Latest news with #Nehruvian
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
Modi's muscularism vs Nehruvian diplomacy: PM mentioned Nehru 14 times in speech
A debate on 'Modi's muscularism versus Nehruvian diplomacy' examines the political discourse in India. The discussion highlights that Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned Jawaharlal Nehru 14 times in a speech in 2025. This has led to observations, such as one from Ashok Malik, that the Prime Minister may be obsessed with Nehru. The conversation explores the complexities of leadership, noting that Nehru demonstrated muscularity in Goa, while Modi has engaged in astute diplomacy. While Raj Chengappa reflected on the development of India's nuclear programme, made a notable statement: "I don't think you need to be a leader who cuts another leader down to appear taller."
The Wire
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
What Happened to India's Moral Compass on Palestine?
Government For decades, India championed the Palestinian cause, not out of sentimentality, but from a profound understanding of the devastating effects of colonial occupation. The bodies of Palestinians who were killed while attempting to access aid trucks entering northern Gaza through the Zikim crossing with Israel are brought to a clinic in Gaza City on Sunday, July 20, 2025. Photo: AP/PTI For much of its post-independence history, India stood as a principled voice on the global stage, aligning with the oppressed, opposing colonial domination, and championing anti-imperialist solidarity. At the heart of this stance was unwavering support for Palestine. India not only recognised the plight of Palestinians but actively backed their struggle for self-determination. Today, however, as Gaza descends into a humanitarian catastrophe, India's silence is striking. This silence marks not only a moral failure but a historical betrayal of its own legacy. Where solidarity with Palestine was once a cornerstone of Indian foreign policy, the country is now forging increasingly close ties with Israel. From moral clarity to calculated ambiguity India's policy on the Palestinian question has been evolving for decades, but the transformation since 2014 has been particularly pronounced. Historically, India's support for Palestine aligned with Nehruvian internationalism and a broader commitment to anti-imperialism. This framework began to erode in the early 1990s, marked by the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. Citing national interest, defence cooperation, and economic pragmatism, successive Indian governments gradually strengthened ties with Israel. The relationship deepened further after the 1999 Kargil War, when India began acquiring Israeli military equipment to modernise its defence capabilities. Over time, India has become Israel's largest defence customer. Under the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, this strategic partnership has taken on a distinctly ideological character embracing Israel's brand of hardline nationalism and security-first doctrine, while moving away from India's traditional moral posture. The growing alignment with the US-Israel axis reflects not only strategic interests but also a shared political affinity, including a mutual suspicion and hostility toward Muslim populations. The most significant shift has taken place over the past two years, as ethnic cleansing and genocide unfold in Gaza following Hamas's brutal attack on October 7, 2023. While that attack warrants unequivocal condemnation, the Israeli state's response has exceeded every boundary of legality, morality, and human decency. More than 55,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including thousands of children have been killed in this endless war. Refugee camps have been bombed, hospitals destroyed, and access to food, water, and medicine deliberately severed. Entire neighbourhoods have been reduced to rubble. But there is little significant pressure from either the opposition or public opinion in India demanding a return to a pro-Palestinian policy. As Indian politics has shifted to the right, public perceptions of Israel have also evolved. A recent Pew survey from June 2025 indicates that Indian public opinion remains divided: 34 percent view Israel favourably, while 29 percent hold unfavourable views. Also Read: The Hindu Right Is Unreconciled to History – and Gandhi Globally, however, the picture is far more negative. In 20 out of 24 countries surveyed, a majority view Israel unfavourably. In several Western and Asian nations including Australia, Greece, Japan, and the Netherlands unfavourable sentiment exceeds 75 percent. India's relatively more favourable view of Israel sets it apart from much of global opinion. Yet, hope lies in the growing chorus of voices worldwide who, undeterred by intimidation, continue to speak out in support of Palestine. Meanwhile, India has transitioned from a position grounded in specific concerns regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict to one informed by broader geopolitical considerations. This evolution signals not merely a change in diplomatic priorities but a deeper structural realignment and reorientation. As a result, even amid escalating violence, India has repeatedly abstained from key United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for a ceasefire. For instance, in June, while over three-quarters of UN member states voted in favour of a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages by Hamas, and unimpeded humanitarian access, India chose to abstain. India declined to condemn what many view as systematic ethnic cleansing, instead, it cited procedural concerns, such as the resolution's failure to