Israeli intelligence failure – or a deep rooted conspiracy?

On Saturday 07^th October 2023, the terrorist group Hamas based out of the Gaza strip caught the State of Israel by complete surprise, breaking through an electronically powered physical fence that is supposed to have cost over a billion US dollars in its creation, to safe-guard the security of Israel. The fence was breached at multiple sites and the entire concept of its existence crashed, along-with the credibility of the Israeli intelligence services.

Three issues are glaring prominent in this attack. The 1^st is the speed, training and focus of the Hamas terrorists when they broke through the fence, invaded Israeli territories, captured and transported hostages back to Gaza while indiscriminately killing civilians. The 2^nd issue is the lack of an immediate response by the Israeli Defense Forces. It took the IDF over six hours to enter this battle-field, stripping away the much-publicized fantasy of the IDF being a professionally trained and highly skilled, mobile fighting force. The 3^rd issue was the global reputation of the Israeli intelligence services. “Mossad”, the civilian–military intelligence and anti-terrorist strike force; the “Military Intelligence Directorate” which is to supposed to inform the Israeli government and IDF with intelligence warnings and alerts on a daily basis; the "Shin bet", the organization charged with maintaining internal security, including in the Israeli-occupied territories; the “Combat Intelligence Collection Corps” which is the newest of the IDF GOC Army Headquarters' five corps, created in April 2000 and tasked with collecting combat intelligence; and “Lekem” (Lishka le-Kishrei Mada) which is tasked to collect scientific and technical intelligence abroad from both open and covert sources, and was supposed to have been disbanded in 1986, but never confirmed to have been so.  

All five of these intelligence services seem to have failed their primary purpose of keeping their government informed of the activities of their immediate enemy, the State of Palestine and its armed factions Hamas (specifically it’s Qassam brigades), Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Liberation Front, as-Sa’iqa, Fatah al-Intifada, Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine; etc.

Hamas, which started the current attack on Israel, was created in 1987 as an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political movement. The Muslim Brotherhood identifies itself as a Sunni Islamist organization that was founded in Egypt in 1928, by Hassan al-Banna, and Islamic scholar and school teacher. Hamas has been financed regularly by Iran and Qatar, two counties which are seemingly at odds with each other the former being Shi’a and the latter being Sunni. Yet, both have funded Hamas and other terrorist organizations due to their common hatred against Israel.

Iran has had a complex relationship with Israel. This relationship has changed from military and economic close cooperation before the Iranian revolution of 1979, to complete hostility, with Iran supporting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad for Palestine in Gaza, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Before the 1979 revolution, when most Arab countries in Middle-East were in opposition to the existence of Israel, the then Shah of Iran supported Israeli settlers in what was considered as Palestine territories.  The Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi recognized Israel as a sovereign state in 1950. Economic, political and military cooperation between these two countries expanded rapidly while tensions between Israel and the Arab countries escalated in the 1960s and 1970s.

Before the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979, Israel had undertaken a multi-billion-dollar project to sell advanced, surface-to-surface missiles to Iran. This project, code named ‘Flower’, was one of the six oil-for-arms contract signed in Tehran in April 1977 by Shah Reza Pahlavi and Shimon Peres, the then Defense Minister of Israel. The Flower project, involved the production of missiles with warheads weighing 750 Kgs and a tactical range of 480 kms. This joint missile program envisaged shipping the missiles from Israel to Iran, in the form of components for assembly and testing. Operation Flower was just one of the many joint military projects between the two countries. According to de-classified documents available in the USA’s Library of Congress, other projects included advanced radar systems, converting aircraft for maritime surveillance purposes, and enhancing the missiles program to enable their launch from submarines.

