Latest news with #QUAD
AllAfrica
5 days ago
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Time for QUAD to step up to Taiwan's defense
Taiwan's 40th Han Kuang military exercise, its most extensive to date, spans ten days and simulates a full-scale Chinese invasion. The drills incorporate amphibious assaults, joint-force coordination and extensive civilian-military integration across multiple domains. Taiwan is also showcasing enhanced deterrent capabilities with US-supplied HIMARS rocket systems, F-16V fighter jets and indigenous Sky Sword II and Sky Bow III missile systems. The activation of 22,000 reservists marks an unprecedented expansion of national defense mobilization, signaling Taiwan's growing commitment to preparing for conflict rather than merely deterring it. This shift is a direct response to the People's Liberation Army's increasingly aggressive behavior. Gray-zone coercion has become routine. PLA aircraft and naval incursions across the Taiwan Strait's median line surged from 565 in 2022 to over 3,070 in 2024, an average of more than eight per day. In January 2025 alone, Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone recorded 248 crossings by China, which represents a 75% increase compared to January 2022. These provocations are designed to wear down Taiwan's defenses without crossing the threshold into open conflict, reflecting China's long-term strategy of psychological pressure, strategic normalization and the gradual erosion of Taiwan's sovereignty through fatigue. But Taiwan is no longer waiting passively for external support. It is building an active and layered defense strategy in anticipation of a volatile future. This recalibration has drawn attention from Taiwan's strategic partners, particularly Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) members. Originally conceived as a maritime security initiative, the QUAD has evolved into a broader Indo-Pacific framework committed to ensuring a free, open and rules-based regional order. Yet the Taiwan question exposes the bloc's limitations. Unlike NATO, the QUAD is not a military alliance. Still, the urgency of Taiwan's situation has sparked debate over whether the group should develop a more coherent strategy for collective deterrence. US President Donald Trump recently called for greater clarity from Australia and Japan regarding their roles in a potential Taiwan conflict. The Pentagon is also actively working to align operational plans with allies, particularly Japan and Australia, through behind-the-scenes consultations and strategic dialogues. However, progress remains slow, hindered by political constraints and divergent national priorities. Japan has strengthened its defense posture, increasing its budget from 6.8 trillion yen in 2023 to 8.7 trillion yen in 2025, or 1.8% of GDP. It has expanded joint drills with the United States and is reassessing its strategic doctrines. However, constitutional limits and public ambivalence remain obstacles. A survey by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper found that 62% of Japanese citizens consider a regional conflict likely, yet a majority prefer neutrality and global cooperation, with only 18.7% supporting closer alignment with the United States. Australia has also adopted a cautious approach. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recent six-day visit to China highlights his government's dual-track strategy of deepening US defense ties while preserving strong economic relations with China. Amid US calls for clarity on Taiwan, the Australian government stated that 'it would not commit troops in advance to any potential conflict.' The stakes are significant. Australian exports to China reached AUD196 billion last year, exceeding the combined total of Australia's next four largest markets. Curtin University estimates that Australia's trade with China contributes an additional AUD2,600 to the average household income each year. In contrast, recent tariffs imposed by the United States average around 10%, while those under the China–Australia Free Trade Agreement remain at just 1.1%. This disparity has strengthened the perception of China as a more stable and economically reliable partner for Australia. India, by contrast, continues to maintain deliberate silence on Taiwan, consistent with its longstanding recognition of the One China policy since 1949. Even amid rising cross-Strait tensions, it has avoided statements in forums such as ASEAN, reflecting a strategic calculation to avoid provoking China, especially given their unresolved border disputes in the Himalayas. At the same time, India has steadily expanded its engagement with Taiwan. Companies like Foxconn and Pegatron are integral to Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat programs, and bilateral trade has increased sixfold since 2001. Talks on a free trade agreement and semiconductor cooperation are also progressing. A conflict in the Taiwan Strait would severely disrupt global supply chains and pose significant economic risks, which India increasingly recognizes. While the July 2025 QUAD Foreign Ministers' meeting expressed 'serious concerns' over rising tensions in the East and South China Seas, it refrained from directly condemning China. Strategic and economic divergences within the QUAD underscore its central dilemma. The QUAD was never designed for collective military action and lacks both the institutional structure and legally binding mutual defense commitments that define NATO. However, China's growing assertiveness over Taiwan and its expanding capabilities demand a more coordinated response. Even as public statements remain measured, the QUAD must avoid strategic drift to remain relevant. Coordinated efforts in contingency planning, intelligence sharing and logistical interoperability need to accelerate. The QUAD's credibility, and that of the broader