explicitly name Hamas, as justification for its abstention. This position stood in stark contrast to the overwhelming support the resolution received from countries like Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, China, and much of the Global South, and from many countries in Europe. India's shift not only signalled a diplomatic divergence from several of its traditional allies but also marked a striking departure from its historical support for the Palestinian cause. For a nation that once championed anti-colonial movements and aspired to be a moral voice for the Global South, this abstention appears both unacceptable and unconscionable. This reflects not just a diplomatic calculation but a deeper erosion of the moral imagination that once defined India's post-colonial identity. Today, it finds itself aligned with regimes that perpetuate occupation and settler colonialism. Gaza and the collapse of India's moral imagination For decades, India championed the Palestinian cause, not out of sentimentality, but from a profound understanding of the devastating effects of colonial occupation. Rooted in its own post-colonial identity and its aspiration to lead the developing world, India's early support for Palestine was both principled and strategic. Mahatma Gandhi, a staunch advocate of nonviolence, nonetheless rejected the idea of establishing a Jewish state on Palestinian land. Similarly, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the 1947 UN Partition Plan as unjust, and India voted against the creation of Israel at the UN General Assembly, one of the few non-Arab nations to do so. In a landmark diplomatic gesture, India became the first non-Arab country in 1974 to officially recognize the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This was reaffirmed in 1988 when India took the lead in recognising the State of Palestine shortly after its declaration by the PLO. This collapse began with the world's lack of resolve to rein in Israel's war in Gaza. Today, Gaza is more than just a conflict zone – it is the epicentre of a profound human tragedy and widespread destruction. The ongoing devastation cannot be justified or dismissed as merely a disproportionate response to the horrific Hamas attacks of October 7. While those attacks were undeniably brutal, they cannot justify the collective punishment of an entire population such as the bombing of refugee camps or the deliberate withholding of food, water, and medicine from over two million people trapped in Gaza. Also Read: Indian Elections on Trial: Supreme Court, Bihar Voter Rolls and the Fight for the Franchise Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), has described the situation as 'worse than hell.' Starvation is being used as a weapon, and hundreds of Palestinians have reportedly been killed while queueing up for urgently needed food or water. The UN estimates that in six weeks about 800 people have been killed in or around food distribution points, most of those deaths in the vicinity of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). According to UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, this crisis is part of a 'long-term, intentional, and systematic state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinian people.' In the face of such harrowing realities, the lack of official outrage and India's muted response is especially jarring. India's policy shift is not merely political; it is deeply ideological. The BJP has long admired Israel's model of ethno-nationalism, its uncompromising counterterrorism posture, and its blending of religion with state power. These elements align closely with the party's own vision of Hindu majoritarianism in India. However, this realignment comes at a significant cost. It carries disturbing implications at home also. When foreign policy becomes a vehicle for political expression, it inevitably shapes domestic governance. The same logic used to justify the erasure of Palestinian identity abroad is often mirrored in the marginalisation of minorities within India. Reclaiming the moral voice It is not too late for India to return to its principled roots. Calling out the Israeli occupation for what it is – a colonial settler project sustained by violence and systemic racism is not a radical act, but a moral imperative. India must unequivocally support an immediate ceasefire, the unrestricted delivery of humanitarian aid, and the restoration of Palestinian rights as enshrined in UN resolutions. It must condemn genocide and war crimes wherever they occur, regardless of the perpetrator. In particular, India must remember its own anti-colonial legacy – a history of resistance, not complicity. Although Palestine was marked for decolonisation in 1948, that promise remains unfulfilled. Achieving lasting peace in the region requires confronting this unfinished process, making decolonisation a political imperative. At its core lies a demand for justice: the right to live free from occupation and to return to homes lost through forced displacement. These are not merely political demands, they are basic human rights, upheld by international law. Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
News18
21-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
History As Leftist Propaganda: How Distorians Still Dictate Bharat's Past
