikingly, 74% of this potential lies in medium and high-technology sectors, compared to the present export basket that is dominated by primary and resource-based goods, the report noted. The study highlighted that the realisation of large additional export potential with China has been constrained by several tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs). To address market access barriers, it recommended that India and China set up a joint task force to resolve NTBs, and improve transparency through fair testing and WTO-compliant communication. It further suggested diversifying the export base towards high-value products such as telephone sets, aircraft, turbojets, motor vehicle parts, and photo-semiconductor devices. On the import side, the report underscored that complete decoupling from China is unrealistic given its role in global value chains. Instead, India should cut uncompetitive imports worth nearly $30 billion—mainly machinery, electronics, and chemicals—by sourcing from more competitive suppliers such as Vietnam, South Korea, and the UAE.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
The vanishing promise: How Trump's visa policies are pushing talent away from US campuses
The United States has long sold itself as the world's premier destination for higher education, a place where students from every corner of the globe could bring their dreams, talent, and ambition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But that promise is fading. A mix of visa delays, travel bans, and political hostility under President Donald Trump has reshaped the international student experience, and pushed thousands of aspiring scholars to look elsewhere. From dream to dead end For decades, international students formed a cornerstone of American higher education. According to The New York Times, nearly one million were studying in the US just a year ago, and universities — from Columbia to Purdue to Arizona State, relied on them not just for their talent but also for the financial stability they brought. Many paid full tuition, subsidizing aid for domestic students and funding crucial research. But Trump's policies flipped the script. Students from Iran, Afghanistan, and other countries directly impacted by the administration's travel bans found themselves locked out. Even those from top-sending nations like India and China, who make up the bulk of America's international student body, were slowed down by bottlenecked visa appointments and heightened scrutiny. In some months, there were no student visa slots available at all. The Institute of International Education , in a survey of more than 500 US universities, found that over a third reported a dip in international applications last year, the steepest drop since the pandemic. NAFSA , a leading association for international educators, projected that if these problems persisted, new enrollment could fall by as much as 40% this fall, a staggering 150,000 students lost. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'They're literally some of the best in the world' The biggest loss, educators warn, is not financial, it's intellectual. Wendy Wolford, vice provost for international affairs at Cornell University, told The New York Times that 'they're literally some of the best in the world.' Students arriving from abroad enrich classrooms, contribute to groundbreaking research, and expose peers to new perspectives. Their absence, Wolford said, diminishes US campuses and curtails the country's soft power, as fewer students return home carrying goodwill for America. But many students now feel unwelcome. The Trump administration's rhetoric often painted them as security risks or competitors taking slots from US citizens. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' Trump argued at one point. Policies followed words. Visas were revoked by the thousands, more than 6,000 in a single year. Students caught up in deportation threats described the process as opaque, while immigration lawyers said many cases seemed ideological. According to The New York Times, o ne Iranian student, Noushin, who secured admission to the University of South Carolina, has been waiting months in 'administrative processing.' On Telegram, she discovered hundreds of others in similar limbo. A chilling effect The fear is not only about entry but also about what comes after. Some students who managed to secure visas worried about being 'trapped', unable to travel home for holidays or apply for internships without risking their status. Others abandoned US universities altogether, choosing institutions in Europe or Asia instead. 'The rules of the game changed dramatically,' Wolford told The New York Times. Trump's travel bans made matters worse. Afghan women awarded full scholarships in the US found themselves unable to attend because visas were simply impossible to obtain. Iranian students, despite winning admission and funding, were stuck abroad while their American peers moved ahead in research labs. Even universities scrambled for solutions. Cornell, for instance, offered affected students the chance to begin the semester at partner campuses in Scotland, Hong Kong, or South Korea. Few took up the offer. Most either held out hope for US visas, or simply gave up. What's at stake The ripple effects stretch far beyond enrollment charts. Losing international students means losing top-tier researchers, engineers, and innovators, many of whom might otherwise stay in the US to fuel its workforce and economy. 'Students like me are not a threat to U.S. society,' Pouria, an Iranian doctoral admit stuck in visa delays, told The New York Times . His research, backed by the Texas Department of Transportation, now risks stalling. For decades, the US higher education system has thrived precisely because it attracted global talent. Now, as students turn away in response to Trump-era policies, other countries are seizing the opportunity. European and Asian universities are seeing the benefits of American hesitation. The question lingers: Will the US regain its role as the beacon for global talent, or will the vanishing promise of its universities become permanent? TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