rules-based order, depends on readiness and sustained alignment. China will continue to test the QUAD's cohesion, but this also presents an opportunity to forge a more adaptable and politically viable model of deterrence, one rooted in regional awareness, interoperability and expanding partnerships, particularly with ASEAN. Taiwan is no longer a peripheral concern. It has become the crucible in which the QUAD's purpose and unity will be tested. As pressure mounts in the Taiwan Strait, the time for strategic ambiguity is narrowing. The stability of the Indo-Pacific may well depend on the QUAD's ability to adapt, align and act with resolve. Rishab Rathi is a research assistant at the Centre of Policy Research and Governance (CPRG), leading the Conflict Studies vertical with a special emphasis on South Asia. With an academic background in international relations and political science, his work explores geopolitical dynamics, post-colonial governance and conflict resolution across diverse global contexts.
News18
5 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Modi's Playbook For Quad: Shaming Pakistan, Countering China And Dismissing Trump
In what should be considered a landmark diplomatic outcome for New Delhi, the Quad joint statement "unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism, including cross-border terrorism." Indian foreign policy was long characterised by a cautious balancing act, a legacy of non-alignment that prioritised strategic autonomy, sometimes at the cost of decisive articulation. Today, that playbook is being rewritten by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his team. For instance, take the joint statement released after the Quad Foreign Ministers' meeting on July 1 in Washington DC, which signals something more direct: a clear articulation of India's strategic priorities and, crucially, its success in embedding them within a vital international partnership that is emerging as a force to reckon with in the Indo Pacific. India's approach at QUAD reveals a multi-pronged strategy focused on three reinforcing fronts: First, building a substantive and institutional counter to China's expansionist ambitions in the Indo Pacific. Second, securing explicit international support against cross-border terrorism in light of the Pahalgam terror attack and India's audacious military campaign against Pakistan. And third, reinforcing its autonomy on internal matters by rejecting external interference. This, in light of President Donald Trump's rather persistent efforts to rehyphenate India with Pakistan following the success of Operation Sindoor. The QUAD joint statement marks the most significant step yet in dismantling this outdated and dangerous framework. In what should be considered a landmark diplomatic outcome for New Delhi, the statement 'unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism…including cross-border terrorism." This specific phrase has long been a cornerstone of Indian diplomatic lexicon. It formally acknowledges the state-sponsored nature of the threat India faces, shifting the global narrative from a vague 'dispute" to a recognised act of aggression directed from beyond its borders – often at the behest of religious zealots who command and control the Pakistani military. In fact, prior to the meeting, Dr Jaishankar told international media that 'victims and perpetrators (of terrorism) must never be equated" and that India 'will exercise" its right to self-defence. This is significant, given that US Secretary of State and Trump's national security adviser, Marco Rubio was standing right behind the Indian foreign minister when these remarks were made. This was India making it clear – not-so-subtly I might add – that any efforts to hyphenate India with Pakistan will not just be rejected diplomatically, but also provoke a robust and unapologetic response from New Delhi. In other words, India has drawn a red line: there should be no equivalence between a nation battling cross-border terrorism and the one perpetuating it. Effectively, India articulated a policy of proactive defence that is now implicitly understood by its most powerful partners. A Rules-Based Order for the Indo-Pacific While successfully confronting its immediate threats, India has not lost sight of the larger strategic picture. The primary mandate of the Quad has always been the Indo-Pacific and keeping it 'free and open." This is a euphemism for creating a stable and lawful order in the face of China's increasing assertiveness. The statement voices strong opposition to 'any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion" and details 'serious concern about the situation in the East China Sea and South China Sea." It has condemned China's 'dangerous and provocative actions," including the use of 'maritime militia vessels" and 'interference with offshore resource development." For India, this is a strategic imperative. A free and open Indo-Pacific is essential for its trade, energy security, and to prevent strategic encirclement – which has long been China's motive. By anchoring the Quad's position in international law, specifically UNCLOS, India and its partners are building a framework of legitimacy to challenge Beijing's 'might is right" approach. Tangible initiatives, like the 'Quad Critical Minerals Initiative" to counter the weaponisation of supply chains and the 'Quad Ports of the Future Partnership in Mumbai," position India as a central hub in a tangible alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative. Moreover, the coast guard of the four QUAD nations have also begun joint drills in the region. The message to China could not be clearer. Dismissing Unsolicited Advice: The Kashmir Question The third pillar of India's confident diplomacy is the quiet but firm assertion of absolute sovereignty. On issues like Kashmir, where figures like Donald Trump