Last Updated: Bharat, even after more than seven decades of its Independence, is still in search of a history that's truly its own. The recent storm over changes in NCERT's history textbooks has reignited an old and unresolved debate: Who owns Bharat's history, and who has the right to narrate it? Critics—largely from the academic and media establishment—have slammed the revisions as politically motivated, accusing the government of 'saffronisation" and ideological distortion. But this outrage, however loud, sidesteps a deeper truth: For decades after Independence, Bharat's historiography—particularly what entered school curricula—was crafted not by a plurality of scholarly voices, but by a small coterie of Marxist and Nehruvian intellectuals who captured the country's academic institutions and think tanks through political patronage and interference. Such was the stranglehold of Leftist historians such as Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Irfan Habib, and RS Sharma that there was no space for historiography other than the one rooted in economic determinism—a worldview that was dismissive of Bharat's civilisational achievements and ethos. This intellectual monopoly romanticised Islamic invaders, ignored indigenous resistance, and downplayed Bharat's ancient (Sanatana) accomplishments. Babur was, thus, portrayed as a curious naturalist and a doting father (Nehru called him a 'renaissance prince"), Akbar as a liberal genius, and Aurangzeb as a misunderstood ruler. In contrast, Hindu figures like Krishnadeva Raya, Maharana Pratap, and Shivaji were relegated to the margins. Even native empires of repute such as Vijayanagar, Ahom, and Karkota were reduced to footnotes. The guiding ideology seemed to be: De-sacralise Bharatiya civilisation and sanctify its conquerors. The latest controversy surrounding the NCERT textbook of Class VIII centres largely around Akbar, long celebrated as a liberal visionary. His policies of religious tolerance and Rajput alliances have always dominated textbook narratives. So, when the revised syllabus now includes unsavoury details such as the 1568 massacre at Chittorgarh—where over 30,000 civilians were killed after the fort had already fallen—it's seen as an assault on his legacy. There is no denying Akbar was an able ruler, far ahead of many contemporaries, especially in the Islamic world. But glorification should not come at the cost of truth. The Chittorgarh massacre was not a battlefield tragedy—it was an act of vengeance after a successful siege. To hide such acts is distortion; to justify them by citing plunders by Hindu rulers is lazy scholarship. A massacre is not just a plunder, and inventing false equivalences to cover up omissions is intellectual dishonesty. No historical figure—however revered—should be above scrutiny. If Akbar has been over-glorified, the Mughal dynasty as a whole has often been portrayed as the pinnacle of Bharatiya civilisation. This historical approach needs recalibration. Yes, the Mughals built a vast empire, set up uniform law and order machinery across the subcontinent, and promoted art and architecture. But they were also foreigners, as 17th-century French traveller François Bernier observed, who needed large standing armies even in peacetime to suppress dissent. Babur's own memoir, Baburnama, revels in violence against 'infidels", as it mentions how he would, after a battlefield, build 'a tower of infidels' skulls". Jahangir, the lover-boy Salim of Mughal-e-Azam, ordered the killing of Arjan Dev, the fifth Sikh guru, in the very first year of his reign. Shah Jahan, romanticised for building the Taj Mahal in memory of his wife, Mumtaj Mahal, oversaw the construction of this 'monument of love" while famines ravaged the countryside. Such was the destitution at that time, as Abdul Hamid Lahori writes in his biography of Shah Jahan, that 'dog's flesh was sold for goat's flesh and the pounded bones of the dead were mixed with flour and sold". As for Aurangzeb, he institutionalised bigotry by reviving jizya, banning Hindu festivals, and demolishing temples. These accounts aren't fringe—they come from the Mughals' own court chronicles. To question this kind of lopsided narrative is not communalism—it's historiographical integrity. Slow and Cautious Reforms Despite media alarmism, the NCERT revisions are neither sweeping nor comprehensive. They are excruciatingly slow and excessively cautious, to the extent of appearing apologetic. The textbooks continue to uphold a worldview where invaders are humanised, native resistance is sidelined, and Bharatiya civilisational achievements are ignored, if not totally dismissed. Rather than boldly rewriting history with balance and authenticity, NCERT often appears hesitant—fearful of pushback from entrenched guardians of the academia, of being branded communal and Islamophobic, and of challenging globally palatable 'secular', Leftist narratives. The outrage against textbook revisions is less about defending historical objectivity and more about resisting a long-overdue correction. For decades, history writing in the country has been filtered through a narrow ideological prism—one that celebrated foreign invasions, concealed Islamic brutality, and undermined Sanatana ingenuity and fightback. Bharat, even after more than seven decades of its Independence, is still in search of a history that's truly its own. A history where Akbar is studied not as a saint, not as a villain, but as a ruler with his strengths and weaknesses intact. A history where the Mughal empire is examined for both its splendour and its savagery. And more importantly, a history that is truly Bharatiya in nature, after being rescued from the vice-like grip of Leftist historians, who in reality are distorians… err, eminent distorians. The time has come to challenge these distorians—and expose their hollow intellectual halo. Only then will their iron grip be slackened. And Bharat's history will be salvaged for good. PS: The Leftist intellectuals hijacked the history of Bharat in the 1960s by proposing to write from the 'people's perspective". Romila Thapar, in fact, went a step ahead when she, in 1962, promised to come up with a new way of history writing that would let the readers know 'what the elephant keeper of the emperor Ashoka thought of his edicts" or what the lives and thoughts of the masons who built the Taj Mahal were. More than six decades later, Thapar's grand promise remains unfulfilled. The Left-dominated history of Bharat is today stuck in a soulless, ideologically obsessed terrain where neither the story of the king nor the 'lives and thoughts' of the masses are told effectively. The writer is the author of the book, 'Eminent Distorians: Twists and Truths in Bharat's History', published early this year by BluOne Ink publications. