Latest news with #morphed
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
James Lowe, Singer in Psych-Rock Band the Electric Prunes, Dies at 82
James Lowe of the Electric Prunes, photo byJames Lowe, the lead singer in psych-rock band the Electric Prunes, has died. In a statement shared on Facebook, Lowe's family said he died of natural causes on Thursday (May 29). 'Dad leaves behind a legacy of sound, love, and boundless creativity,' his family wrote. 'At the center of it all was our amazing mom, Pamela – his guiding star, enduring muse, and wife of 62 years. We know how deeply he cherished this community, and we feel that love too.' Lowe was 82. The founding member the Electric Prunes, Lowe's vision for groovy, trippy psych-rock had a large influence on the direction and popularity of the genre—especially in America—during the 1960s. Their biggest hit, 'I Had Too Much to Dream (Last Night),' scaled the Billboard Hot 100 to secure a spot in its upper tier. It also landed a critical spot on Nuggets, the 1972 psych and garage-rock compilation that garnered a cult following. The Electric Prunes's self-titled LP boasted what would become their final Top 40 single: 'Get Me to the World on Time.' Coasting over the tracks was Lowe's smoky, soulful voice, an embodiment of easygoing Californian cool – in part thanks to him being born in San Luis Obispo and growing up in Los Angeles. Surf rock-inspired garage band the Sanctions—founded by Lowe on vocals and guitar, bassist Mark Tulin, lead guitarist Ken Williams, and drummer Michael Weakley—eventually morphed into the Electric Prunes in 1965 when a real estate agent introduced them to Dave Hassinger, the sound engineer at RCA Studios who wanted to produce an album. During the band's recording session, Hassinger suggested they change their name, and Lowe tossed out the Electric Prunes as a joke. 'It's the one thing everyone will remember,' Lowe rationalized. 'It's not attractive, and there's nothing sexy about it, but people won't forget it.' Despite their early singles failing to gain traction, Reprise Records signed the Electric Prunes to a contract overseen by Hassinger. Although a few lineup changes and songwriter sub-ins took place, they settled into the studio and churned out 'I Had Too Much to Dream (Last Night).' Building off its success, they recorded the albums The Electric Prunes and Underground, both released in 1967, and went on a successful tour of Europe. Hassinger pitched the Electric Prunes on the idea of a concept album that utilized Gregorian music and psych-pop, and nabbed the late David Axelrod to compose the songs – launching a new, slowly lauded era for the band. The resulting Mass in F Minor was an ambitious, unwieldy record, and one of its spaced-out tracks, 'Kyrie Eleison,' gained a belated popularity bump when it was synced for the cult 1969 film Easy Rider. Years later, it became coveted fodder for rap producers like MF DOOM and Madlib, who worked samples from Mass in F Minor into their songs. After playing that new material just once live in concert, though, Lowe and Weakley decided to leave the band in early 1968, disenchanted with the Electric Prunes' financial difficulties and musical roadbumps. Tulin and Williams followed suit several months later. Lowe pivoted to a life behind the board, becoming a recording engineer and working with artists like Todd Rundgren and Sparks instead. Later on, Lowe also ran a TV production company. With the reins in Hassinger's hands, the Electric Prunes continued on with a different lineup until 1970, releasing two additional albums: 1968's Release of an Oath, as composed by Axelrod and belatedly heralded in experimental and hip-hop circles for its hallucinatory grooves, and 1969's Just Good Old Rock and Roll. However, come 1999, the original lineup of Lowe, Tulin, Williams, and Weakley reunited to record new music and perform live again. In 2001, they released their first comeback album, Artifact, which uncorked the psych-rock sound they originally courted in their earliest days. They went on to record three additional studio LPs: 2004's California, 2006's Feedback, and 2014's WaS. During that later run, the Electric Prunes were one of several notable bands who signed to Billy Corgan and Smashing Pumpkins producer Kerry Brown's new record label. In a 2011 interview, Lowe reflected on his past experiences in the Electric Prunes and stressed the importance of supporting bands you enjoy in real time. 'I have mentioned 'We felt like failures' many times in this process. It sounds corny, but later in life you learn you were not as bad as you thought. I have decided not to beat myself up so much,' he said. 'I encourage people to support their favorite bands by buying something from them on their websites or showing up when they play live in your town. For some, this is the only way they can continue to record and play live. If you don't want to order something, at least give encouragement and support for what they have done for you. It means a lot to get a nice email and this is all most musicians really want for their efforts: a little 'YES!!!!' when it works.' Originally Appeared on Pitchfork
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Shareholders in Integral Diagnostics (ASX:IDX) are in the red if they invested five years ago