have been seen making unsolicited offers of mediation, India's policy remains consistent and non-negotiable: it is an internal matter, period. India recognises that Trump's periodic offers are driven less by a nuanced understanding of the subcontinent's geopolitics and more by domestic political compulsions. In an increasingly volatile world where American influence has struggled to defuse raging conflicts – whether it be the brutal war in Ukraine or the intractable hostilities in West Asia – the U.S. President is perennially in search of a diplomatic 'win." The idea of brokering a peace deal over Kashmir, however illusory, appeals to his desire to be seen as a master 'dealmaker" and global peacemaker. India's calm and consistent dismissal of such overtures is a sign of its diplomatic maturity. It refuses to allow its sovereign matters to become a political football in another country's domestic arena. By securing a single document that addresses Chinese maritime aggression and Pakistan-sponsored terrorism with equal and specific gravity, India is successfully framing its distinct security challenges for a global audience. It makes the case that a rules-based order is threatened as much by a terrorist crossing a border in Kashmir as it is by a militia vessel ramming a fishing boat in the South China Sea. As India prepares to host the next Quad Leaders' Summit, its role is clearly evolving from a balancing power to a leading one. The playbook on display is one of pragmatic, interest-driven alignment. It leverages the Quad framework not only to address the long-term strategic challenge in the Indo-Pacific but also to gain substantive, unambiguous support for its most immediate and persistent security threats. This reflects an India that is finally, and effectively, speaking the language of power and interest on the global stage, and making sure that the world listens. Sanbeer Singh Ranhotra Sanbeer Singh Ranhotra is a producer and video journalist at Network18. He is enthusiastic about and writes on both national affairs as well as geopolitics. view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 15:36 IST News opinion Straight Talk | Modi's Playbook For Quad: Shaming Pakistan, Countering China And Dismissing Trump 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.
India.com
14-07-2025
- Politics
- India.com
US-China war seems inevitable as Washington seeks support from these countries, countries are, India also is...
New Delhi: America has asked its two trusted allies a question the answer of which could determine the next geopolitical picture of the world. The question that the United States has asked is what would be the role of these two associates if America enters a war with China on the Taiwan issue? Both these countries are members of the QUAD alliance of which India is also a member. Why is the question so crucial? Now, it is worth a mention that why has America out such a question to its two allies? The first thought that comes to mind is a possible armed conflict between America and China on the issue of Taiwan especially when the world is already witnessing the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas conflict, and Iran-Israel tensions? China and America have been at odds on the Taiwan issue for a long time and Washington has always portrayed itself as the sole saviour of the island nation. Under the Taiwan Relations Act (1979), the US provides Taiwan with defense equipment and support to ensure its security. What does the US demand from its two allies? The US policy towards Taiwan has been of 'strategic ambiguity', that is, it does not make it clear whether it will intervene militarily in the event of an attack on Taiwan. This policy has been formulated to stop China and control tensions. In recent years, the US has increased arms sales to Taiwan. Apart from this, through alliances like QUAD, the US has tried to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. But now the US is becoming vocal and asking questions. According to a report in the Financial Times, top diplomat in the Ministry of Defense, Elbridge Colby, has said that this question is also a message for China. It says that the USA is demanding these countries to increase defense spending and make concrete plans for a possible conflict, so that the strategy of deterrence can be made effective. The geographical location and military capabilities of Australia and Japan can be important in the Taiwan conflict, especially in the context of AUKUS and other defense agreements. AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. What do Australia and Japan say over America's question? Both Australia and Japan are close military partners of the US, but the people and governments of both countries are cautious about getting caught in a major war. For this reason, they are avoiding making any open commitment in this matter and are talking about maintaining peace and status quo in the region. However, this demand of America is making both the countries uncomfortable, as they want to balance trade and diplomatic relations with China. Australia has refused to answer 'hypothetical questions', while Japan has also said that it is difficult to answer such questions based on future circumstances. Why is Australian PM in China? Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is on a visit to China. He has said that Australia's largest export partner is China and China wants to take this trade friendship forward. According to experts, the Taiwan issue is the biggest military 'flashpoint' of the present time, where the possibility of conventional or nuclear war is considered the highest. Although most analysts believe that the possibility of war has definitely increased, but at present its possibility is low. Both China and America know that war over Taiwan would mean disastrous for the global economy and stability.