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. About the Author Utpal Kumar Utpal Kumar is Opinion Editor, News18 and Firstpost. He can be reached at He tweets @utpal_kumar1 tags : Indian history NCERT books view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 15:39 IST News opinion Opinion | History As Leftist Propaganda: How Distorians Still Dictate Bharat's Past Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Print
21-07-2025
- Business
- The Print
What India can learn from Israel about atmanirbharta in defence
Israel's journey toward defence self-reliance was driven by a combination of existential urgency and a national culture of innovation. When Israel was born, it immediately faced a multi-front military conflict. These wars forged a mindset of necessity-driven invention, unlike India, whose military objectives were shaped by the non-alignment philosophy and a focus on civilian industry. Yet, despite these restrictions and existential threats, Israel rapidly transformed itself into a defence innovation powerhouse, exporting nearly $15 billion in advanced weaponry in 2024, while India continues to rely heavily on arms imports to meet its needs. Understanding this divergence reveals key lessons on strategy, institutional design, and national resolve, which India must learn to become a global powerhouse. India and Israel became independent countries less than a year apart — in August 1947 and May 1948, respectively. Almost immediately, both countries had to wage a war to safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity due to their inimical neighbours. As independent states, both countries inherited nascent economies, fragile infrastructure, limited heavy industries, and immediate security threats. In fact, Israel was probably in a more critical situation as it faced a UN arms embargo on all parties involved in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which limited its access to military equipment. This was particularly so during the Nehruvian years, when the Armed Forces were seen as a necessary evil and priority was given to the development of the civilian industrial sector at the cost of a firm military foundation. Israel, on the other hand, saw military capability as essential to survival. Every war from 1948 through 1967, 1973, and right up to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, has been a catalyst for innovation, with battlefield necessity spurring not only rapid development of weapons systems, but also new tactics, techniques, and procedures. The urgency to upgrade our defence preparedness has returned to the fore, more so after Operation Sindoor. Limited foreign imports are being considered to plug critical gaps, including the possibility of inducting a foreign-made fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Inaugurating a workshop and exhibition held at the Manekshaw Centre in Delhi on 16 July, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan said, 'In today's warfare, you can't win with yesterday's weapon system.' It is logical then that tomorrow's wars cannot be fought with weapon systems based on today's technology. We need a transformative change in our systems. Two contrasting defence sectors Israel carried out institutional integration of its military, academic, and private industrial capabilities, resulting in a tightly coordinated ecosystem. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) worked in close tandem with universities, startups, and defence firms such as Elbit Systems, Rafael, and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). This tri-sector collaboration allowed rapid prototyping, battlefield testing, and iterative refinement. Mandatory conscription ensured military-civilian integration while early support from the Jewish diaspora in terms of funds and know-how also helped. This aspect of a strong civil-military-industry interface has been repeatedly stressed upon by Edward N Luttwak and Eitan Shamir in their book The Art of Military Innovation. The result was world-class systems such as the Iron Dome, Trophy active protection system, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and satellite systems. By contrast, India's defence sector remained largely insulated. Dominated by public-sector entities like DRDO, HAL, and OFB, it followed bureaucratic, slow-moving processes with limited commercial incentives or accountability. Weak feedback loops between users (the military) and designers (DRDO), along with little to no synergy between academia, industry, and the military, further hindered progress. Most importantly, procurement must transition from least-cost (L1) models to highest-performance (T1) evaluations. Emphasising metrics such as lifecycle cost, operational performance, and indigenisation will incentivise innovation and discourage a process-over-product mindset. The L1 system has been the bane of our procurement, encouraging companies to give the bare minimum to win contracts. Except for the Armed Forces, no stakeholder truly has skin in the game. Israel's