Ideally, your overall portfolio should beat the market average. But even the best stock picker will only win with some selections. At this point some shareholders may be questioning their investment in Integral Diagnostics Limited (ASX:IDX), since the last five years saw the share price fall 34%. The falls have accelerated recently, with the share price down 16% in the last three months. So let's have a look and see if the longer term performance of the company has been in line with the underlying business' progress. We've discovered 3 warning signs about Integral Diagnostics. View them for free. While markets are a powerful pricing mechanism, share prices reflect investor sentiment, not just underlying business performance. By comparing earnings per share (EPS) and share price changes over time, we can get a feel for how investor attitudes to a company have morphed over time. Integral Diagnostics became profitable within the last five years. Most would consider that to be a good thing, so it's counter-intuitive to see the share price declining. Other metrics may better explain the share price move. In contrast to the share price, revenue has actually increased by 13% a year in the five year period. So it seems one might have to take closer look at the fundamentals to understand why the share price languishes. After all, there may be an opportunity. You can see how earnings and revenue have changed over time in the image below (click on the chart to see the exact values). It's probably worth noting we've seen significant insider buying in the last quarter, which we consider a positive. That said, we think earnings and revenue growth trends are even more important factors to consider. This free report showing analyst forecasts should help you form a view on Integral Diagnostics It is important to consider the total shareholder return, as well as the share price return, for any given stock. The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. So for companies that pay a generous dividend, the TSR is often a lot higher than the share price return. In the case of Integral Diagnostics, it has a TSR of -25% for the last 5 years. That exceeds its share price return that we previously mentioned. And there's no prize for guessing that the dividend payments largely explain the divergence! Integral Diagnostics shareholders gained a total return of 1.2% during the year. Unfortunately this falls short of the market return. But at least that's still a gain! Over five years the TSR has been a reduction of 5% per year, over five years. It could well be that the business is stabilizing. It's always interesting to track share price performance over the longer term. But to understand Integral Diagnostics better, we need to consider many other factors. Take risks, for example - Integral Diagnostics has 3 warning signs (and 2 which are significant) we think you should know about. Integral Diagnostics is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of small cap companies at attractive valuations which insiders have been buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Australian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
NDTV
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- NDTV
Preity Zinta Fumes Over 'Morphed Image' With IPL Teen Sensation, Slams Fake News
Preity Zinta, co-owner of Punjab Kings, was left furious after a morphed image of her with an IPL player went viral on social media. What surprised the actor was that the image was used by several news portals. "This is a morphed image and fake news. Am so surprised now news channels are also using morphed images and featuring them as news items!" Preity Zinta posted on X while commenting on another post. While that post was deleted, several social media users pointed that the image Preity was referring to was that of her hugging Rajasthan Royals player Vaibhav Suryavanshi. — Preity G Zinta (@realpreityzinta) May 20, 2025 While Suryavanshi met Preity Zinta after an IPL 2025 match, they never hugged. The video of their meeting was posted by RR. Flex levels at school: Vaibhav Sooryavanshi — Rajasthan Royals (@rajasthanroyals) May 19, 2025 3386 ANALYSIS: Fake FACT: Digitally manipulated images allegedly showing cricketer Vaibhav Suryavanshi hugging Bollywood actress Preity Zinta are being circulated on social media, with many users and media outlets falsely claiming them to be authentic. (1/3) — D-Intent Data (@dintentdata) May 20, 2025 Suryavanshi has been one of the brightest talents to emerge in the IPL 2025. RR head coach Rahul Dravid hopes that the young Indian players in the Rajasthan Royals' ranks will soon get the opportunity to play "tough international cricket," which in turn will help them return stronger for the next IPL season. The Royals crashed to their fifth successive defeat when they went down against Punjab Kings by 10 runs here on Sunday. "We've seen some abilities. Even today, the batting that Jaiswal did, Vaibhav did, Dhruv Jurel did. There's a lot of Sanju, Riyan today. We have a lot of young, good Indian batsmen. They'll be even better in a year," Dravid said in the post match press conference. Dravid then expanded his thoughts on how the young names in the Royals' ranks can perform better a year down the road. "Vaibhav (Suryavanshi) will play a lot of cricket like India U19. Riyan Parag will also play a lot of cricket. So, I think all these players will play a lot of cricket for India throughout the year — tough cricket, international cricket. "So, hopefully when they come back here next year, they will be more experienced. They are already very talented players," he added. Dravid felt that the Rajasthan bowlers and batters have not been able to apply finishing touches to the job, leading to the team's dismal show this season.