AllAfrica
14-07-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Tokyo, Manila moves arouse Chinese concerns about Asian mini NATO
Manila's adoption of Japan's 'one theater concept' has further escalated tensions with China. Proposed in March this year, the concept breaks from Tokyo's traditional security outlook and views the East China Sea, the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula as a 'single theater.' Analysts in Chinese news media were quick to read it as a formation of a Washington-led 'Mini NATO in the Asia-Pacific' aimed at 'containing China.' A commentary noted how President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s attempts at a thaw with Beijing in early 2025 were derailed within a week when the US promised $50 million in military aid that 'thoroughly exposed' Marcos's 'profiteering tendency.' Another analysis related the situation to the Reciprocal Access Agreement signed between Manila and Tokyo in July last year. Many defined the concept as an 'absurd' one that 'deliberately confuses' distinct geographical regions, solely to build a case for foreign intervention. The continued stationing of US military's advanced missile systems, Typhon and NMESIS, in Manila is similarly viewed as a way of targeting China. While Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.'s moves are broadly described as 'unacceptable,' some in China believe he is still 'pragmatic' in finding common strategic ground with Japan when compared with Lithuania, which expressed concerns over the 'axis' formed by 'China, Russia and North Korea' that must be opposed through an 'alliance of democracies.' Others describe the concept as Japan's attempts to 'blur' the boundaries of the 'hot spots' by linking the Taiwan Strait and East China Sea to its 'surrounding areas,' hence using it as an 'excuse' to break free from restrictions placed by its peace constitution. Highlighting Manila's intentions of 'controlling the entire Bashi Channel,' some Chinese analysts have pointed to several hindrances in this 'plan' – particularly differing defense interests of the members of the informal SQUAD alliance (QUAD, with an S for 'security' added) and Trump's insistence that allies expand their military expenditures, which many, including Tokyo and Manila, are unable to do. Many also flagged Washington's 'unreliability' to its allies, particularly the imposition of tariffs that pushed Tokyo and Seoul towards Beijing. Describing Manila as a 'pawn' for 'big brothers,' a commentary noted that Washington's 'abandonment and looting' of war-torn Ukraine serve as a lesson for the Philippines. Some link the situation to the internal political turmoil brewing in Manila. Ruptures between the 'pro-US' Marcos family and the 'pro-China' Duterte family, particularly the latter's better performance in the mid-term elections and their possibility of sweeping off the former in the 2028 general elections, are emphasized. Chinese analysts believe that the concept will nevertheless receive little support from ASEAN nations or the Pacific Islands which have refrained from choosing sides between Beijing and Washington. Faultlines do exist. Many in Japan worry that an unclear delimitation of the theater carries the threat of embroiling Tokyo in conflicts of regional allies. South Korea, too, is unhappy, particularly with the concept seen as 'unnecessarily stoking conflict with China.' Differing security perceptions are similarly highlighted by Teodoro's statement that the Korean Peninsula will not form a part of Manila's adaptation. While most Chinese analysts favor dialogue, their confidence in the PLA's ability to launch a crushing defeat on the Philippines remains unabashed. The question, however, remains: Is China ready to take up arms? Though