Latest news with #KRaveendran
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Business
- Arabian Post
Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further
By K Raveendran Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India's favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized. The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India's aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India's fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles. At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai's rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates' unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn't just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India's aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy. Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi's flagship carrier, Etihad's arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai's interests automatically translate into Emirates' gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad. India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion's share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines. Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening. A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the 'Great Indian Aviation Surrender,' are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout. However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India's largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there's an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo's entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition. To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
5 days ago
- Business
- Arabian Post
Oil Market Waiting For Clear Signals As Pushes And Pulls Exert Divergent Pressures
By K Raveendran Brent crude oil futures continue to hover around the $65 per barrel mark, a level that reflects the push and pull of market forces clouded by a cocktail of geopolitical tensions, environmental disruptions, and strategic production decisions. As prices hold steady, the broader sentiment among traders and analysts leans toward caution, with a slightly bullish undertone given the confluence of supply-side constraints and persistent demand recovery hopes. Much of the current price resilience can be traced to heightened uncertainty regarding OPEC+'s intentions and external shocks to global oil supply. The oil market has been keenly watching the moves of OPEC+, the coalition of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, including Russia. Speculation about further output increases has gripped the market, especially with an expected announcement at an upcoming meeting this week. OPEC+ has already raised output in the past two consecutive months, signalling a gradual easing of the production curbs that were initially implemented to balance the market in the wake of the pandemic-induced demand collapse. While such actions may appear rational from the perspective of maintaining market share and responding to rebounding global consumption, they have also introduced a layer of uncertainty. The question remains whether the additional barrels will be absorbed smoothly or lead to a supply glut, especially if demand falters or economic growth slows in major oil-consuming regions. Layered atop these production developments are supply disruptions and geopolitical constraints that have bolstered bullish sentiment in recent weeks. Chief among them is the United States' decision to ban Chevron from exporting crude oil from Venezuela. This policy move, while targetted at maintaining pressure on the Venezuelan government, has effectively choked off a potential stream of supply to the international market, thereby tightening global crude availability. Venezuela's oil sector has been under pressure for years due to sanctions and underinvestment, and Chevron had served as one of the few remaining Western oil companies operating in the country. Cutting off exports from that channel amplifies the scarcity narrative that's become increasingly prominent in market discussions. At the same time, wildfires in Alberta, Canada, have further disrupted supply dynamics. Canada is one of the top global crude producers, and Alberta's oil sands represent a significant portion of that output. Wildfires in this region pose a dual threat: direct production halts due to damage or evacuation and logistical delays as transportation routes are impacted. These fires are not a one-off event but part of a growing trend of climate-induced challenges to oil production. Their recurrence and increasing intensity underscore the vulnerability of fossil fuel infrastructure to environmental risks, which is feeding into longer-term risk assessments and price expectations in the crude futures market. While these events tighten current and anticipated supply, they occur against a backdrop of broader transformation in the U.S. oil production landscape. Gone are the days of the 'drill baby drill' mantra that once dominated energy discourse in the United States. The shale revolution, which propelled the U.S. to become the world's largest oil producer, has hit a wall of investor skepticism, environmental scrutiny, and capital discipline. Production growth has plateaued, and the appetite for aggressive expansion has waned considerably. The lack of reinvestment, combined with mounting operational and regulatory hurdles, suggests that U.S. output may struggle to fill the gap left by other supply disruptions. This restraint from the U.S., once a swing producer capable of responding swiftly to market signals, has added another layer of tightness and unpredictability to global supply forecasts. In