Express Tribune
04-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Trump's cowboy capitalism and 'anti-Nixon Shock'
Imagine a cowboy on a turnpike, six-shooter in one hand, a foreclosure notice in the other, galloping toward Beijing on a horse he can't afford to feed — that's the spirit of US President Donald Trump's new trade plan. Now picture a man in a red hat, standing at the border, waving a pistol made of tax forms, shouting: 'This is how we beat China!' before slapping a 60 per cent tariff on a blender made in Ohio. This is Trump's performance art of policy – and the audience? Poor American households. Scholars call it 'transgressive enjoyment'. Supporters call it 'finally a president who tells it like it is'. Economists call it 'Jesus Christ, not again'. This is the logic of lighting your kitchen on fire so the neighbours stop stealing your recipes. The longest 100 days have been a postmodern opera of economic sadomasochism, where the tariff plan is less about trade and more about libidinal economics – the national thrill of self-sabotage masquerading as rebellion. As Freudians might note, there is 'jouissance' – a French term for a libidinal 'enjoyment' that goes beyond rational benefit – in this pain. Americans are told to suffer proudly, to pay more for less, and to feel clean about it. What Trumpism offers is a high — a collective orgasm of grievance, decked out in red hats and shattered supply chains. It has morphed into a national revenge fantasy: you may be broke, but at least the other guy's eating dirt too. It's revenge for the very theft of enjoyment. In Trump's America, schadenfreude costs less than a carton of eggs, and eggs are $7 a dozen. On the world stage, Trump is acting like a man holding a smoke bomb and demanding respect. Allies have responded to his tariff threats by building coalitions, excluding Washington. The WTO? Irrelevant. NATO? Suspicious. Canada? Suspiciously polite. Trump's diplomacy is now a blend of 1980s action movies and apocalyptic sermons. "They laughed at me in Davos. Who's laughing now?" (Spoiler: everyone.) Meanwhile, China can't help but chuckle: Trump's tariffs are capitalism devouring its own tail, greasing the wheels of Beijing's industrial juggernaut. 'Biting tarifflation' The performance is loud and unruly, but economists warn it's taking a serious toll. A recent Yale Budget Lab study shows the average US tariff rate has surged to 22.5 per cent, the highest since 1909. That alone could raise overall consumer prices by about 2.3 per cent, translating into roughly $3,800 in added costs per household this year. The burden falls hardest on low-income families. At the same time, GDP growth is projected to shrink by 0.5 to 0.9 percentage points in 2025, with long-term output down about 0.6 per cent, a hit amounting to tens of billions in lost economic activity. In essence, Trump's cowboy-style tariff crusade is inflicting real pain at home, even as it boasts big returns on paper. The administration expects to raise around $3.1 trillion in tariff revenue over the next decade, but even that figure is undercut by an estimated $582 billion in losses from slower growth. The damage is widespread. Bottom-decile incomes are expected to drop by 2.3 per cent, compared to 0.9 per cent for the wealthiest. Sectors like apparel, autos and groceries are already feeling the pinch, with prices up 17 per cent, 8.4 per cent and 2.8 per cent respectively. Financial markets have reacted sharply: Treasury yields posted their biggest weekly spike since 2001, gold prices broke records, and consumer confidence nosedived, with inflation fears reaching levels not seen since 1981. Despite the bravado, the math is sobering. By branding the tariffs a national security emergency, Trump has slapped de facto tariffs on hundreds of billions in imports, from steel to semiconductors. He declares victory from the podium, but behind the scenes, analysts are quietly counting the cost. In sum, economists warn tarifflation is biting. The tough cowboy may call it 'protecting jobs,' but workers are feeling the pinch at the pump, in the grocery aisle and on their paychecks. Global frontier Meanwhile, Trump's tariff turnpike fight has spun the world economy into a diplomatic dance. Friend and foe alike are scrambling for cover or counterpunch. Canada, America's most loyal neighbour, swiftly slapped back. In early March, Canada unveiled 25 per cent retaliatory tariffs on $30 billion of US imports, with plans to expand them to a whopping $155 billion if the US keeps its levies. Ottawa's finance minister warned darkly that Trump's actions will make 'Americans pay more at grocery stores and gas pumps, and potentially lose thousands of jobs'. Among the first affected: orange juice, peanut butter, wine, clothing, even electric vehicles and