it cannot be denied that the concept's focus on Taiwan presents a fragile security situation given the Chinese maritime strategy's core being anti-access/area denial in the 'first island chain,' the few episodes of intense confrontation in the past years have not escalated into a war – yet. The PLA Southern Theater Command's response included a joint sea and air patrol in the 'second island command' with its advanced H-6K bombers equipped with Eagle Strike-12 anti-ship missiles, capable of launching an attack on targets as far as 4000 km from the Chinese mainland. While an intense move, it broadly falls in line with Beijing's previous response to Manila's unilateral and bilateral military exercises with Washington in January. Chinese commentators have also highlighted how NATO's short and narrowly-focused The Hague Summit Declaration's silence on China points to Trump 'changing his mind' on a conflict with Beijing. But mounting tensions are hard to overlook. China's latest white paper on national security noted 'gross interference' in the South China Sea issue from external powers. The paper clearly underscores a growing pessimism as it notes how 'Western anti-China forces' are 'leaving no stones unturned' to 'encircle, suppress and contain' Beijing. China's sanctions against former Senator Francis Tolentino for his 'malicious remarks and moves' are similarly seen as a strong move. This is the first time a senior official has been sanctioned since bilateral relations deteriorated in 2023, further elevating tensions as Manila summoned the Chinese ambassador to express its concerns. Despite the intensity, it must be noted that Beijing refrained from sanctioning Tolentino while he was in office, reflecting a cautious approach. Manila too has been prudent in not pushing the boundary too far. Hence, while the 38-year travel ban on Filipino officials traveling to Taiwan was lifted in April, restrictions remain on visits by the president and vice president and the foreign and defense secretaries. Despite its 2023 National Security Policy describing cross-strait relations as a 'major concern,' the Philippines has clarified it has no intentions of ever participating if a conflict erupts over Taiwan. The clarification came as part of a statement at a press conference for the Balikatan annual military exercises in April 2025, the largest between Manila and Washington. Manila favored reaching a provisional understanding with Beijing over invoking its Mutual Defense Treaty with Washington as tensions escalated in June last year. The situation, for now, can best be understood as a game of brinkmanship. Moreover, despite China's growing naval strength, its warships remain untested in warfare. While this acts as a deterrent to Beijing, China's advanced defense technologies and their ability to cause irreparable losses deter Washington and Manila. Nevertheless, a lack of a consistent high level military-to-military communication between both Beijing and Washington, and Beijing and Manila, as well as the complete absence of a reliable crisis management mechanism do exacerbate uncertainties. While all eyes remain fixed on military muscle flexing, the South China Sea faces a critical challenge. Sea levels have risen by 3.75mm per year since 1993, and microplastic pollution has reached an alarming level. While a war seems unlikely, peace remains elusive. Such pressing concerns urgently demand cooperation on all sides. Cherry Hitkari is a doctoral fellow with the Institute of Chinese Studies Delhi and the Harvard-Yenching Institute, currently pursuing a PhD in Chinese Studies at University of Delhi.
Arabian Post
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Can India Emerge As The Trusted Leader Of Global South Like Earlier Years?