response to these multifaceted uncertainties, many countries are recalibrating their downstream strategies. Refiners are likely to maximize throughput to take advantage of margins that remain relatively healthy amid the tight crude market. With product inventories at historically low levels in several key regions, the incentive to run refineries at full tilt is strong. This move serves not only to meet immediate fuel needs but also as a hedge against future volatility. In a market where supply chains can be disrupted by policy or natural disaster overnight, stockpiling refined products becomes a strategic imperative. Moreover, building inventories now may offer a buffer as the market braces for further uncertainty in the second half of the year. Seasonal factors, such as increased travel during summer months in the northern hemisphere, typically boost gasoline and jet fuel demand. On the other side of the equation, supply risks persist—not just from the geopolitical and environmental fronts but also from the potential for OPEC+ discord. While the alliance has held together remarkably well since the pandemic, cracks could emerge, especially if price trajectories diverge significantly from the interests of individual members. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia may have differing tolerance levels for price volatility or production ceilings, and any sign of disunity could rattle markets. Complicating the picture further is the lack of clarity around Chinese demand. As the world's largest crude importer, China plays an outsized role in determining global oil balances. While there have been signs of recovery in Chinese industrial activity and mobility, the pace and sustainability of that recovery remain uncertain. Should China's demand ramp up more slowly than expected, the additional barrels from OPEC+ could depress prices. Conversely, if the Chinese economy rebounds more sharply, it could absorb much of the additional supply and further tighten the market. In such a finely balanced environment, sentiment can swing rapidly. Traders are closely monitoring inventory data, refinery throughput rates, and shipping flows for any signal that might provide clues about the trajectory of supply and demand. The tightness in product inventories across regions is especially significant. Low diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel stocks indicate that any hiccup in refining or logistics could lead to local shortages and price spikes, even if crude prices remain stable. This bifurcation between crude and product markets reflects structural bottlenecks and underscores the complexity of energy market dynamics today. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Impeachment Rarely Works As An Effective Deterrent Against Judicial Misconduct
By K Raveendran The impeachment of Allahabad High Court judge Yashwant Varma in the wake of burnt notes being discovered from his residence appears to be a certainty. However, going by past experience, impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent against judicial misconduct in India. In the history of Indian judiciary, only five formal impeachment and removal proceedings have ever been initiated against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This, however, by no means suggests that the judiciary is largely free of corruption or misconduct; rather it reveals how impeachment has functioned more as a symbolic tool than as an effective deterrent against judicial impropriety. The process of impeachment is exceptionally rigorous. It requires not just a special majority in each House of Parliament but also an inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, if the motion is admitted. The special majority, as defined, demands a majority of the total membership of the House and two-thirds of those present and voting. Such a high threshold ensures that only the most egregious instances of judicial misconduct might proceed to actual removal, thereby protecting judges from political vendetta. However, this also severely limits the practical utility of impeachment as a deterrent mechanism. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 was the first significant test of the impeachment provisions. Accused of financial and administrative irregularities during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an inquiry committee found him guilty. However, despite the damning report, the motion to impeach him failed in the Lok Sabha because the ruling Congress party abstained from voting, thereby denying the motion the required two-thirds majority. The episode starkly exposed the political vulnerabilities of the impeachment process. The failure to act decisively, even when guilt was established, sent a troubling signal: that the fate of judges accused of misconduct could be determined not by the strength of evidence but by partisan political considerations. Justice Soumitra Sen's case in 2011 provides a contrast. Accused of misappropriation of funds while acting as a court-appointed receiver before his elevation to the bench, he became the first judge to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha. However, before the House could take up the motion, Sen resigned. His resignation effectively halted the process, as impeachment can only be carried out against sitting judges. While some may view his resignation as an admission of guilt and an appropriate end, it also underscores a structural loophole — a judge can preempt removal by stepping down, avoiding formal accountability and preserving post-retirement privileges. This again undercuts impeachment's value as a true deterrent. Another illustrative case is that of Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who faced serious allegations of corruption, land-grab, and abuse of office. A judicial panel was constituted to investigate, but Dinakaran chose to resign in 2011 before the impeachment motion could be moved. Much like Sen's case, this resignation allowed Dinakaran to avoid the ignominy of removal while simultaneously frustrating any opportunity to establish institutional accountability through due process. In effect, resignation becomes an escape hatch for judges under scrutiny, preventing the larger objective of upholding judicial integrity from being fulfilled. The pattern of impeachment motions reveals a mix of serious misconduct, political motivations, and procedural stalemates. In 2015, Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court faced an impeachment notice due to controversial remarks on reservation policies. Though the motion gained the support of 58 Rajya Sabha members, it did not progress further, partly because the remarks were later expunged. This case raises questions about the threshold for initiating impeachment and whether judicial opinions — controversial as they may be — should form the basis for such an extreme remedy. The danger here is that impeachment could be weaponized to target ideological or jurisprudential differences rather than clear cases of misconduct, which could erode judicial independence. The same year, another motion was initiated against Justice S.K. Gangele, who faced allegations of sexual harassment by a former judge. A committee of inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act found insufficient evidence to support the charges, and the motion was dropped. While the inquiry's outcome upheld procedural fairness, the case brought to light the difficulty in substantiating serious but often hard-to-prove allegations against sitting judges. Moreover, the high evidentiary bar combined with a stringent majority requirement in Parliament effectively discourages the initiation of impeachment even in cases that might warrant closer scrutiny. In 2017, an impeachment motion was moved against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court. Accusations of abuse of power and casteist threats were levelled against him, and opposition MPs submitted a motion to the Rajya Sabha. Despite this, the matter did not progress to the final stages, again reflecting either a political reluctance or the cumbersome nature of the process. While the procedural safeguards are meant to protect judges from frivolous attacks, they simultaneously dilute the threat of consequences, particularly when the accused judge is strategically placed or politically shielded. Perhaps the most politically sensitive instance occurred in 2018, when opposition parties attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Allegations ranged from impropriety in the allocation of cases to more general concerns over judicial functioning. While the motion was eventually rejected by the Vice President on grounds of insufficient merit, the episode reflected a broader sense of judicial crisis and institutional mistrust. Regardless of the specific merits, the mere fact that impeachment was contemplated against a sitting Chief Justice indicates how impeachment can also serve as a tool for political signalling rather than a strictly legal recourse. Overall, these examples reveal that impeachment has rarely functioned as an effective deterrent. The excessively high procedural thresholds, the option for resignation, and the overlap with partisan politics render the process merely symbolic. For impeachment to be a credible deterrent, it must be both operationally viable and procedurally sound — characteristics it currently lacks. Most motions either fail to gain momentum, are defeated due to political manoeuvring, or are short-circuited by resignations. Consequently, judges facing serious allegations often continue without facing institutional consequences, weakening public trust in the judiciary's accountability mechanisms. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
25-05-2025
- Business
- Arabian Post
Trump's Trade Jihad: Reckless Pursuit Of Manufacturing Nationalism
By K Raveendran In his relentless pursuit of what he calls economic nationalism, President Donald Trump's 'trade jihad' is targeting newer and more diverse sectors of the global economy. The latest front in this campaign is the high-tech industry, with a particular focus on smartphone manufacturing. This marks a significant escalation both in terms of scope and intensity, as it now extends beyond traditional industries like steel and automobiles to the digital economy, threatening to destabilize global supply chains that have taken decades to establish. One of the most striking developments in this crusade is Trump's apparent failure to persuade Apple CEO Tim Cook to shift iPhone manufacturing from India back to the United States. This failure reveals a stark reality: that corporate strategy is not as malleable as Trump may hope, and that the economic logic underpinning global manufacturing is not easily overturned by political pressure, even when applied by the most powerful office in the world. Apple's decision to continue, and even expand, its manufacturing operations in India is driven by a multitude of reasons—cost efficiency, access to a burgeoning market, and geopolitical hedging against overreliance on China among them. It is not simply a case of defying Trump; it is about business logic prevailing over populist bravado. ADVERTISEMENT Trump's reaction to this resistance has been characteristically combative. Rather than recalibrating his approach, he has opted for what can be described as economic