meats in phase two. The message is clear: Canada will not absorb these costs quietly, and its economy is preparing to buckle if necessary. At the same time, Brussels is mustering a response. EU leaders agreed to propose a $28 billion package of counter tariffs on US goods. This would target everything from agricultural imports (meat, grains) to consumer items (bicycles, bourbon, vacuum cleaners, even chewing gum and dental floss), essentially matching steel and aluminium by taxing traditionally red state goods. The calculus is grim: Trump's tariffs already cover 70 per cent of EU exports to the US (about €532 billion in 2024 trade). In effect, Europe has joined Canada and China in a NATO of tariff retaliation. Policymakers worry that a full-blown trade war will eventually hike prices for all their citizens and trim euro area GDP. For now, unity prevails: an EU official says the bloc will 'strike back' against 'bullying' and protect its industries. The true superpower opponent, China, has gone on the offensive. Within days of Trump's tariff proclamation, Beijing raised tariffs on US imports up to 125 per cent. The Chinese foreign ministry publicly vowed to 'oppose US bullying,' and stock markets shook: commodities fell (oil slid ~7 per cent), bond yields spiked, and investors dumped the dollar. In short, China no longer plays patty cake. Its response makes US exports effectively impossible. Even close allies like Japan are caught in the crossfire. Trump has already warned Japan with a 24 per cent tariff on its exports (most of it on hold while he negotiates) plus a 25 per cent car levy. Prime Minister Ishiba is under pressure: grant US demands on rice, autos and let American beef flood in, and face a domestic revolt before next summer's election. Other US partners – the UK, South Korea and Mexico – nervously await their turn, watching Trump demand deals on trade and even currency with his occasional insults. The overarching effect is unsettling, as every country must now decide whether to bargain or escalate. In short, Trump's 'turnpike tollbooth' has triggered a global rodeo. Allies have no choice but to play along – Canada raising tariffs, the EU targeting goods, Japan eyeing concessions – while China has refused to yield. The 'burden of dollar supremacy' While Trump claims to be levelling the playing field, a deeper economic strategy may be at play, a plan to reshape the global monetary order. Perhaps no one has framed Trump's strategy more clearly than Marxist economist Yanis Varoufakis. Writing in mid-February 2025, he argued that Trump's 'tariff fixation is part of a global economic plan". In Varoufakis's analysis, the president has sophisticatedly realised that the key to US 'manufacturing decline' lies not in skill but in dollar supremacy. He explains that Trump believes foreign central banks are 'hoarding dollars' and not allowing the greenback to weaken naturally, thus undermining US exports and jobs. Varoufakis opines that Trump genuinely believes America has been 'dealt a bad deal' by the global dollar regime. He argues that Trump sees the dollar's 'exorbitant privilege' as an 'exorbitant burden' on US workers. The remedy, in Trump's mind, is simple toll-taking: tit-for-tat tariffs to rebalance trade. 'Reduce the value of the dollar… to make American exports more competitive,' Trump himself boasted, while still 'maintaining the hegemony of the dollar". By that logic, he's a cowboy demanding others stop 'free-riding' off Uncle Sam's bucks. Trump's tariff deluge, Varoufakis contends, is Phase One of a master plan: to economically bully trading partners into weakening their currencies. The tariffs 'shock' markets so that foreign central banks cut rates and let the yuan, euro and yen 'soften relative to the dollar'. In effect, the very tariff targets end up paying for them by selling dollars and propping up the US currency. American consumers, Varoufakis points out, thereby avoid most of the import price hikes, while US producers get cheaper exports. Meanwhile, those collected duties fill the US Treasury – potentially $2.1 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Foundation, which Trump can spend largely at will. Varoufakis explains that by raising duties, Trump hopes to 'pressure friends and foes to unload their dollar holdings and buy more long-dated bonds.' In plain terms: he wants foreign central banks and investors to swap their greenbacks into US debt rather than euros or yuan. 