By Nitya Chakraborty The 17th BRICS summit held in Brazil on July 6 and 7 has helped in partially restoring the image of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the defender of the interests of Global South against the increasing attacks on the political and economic interests of the developing nations by the United States of America President Donald Trump The PM's July 2-9 visit included his official visits to Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina and Namibia. He also was the official guest of the Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula, after the end of the summit. The discussions and the agreements signed during the Indian PM's visit to these five countries of the Global South have helped in positioning of India as a friendly big economic power of the Global South. The main outcome of the joint declaration of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro was the shift in India's position in strongly condemning the Israeli actions in Gaza as also attacks against Iran. Though US was not named, the signing of India in the resolution was one step forward from its earlier position on both Israeli killings of Palestinians as also the US's unprovoked attack on Iran and dismantling a big part of its nuclear facilities. Till the BRICS summit on July 6 and 7 this year, India was a suspect in the eyes of the leading nations of the global South including South Africa and Brazil as a trusted ally of Trump and more interested in QUAD than in the functioning of BRICS or SCO. While the Brazil and South African presidents were demanding the arrest of Netanyahu and declaring him as war criminal, Prime Minister Narendra Modi remained silent and the government continued with its plans for expansion of economic and defence relations with Israel. India even allowed Indian workers and techies to take up jobs in Israel during the Israel-Hamas war. Now after the partial restoration of his image at the Rio summit by defending the interests of Global South in strong words along with the other heads of states, Indian Prime Minister has to work to take forward the promise given at the BRICS meet. India is taking the presidency of BRICS in 2026 and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be hosting the summit in India. This new job as the custodian of the Global South has entrusted on him big responsibilities. He has to consistently look after the interests of the Global South. Right now, the main issue is to protect the trade interests of the developing countries by fighting the unilateral tariff rates imposed by Trump on them. This fight has to be led by Narendra Modi as the incoming chair of 18th BRICS summit in 2026. He can not lead this fight without taking a strong position against Donald Trump. Will he do it after investing so much in seeking the favours of the US President? The summit of US sponsored QUAD is scheduled to be held in India later this year. As the host, Narendra Modi will have to do everything possible to please Trump who is expected to be present during the summit. How will the Prime Minister of India handle this QUAD summit without disturbing the key issues at the BRICS summit in 2026 again hosted by him? Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that his administration will hit Brazil with a 50% tariff on products sent to the US, tying the move to what he called the 'witch-hunt' trial against its former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Trump is directly interfering in the internal affairs of Brazil by linking the tariff rate with an ongoing investigation which is being carried out as per Brazilian laws. Bolsonaro has been accused of inciting a coup against President Lula. He is hard right politician, an acolyte of Trump as also a friend of Narendra Modi. In fact, the political analysts include Trump, former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro, Argentinian President Javier Milei, National Rally supremo Marie Le Pen of France and Indian PM Narendra Modi as a part of global far right. Posting letters on Truth Social, the US president had on Wednesday targeted seven other countries – the Philippines, Brunei, Moldova, Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Sri Lanka – for stiff US tariffs on foreign exports starting on 1 August. So far India-US trade deal has not been signed but the discussions are at the last stage. It is not yet known what type of concessions, the US has extracted from Indian negotiators to have access to India's farm and dairy sector. Brazilian president Lula has already rejected Trump's demand that legal proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped and his claim that a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports was necessary to close a trade deficit that does not, in fact, exist. President Lula has responded point by point to Trump's allegations and said that Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage. The US president had been scheduled to hike tariffs on dozens of countries on Wednesday. Earlier this week he announced a fresh three-week delay, to 1 August, but started announcing new rates that countries would face unless they strike a deal with the White House by that day. On Monday, Trump announced U.S tariffs of up to 40 per cent on goods imported from 14 countries including Bangladesh, Japan and South Korea. Trump wrote to 1 more countries on Wednesday and published each letter. Soon after the BRICS summit declaration, Trump announced the imposition of 10 per cent additional tariff on BRICS countries on the plea that these countries were encouraging de dollarization. This decision immediately involves India and as the incoming chair of BRICS, Indian PM has the immediate responsibility of protesting against this additional hike as also the imposition of huge 50 percent tariff on Brazil on extraneous ground. Will Indian PM respond and take on trump on this delicate issue as the leader of the Global South? India has a big opportunity now to play its role as the natural leader of the Global South with its vast population and thriving economy. Left to the foreign ministry, India can get back its old glory as the prime mover of the Global South. But in the last five years, Indian Prime Minister has taken over fully the task of foreign diplomacy planning based on his own doctrine which has led to diplomatic isolation. Our Indian diplomats are feeling the pinch more after Operation Sindoor. It is time, India take a close review of its diplomatic challenges and revise Modi doctrine to suit the best interests of the country in 2025 and BRICS chair in 2026 has given India a rare opportunity to shape the future direction of India's foreign policy by emerging as a true leader of the Global South defying the pressures put by the Trump administration. It all depends on our powerful Prime Minister Narendra Modi whether he will revamp India's strategy or pursue the same path of following the USA. (IPA Service)