coercion through 'third degree' methods. These include threats of tariffs and other punitive measures aimed at forcing compliance. By targeting Apple with threats of higher import duties and extending similar threats to Samsung, Trump is attempting to bully global tech giants into aligning with his domestic manufacturing agenda. However, this strategy is fraught with contradictions and perils. Smartphone manufacturing is a highly complex and capital-intensive process. It depends on a finely tuned global supply chain that includes components from multiple countries, highly skilled labour, and cutting-edge infrastructure. The United States, for all its technological prowess, currently lacks the large-scale facilities and cost structure to produce smartphones domestically at a competitive price. Any effort to force this shift would likely result in significantly higher consumer prices, supply chain disruptions, and potentially even product quality issues. It's a textbook case of policy clashing with market reality. Moreover, Trump's campaign is undercut by the transactional nature of his foreign policy. His so-called friendship with India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he has frequently touted in public speeches and at rallies, seems to evaporate the moment American corporate interests do not align with his nationalist agenda. This duplicity does not go unnoticed by international partners, who increasingly view U.S. policy as erratic and self-serving. It also raises questions about the sincerity and durability of diplomatic relationships that are predicated on convenience rather than shared values or long-term strategic interests. This inconsistency weakens the United States' credibility on the global stage. Allies are left uncertain about the continuity of agreements, and adversaries are emboldened by the apparent chaos. For countries like India, which have been navigating a delicate balance between Western alliances and domestic development priorities, Trump's unpredictable swings make strategic planning harder. For multinational corporations operating in this environment, the instability translates into risk—a risk that could deter future investment in the U.S. altogether. At the heart of Trump's agenda is the belief that manufacturing jobs can be brought back to America by brute force. He envisions a revival of the industrial heartland through tariffs and trade barriers, despite decades of economic evolution that have moved the global economy toward services, automation, and digitization. This nostalgic view of economic greatness harks back to a bygone era that cannot be resurrected simply by edict. Manufacturing today is leaner, more automated, and less reliant on manual labour. The jobs lost to offshoring are not the same ones that would return even under the most favourable circumstances. ADVERTISEMENT In this light, the targeting of smartphone manufacturers seems less about rational economic policy and more about political posturing. Trump's base has long been animated by the promise of restored industrial might, and these high-profile attacks on global companies play well to that narrative. They offer the appearance of strength and determination, even as the practical outcomes remain elusive. In effect, the trade jihad is not just an economic campaign—it is a political performance, carefully calibrated for electoral gain. Yet, this performance comes at a price. Tariffs on smartphones and other tech products would inevitably be passed on to consumers, many of whom belong to the very demographic Trump claims to protect. A 25 percent tariff on Samsung smartphones, for example, would make them significantly more expensive for American buyers, reducing consumer choice and potentially dampening demand. For Apple, the impact could be even more pronounced, as it already commands a premium price point and depends heavily on volume to maintain profit margins. Higher prices could hurt sales, weaken the company's market position, and even impact its stock value—consequences that would ripple through the broader economy. Furthermore, the imposition of tariffs is unlikely to achieve the desired relocation of factories to U.S. soil. Companies may instead diversify into other emerging markets where labour and production costs are still favourable—Vietnam, Indonesia, and Mexico being prime examples. This would not only sidestep U.S. tariffs but also further dilute American influence in shaping the global tech economy. The very attempt to assert control could end up accelerating the decentralization of production, undermining the strategic goals it seeks to achieve. For emerging economies like India, the stakes are particularly high. Being caught in the crossfire of a U.S. trade offensive jeopardises their developmental strategies, many of which rely on attracting foreign investment and integrating into global supply chains. If U.S. policy continues to punish companies for operating in these markets, the long-term result could be a decoupling that leaves both sides worse off. For India, the potential economic gains from hosting Apple's manufacturing operations could be threatened by punitive U.S. measures. (IPA Service)
Arabian Post
04-05-2025
- Business
- Arabian Post
India Has Stronger Case To Get Pakistan Back On The FATF Grey List