export success in defence is also a reflection of its strategic necessity. With a small domestic market incapable of sustaining mature industries, Israel pursued exports aggressively. In 2024, Israeli defence exports hit a record $14.8 billion, with 48 per cent comprising rockets, missiles, and air defence systems. These sales — to Europe and other friendly countries — not only validated Israeli technology but also funded future R&D. India, despite its large Armed Forces, has lacked a similar export essentiality, and its fledgling defence industry has struggled to translate capacity into mass production or compete globally, resulting in continued reliance on imports. Also read: A letter to Defence Minister, with lessons from American fighter pilot John Boyd: Jaithirth Rao The real challenge India has initiated policy reforms aimed at shifting this paradigm. Programmes like Make in India, the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020, and the Strategic Partnership Model have opened doors for private sector participation in defence, raised FDI limits, and corporatised legacy PSUs. Notably, Reliance Defence's recent partnerships with Germany's Rheinmetall and Diehl Defense to produce advanced ammunition and guided shells domestically mark significant milestones. Similarly, the indigenous helicopter gunship and sniper rifle developments reflect gradual progress. India's defence exports, estimated at Rs 21,083 crore in FY 2023-24, to over 100 countries, underscore a nascent export orientation, though much of it remains aspirational. Israel's success is an off-shoot of existential necessity, an integrated ecosystem, a culture of innovation, and export-driven development. India must build upon the momentum by deepening private sector involvement, institutional reform, procurement refocus, and nurturing human capital, to genuinely realise Atmanirbharta in defence. This requires bold structural transformation, sustained political support, and clear strategic direction, with an emphasis on defence preparedness. In this context, it would be worthwhile to recollect what French President Emmanuel Macron said in his speech on the eve of Bastille Day 2025: 'To be free in this world, you must be feared. To be feared, you must be powerful.' India's challenge is not of capability, but of unity and resolve. A focused, innovation-driven, user-integrated defence ecosystem is achievable if the government empowers rather than restrains; the military leads rather than watches; and the industry builds rather than waits to be spoon-fed. India has the necessary talent, demand, and environment to build one of the world's best indigenous defence ecosystems. We just have to put it all together. General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
The Wire
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Jawahar Bal Manch Concludes National Training Camp 'AARAMB
~ 'India's future depends on building a better society,' says Netta D'Souza ~ New Delhi, July 14, 2025: The Indian National Congress, through its children's organization Jawahar Bal Manch (JBM), is committed to nurturing a new generation of socially conscious, constitutionally aware citizens who will contribute to building a progressive and inclusive nation. This was affirmed by Netta D'Souza, AICC National Organising Secretary, at the valedictory session of 'Aarambh', the national two-day JBM camp held at Indira Bhavan, New Delhi. D'Souza emphasized that Jawahar Bal Manch aims to instill Nehruvian ideals and constitutional values in young minds, thereby rebuilding the vision of a secular India through youth empowerment. 'Strengthening JBM's presence across all states is a key priority, as the Congress party believes that creating a value-based, inclusive society is fundamental to strong nation-building,' she said. The camp's chief guest, NSUI National President Varun Chaudhary, highlighted JBM's role in laying the ideological foundation for future leadership. 'Our goal is to produce educated, aware, and responsible individuals who uphold the Constitution. This is the Congress party's vision of constructive nation-building,' he said. Chaudhary also affirmed that students with experience in JBM and an understanding of Gandhian values will be given priority consideration in future NSUI organisational elections, recognising their early commitment to public service and leadership. The event was presided over by Dr. G.V. Hari, National Chairman, Jawahar Bal Manch. Under his leadership and the supervision of the national committee, two key initiatives were launched during the camp: the Indian Constitution Quiz for students under 16, and the Chacha Ji Gold Medal Drawing Competition. These national-level programs aim to enhance civic understanding and creative expression among children and will be conducted across the country. JBM National Office Bearers also announced the upcoming National Representative Convention to be held in Jaipur on September 11,12 and 13, 2025, which will host over 200 student delegates and senior leaders including Rahul Gandhi. The 'Aarambh' camp served as a preparatory event for this major gathering. As part of its digital outreach, JBM will also launch its official platforms - Kids TV and a YouTube Channel on July 14, 2025. The launch will be officiated by AICC General Secretary K.C. Venugopal. The closing session was addressed by JBM National Chief Coordinator Adv. Yogesh Sharma, and national committee members Gunjan Sharma, Vaishakha Rinich, Rahul T, Tayyab Shahid, and Naresh Kumar. (Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with NRDPL and PTI takes no editorial responsibility for the same.). This is an auto-published feed from PTI with no editorial input from The Wire.