'Anti-Nixon shock' According to the economist, Trump is channelling an 'anti-Nixon shock': devalue the dollar to revive manufacturing, yet cement US financial hegemony. As Trump himself bragged, the aim is to 'reduce the value of the dollar… to make American exports more competitive,' while still 'maintaining the hegemony of the dollar.' Trump's crypto fixation plays into this. Varoufakis recounts the bizarre notion that the US might strong-arm countries like Japan to dump dollars into Bitcoin or stablecoins. Japan's banks hold over $1 trillion in US reserves. Trump fantasises that by endorsing cryptocurrencies, he could make Tokyo trade some of that hoard for digital assets he controls. The recent executive order to hoard Bitcoin 'never to be sold' looks less like random crypto-caprice and more like a bargaining chip: a way to nudge allies into buying dollars (and Bitcoin) to keep the system afloat. In Phase Two, Trump would parlay this pressure into grand bargains: China and Japan would be forced to sell US treasury bonds or buy dollars outright; Europe would swap or write down some of its debt, allow factories to relocate to America, and buy more US arms. Varoufakis's assessment is dry but ominous. Tariffs are not an end in themselves but a means to 'recast the global economic order in America's long-term interest'. They're designed to coerce oil-rich sheikhs, Asian banks and European treasuries into underwriting US debt – or face punishing trade costs. Trump's cowboy act is not just nationalism. It is state-sponsored financial warfare, complete with digital gold. As Varoufakis puts it, Trump is plotting an 'anti-Nixon shock' that employs both old-school tariffs and new-age crypto to 'keep the dollar at the centre' of the global system. Varoufakis even predicts a world split into two blocs: one under the US 'security umbrella' but paying dearly (through currency appreciation and mandatory purchases), the other aligned with China/Russia but cut off from US markets except through ongoing tariffs. Disturbing as it sounds, Varoufakis warns one cannot dismiss the plan as mere nonsense – he calls it 'solid… albeit inherently risky". At the very least, Trump's team believes they're leveraging America's 'exorbitant privilege' to force others to bear the burden of global finance. The stakes, Varoufakis warns, are nothing less than the stability of the post-war monetary order. Trade wars as class wars? In their 2020 book Trade Wars Are Class Wars, Michael Pettis and Matthew Klein argue that trade conflicts reflect domestic inequality. Deficits, they contend, stem not from foreign trickery but from rich countries over-saving and poor households under-consuming. 'Trade disputes… are often the unexpected result of domestic political choices to serve the interests of the rich at the expense of workers,' Klein and Pettis write. By this logic, today's trade war is a class war: decades of bailouts for corporations and property holders have suppressed worker demand, generating global imbalances. Tariffs become a Hobsonian 'false economy of distribution' — the rich's answer to workers' inability to buy. Where does Trump's cowboy logic fit in? He postures as a frontier hero, accusing foreigners of 'stealing' jobs and promising protection for the little guy. However, Klein's diagnosis complicates the tale. In reality, the tariffs fall hardest on US consumers and workers, those already shortchanged. As the Yale model shows, poorer households lose more (about 4 per cent for the second decile) than the rich (roughly 1.6 per cent for the top 10 per cent). Trump, then, has inverted the class narrative: rather than taxing elites and boosting demand, he blames foreigners for inequality while his policies further burden the middle and poor. Meanwhile, as Americans pay more for less, they are told, once again, that freedom is not free. It costs $3,800. But it comes with a free cowboy hat. Made in China. For now.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
03-05-2025
- Business
- First Post
India in 'G-Zero' world must be a balancer and not a bystander
In a complex world, India's challenge is not merely to navigate chaos—it is to lead with coherence, moving beyond 'wait and watch' diplomacy towards a bold but balanced engagement model that combines autonomy with alliance-building read more The intensifying US-China rivalry has given rise to a fragmented geopolitical and economic landscape that defies neat classifications like 'bipolarity' or 'multipolarity'. What we are living through now is a 'G-Zero' world—one marked not by a stable distribution of global power but by a dangerous vacuum, where no single actor or coalition commands enough authority to shape international norms. Coined by political scientist Ian Bremmer in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, the G-Zero concept emerged as a critique of the post-Cold War illusion that liberal democracies would lead an integrated, rules-based order; instead, it captured the growing reality of power diffusion and institutional dysfunction. For India, this is both a moment of elevated opportunity and rising concerns. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trade War that Redefined Global Economic Geometry The economic fracture between the US and China, catalysed by the Trump administration in 2018, has now hardened into a structural feature of global affairs. The trade war, initially framed as a tactical lever to correct imbalances, has morphed into a strategic contest underpinning national security, technological supremacy, and ideological dominance. According to the WTO secretariat, the US and China together account for 28 per cent of the world's merchandise trade, having emerged as top traders over the past two decades. By 2025, this rivalry had escalated dramatically. In a bold and combative move, the re-elected US president announced up to 245 per cent tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports, from semiconductors to syringes. China struck back by freezing orders for Boeing aircraft and tightening its grip on exports of rare earth elements—materials that power everything from electric vehicles to wind turbines. Each move by one superpower was swiftly mirrored by retaliation from the other, creating an atmosphere of deepening mistrust and weaponised interdependence. While these two economic titans slug it out, the rest of the world are forced to duck, weave, and improvise. The Mirage of Multipolarity This conflict plays out against a broader narrative of an emergent multipolar order. But is this truly multipolarity or merely a cover for fragmentation? Superficially, it appears that middle powers like India, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia are enjoying more agency. On closer examination, however, this agency is often reactive and constrained. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India, for example, continues to participate in US-led strategic initiatives like the Quad and I2U2 while also maintaining a $118 billion trade relationship with China and relying heavily on Russian arms imports. Similarly, Saudi Arabia courts Chinese investment while still dependent on US military backing. These are not moves of unfettered autonomy, but of tactical hedging. Even ASEAN—once the flagbearer of 'centrality' in Asia's security discourse—finds itself fractured, with countries like Cambodia and Laos increasingly tilting toward Beijing's orbit. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which once seemed to offer decentralised development, now faces pushback from countries such as Sri Lanka and Zambia grappling with debt distress. Meanwhile, the US is narrowing its economic alliances through 'friend-shoring' policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, while China is promoting a surveillance-laden digital Silk Route. Both are creating exclusive ecosystems that disrupt global supply chains and inhibit cross-border cooperation, even in areas like climate change, where geopolitical rivalry has already stalled nearly 40 per cent of multilateral carbon reduction initiatives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The G-Zero Paradox for Middle Powers Caught in this crossfire are middle powers—states too big to be ignored but too weak to set the rules. Countries like Vietnam and Mexico, once envisioned as alternatives to Chinese manufacturing, now face punitive U.S. tariffs. The narrative of 'strategic autonomy' rings hollow when even sovereign policy decisions—like sourcing soybeans or solar panels—are influenced by the whims of the US-China chessboard. Technological decoupling, too, has failed to deliver a clear winner. SMIC, China's leading chipmaker, defied US sanctions by producing 5nm chips, while American solar companies scramble under tariff-induced constraints. In agriculture, China's pivot to Brazilian soybeans has bankrupted US farmers and triggered food price inflation in global markets. This is not a new equilibrium. It is a vacuum—an unstable, high-risk zone of G-Zero fragmentation, where institutions lack teeth and middle powers lack security. India: Balancer or Bystander? India's position in this chaotic order is uniquely complex. Its strategic visibility has undeniably grown through its leadership of the G20, deepening engagement with the Quad, and its multilateral activism in BRICS and SCO. But visibility is not the same as leverage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India continues to walk a diplomatic tightrope. It abstains from critical UN resolutions that could antagonise Russia or China, even as it seeks cutting-edge technology transfers from the US. Its non-alignment—repackaged today as 'multi-alignment'—is not ideological but operational: a pragmatic way of navigating conflicting imperatives. India's balancing act is further illustrated by its calibrated response to global conflicts. On the issue of Russia-Ukraine war, New Delhi has consistently