By K Raveendran India is intensifying its diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, with efforts now underway to push for Islamabad's re-listing on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. This renewed push, backed by an unusually strong expression of support from the Trump-led U.S. administration, marks a strategic escalation by New Delhi to hold Pakistan accountable for its continued complicity in cross-border terrorism. The FATF grey list—formally known as jurisdictions under increased monitoring—had previously included Pakistan from 2018 to 2022, subjecting the country to intense scrutiny over money laundering and terror financing channels. That four-year period saw Islamabad scrambling to implement a raft of financial reforms under international pressure, and it significantly hindered Pakistan's access to foreign investments, loans, and development assistance. The delisting in 2022 had been a diplomatic and economic breakthrough for the embattled South Asian nation, offering a lifeline to its already floundering economy and enabling renewed engagement with global financial institutions. India now appears determined to reverse that gain. The push to bring Pakistan back into the FATF's crosshairs gained urgency after the Pahalgam terror attack. Though Islamabad has denied any involvement, Indian officials have furnished fresh intelligence to key FATF member states, including details of financial trails that allegedly connect the perpetrators of the attack to Pakistan-based funders. According to sources within India's Ministry of External Affairs, the dossier includes satellite imagery, intercepted communications, and transaction records indicating cross-border flows of money tied to extremist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The objective is clear: to demonstrate that Pakistan has failed to uphold its commitments to counterterror financing, thus justifying a return to the FATF's increased monitoring regime. The effort is likely to gain momentum thanks to renewed geopolitical alignments. In a notable departure from recent U.S. ambiguity on South Asia, President Donald Trump has publicly backed India's right to 'defend itself against terrorism in all forms' following the Pahalgam incident. See also It's Time To Cap The Number Of Seats In Lok Sabha India's current lobbying at FATF headquarters in Paris is reportedly being conducted in coordination with France, Germany, and the United States—countries that have previously expressed frustration over Pakistan's half-hearted implementation of terror financing reforms. Indian diplomats are said to be building a case that Pakistan's apparent relapse into enabling or overlooking terror financing activities represents not just a regional threat, but a global one, especially in light of concerns over the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan and the growing instability across the broader Middle East. FATF's next plenary meeting is scheduled for June and sources suggest that India is working against that timeline to ensure the issue of Pakistan's compliance status is placed high on the agenda. This strategy comes at a particularly vulnerable time for Pakistan, whose economy is teetering under the weight of inflation, currency devaluation, and dwindling foreign reserves. The country's current standby arrangement with the International Monetary Fund expires in mid-2025, and negotiations for a fresh bailout are expected to be arduous. Any move to reinstate Pakistan on the FATF grey list would severely complicate these negotiations, likely resulting in tougher loan conditions or delays in disbursement. Moreover, the reputational damage from being tagged as a jurisdiction with deficient anti-money laundering controls would deter private investors and further chill foreign direct investment at a time when Islamabad is desperate to attract capital. The implications are not merely financial—such a move could also stoke political instability in a nation already grappling with intense domestic upheaval and ongoing civil-military tensions. Islamabad insists it has fully complied with all 34 action items mandated by FATF during its previous grey listing and continues to maintain a robust framework to combat money laundering and terror financing. Pakistani officials have also accused India of exploiting multilateral platforms to advance a 'narrow geopolitical agenda' and warned that such actions could inflame regional tensions. Nevertheless, the diplomatic reality is that Pakistan's credibility remains shaky in many quarters, particularly after past instances where it was found to be dragging its feet on implementing key reforms or failing to prosecute UN-designated terrorists operating on its soil. As the FATF prepares for its mid-year session, the stakes are escalating. Even as some member states may be wary of politicising what is supposed to be a technocratic body, the precedent of 2018—when India successfully lobbied for Pakistan's grey listing amid concerns over terror financing—suggests that political will and diplomatic coordination can outweigh technical ambiguity. With India's economy surging and its global clout rising, it finds itself in a much stronger position today to influence multilateral forums than it did seven years ago. Moreover, the global security environment, shaped by the Israel-Gaza war, the Ukraine conflict, and resurgent jihadist activity in Africa and Asia, has put terrorism back at the forefront of international concern, creating a receptive climate for India's arguments. By targeting Pakistan's financial credibility, India is not merely responding to a terror attack—it is seeking to reshape the strategic balance in South Asia. A weakened Pakistan, constrained by financial oversight and international suspicion, would have limited capacity to fund proxy groups. At the same time, India's actions send a signal to other adversaries and regional players that it will pursue a multi-pronged response—including economic and diplomatic tools—to acts of terror emanating from across its borders. (IPA Service)