called for dialogue and peace without directly criticising Moscow—an approach shaped by historical ties, defence dependencies, and energy interests. This careful posture is echoed in its handling of tensions with China: India pursues military modernisation and strengthens partnerships like the Quad, yet avoids overt escalation, preferring strategic caution over confrontation. Its repeated abstentions on UN votes signal a desire to uphold strategic autonomy, but they also raise difficult questions about India's commitment to the very principles it champions—sovereignty, international law, and global leadership. This tension between values and interests underscores the ambiguity of India's current foreign policy—neither passive nor assertive, but persistently navigating the margins between moral rhetoric and realpolitik. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While India benefits from the 'China Plus One' manufacturing shift, this optimism is tempered by systemic vulnerabilities. The imposition of US tariffs on Indian steel and pharmaceuticals—justified on 'national security' grounds—exemplifies how even friends can turn protectionist. At the same time, India's dependence on Chinese electronics and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) makes complete decoupling economically implausible. Opportunities Amidst the Unravelling Despite these contradictions, India is not without tools. Its diversified engagement strategy has allowed it to sign FTAs with the UAE, Australia, and the EU and attract global capital inflows across sectors. It continues to advocate for UNSC reforms and represent the Global South in multilateral forums with credibility. The real question is: Can India convert this reactive positioning into a proactive agenda? This requires institutional clarity, economic resilience, and visionary leadership. India must accelerate self-reliance by investing in its manufacturing base, renewable energy, and critical technologies like semiconductors. The Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes need better execution and targeted support for MSMEs. Defence indigenisation must go beyond rhetoric, focusing on reducing dependency on legacy Russian platforms while selectively sourcing tech from Western allies. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's diplomatic flexibility should be channelled into global norm-building. Whether through spearheading climate alliances like the International Solar Alliance or building mineral partnerships to counter China's stranglehold on rare earths, India must transition from being a balancer to becoming a builder. Risks of Ambiguity, Rewards of Vision India's refusal to fully align with any one bloc has given it breathing room—but that window is narrowing. As the US and China pressure nations into economic and security camps, fence-sitting will become increasingly untenable. The risk is not just of supply chain disruptions or trade barriers, but of diplomatic isolation and diminished global influence. Moreover, internal contradictions weaken India's credibility. Participation in the Quad is at odds with active BRICS membership. US partnerships in AI and clean tech sit uneasily with continued defence purchases from Moscow. To stay relevant, India must define what kind of global order it wants—and how it intends to shape it. The world is not waiting. Regional arms races are heating up, from Japan's record $68 billion defence budget to Saudi-China missile deals. The BRICS+ expansion—including states like Iran and Ethiopia—exposes ideological incoherence, not strategic unity. Institutions like the New Development Bank are being outpaced by Bretton Woods institutions. In this flux, India must resist the temptation to muddle through. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a G-Zero world, India's challenge is not merely to navigate chaos—it is to lead with coherence. That means defining strategic priorities, executing them with discipline, and investing in institutional capacity. It means moving beyond 'wait and watch' diplomacy towards a bold but balanced engagement model that combines autonomy with alliance-building. India is not yet a rule-maker in the international system. But it is no longer just a rule-taker either. The next decade will determine whether it becomes a rule-shaper—a middle power with major ambitions, strong will and the strategic clarity to realise them. Amal Chandra is an author, policy analyst, political commentator and columnist. He currently serves as a program official at the Central University of Gujarat. He tweets @ens_socialis. Anusreeta Dutta is a doctoral researcher at BITS Pilani (India)-RMIT (Australia), with prior experience as a political researcher and ESG analyst. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