Even after 1979, when the Shah of Iran was deposed by the Islamic Revolution, the Iran-Israel military cooperation continued discreetly with Israel supplying arms, ammunition and military aid to Iran during its 10-year war against Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, in the 1980s. Various sources has estimated that, with the tactic approval of the USA, Iran was provided military aid of approximately US$ 2 billion in that period. The clandestine cooperation did not stop there. During the Iran-Contra affair, Israel played a crucial role as a facilitator of arms shipments from USA to Iran in 1985 and 1986.

All this came to an end when Yasser Arafat, the then PLO Chairman signed the Oslo Accords on 13 September 1993, with Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in the presence of the then President of USA, Bill Clinton. This prompted the Ayatollahs of Iran to begin their campaign to create new armed Islamist groups in Palestine and Lebanon, while increasing their support to existing ones. While Iran is estimated to be funding US$ 100 million annually to Hamas, it has also publicly acknowledged that it is also supplying the rockets used by Hamas to target Israel. In 2012, Iran’s military commanders disclosed that they had provided over 50 thousand rockets and over half a million anti-tank missiles to militants in Gaza; alongwith the technology to manufacture the Fajr-5 missiles in Gaza itself.

It seems hard to believe that none of this was noted seriously by the five intelligence agencies of Israel.

Now, let us look at the role played by Qatar in their support for Hamas. Throughout the last 60 odd years, Qatar has facilitated and funded radical Islamist ideologies and provided a safe haven to their leaders inside Qatar. The entire leadership of Hamas are permanent residents of Qatar, lavishly hosted and richly funded by Qatar’s ruling al-Thani family. Beyond this, Qatar is funding an assertive Islamist social environment in the West through its investment in Islamic education and academic fields in the UK, funding of British schools, universities, community centers and Islamic centers; essentially funding Islamic extremism. Qatar is an unspoken enemy of Bharat [India] through its acts of liberally funding the Pakistani Army, which in turn funds terrorism in Kashmir. Other terrorists that Qatar has openly supported are the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, certain al-Qaeda affiliates and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

With only 350,000 nationals; but with constant access to enormous wealth through its natural gas reserves, Qatar seeks to exercise an international influence that is disproportionate to its geographical size, not only in the Middle-East, but across the world. Qatar’s protection from any global action is insured by its “investments” in the political parties and politicians in the UK, the USA and the EU. Governments of these countries, regardless of which political party is in power, seek to maintain good relationships with Qatar in order to benefit from its huge energy reserves, to sell defense equipment to it, and to attract Qatari investment into key infrastructure and energy projects. Bharat [India] and its ruling politicians are no exception. They allowed an investment of one billion US dollars by the Qatar Investment Authority into Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Retail Ventures. Beyond this, Qatar has made investments into media houses, real estate, infrastructure, financial institutions and investment funds. So, when thousands of Indian origin construction workers are killed in Qatar under inhuman working conditions or very soon, eight retired officers of our navy are hanged at the whim of Qatar’s ruling family, do not be shocked. According to our Government and our bureaucracy, sacrificing a few Indian lives and our honor and price for the billions in investments; is just the price of doing business with Qatar.  

Qatar’s ruling family, the al-Thani’s have perfected the art of being on all sides of a conflict and supporting everyone against each other. While funding the Hamas and allowing its leaders to enjoy residency in Qatar, it has positioned itself to be a key negotiator for the release of Israeli hostages, and at the same time preserved its close security and economic ties with the USA. Qatar hosts the forward HQs of the U.S. military’s Central Command at the al-Udeid Air base in Doha. This gives Qatar the safety shield that it needs from any military attacks from its neighbors while being publicly praised by USA as its major non-NATO ally, critically important to U.S. foreign policy in the region. This support from USA comes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars that Qatar spends though its lobbyists in Washington DC, and influences the U.S. lawmakers through investments in law-makers constituencies, contributing to their election fund-raising, sponsored visits to Qatar (Minnesota Congress woman Ilhan Omar’s visit to the soccer World cup was fully funded by Qatar) and has been accused of bribing this same Congress woman in exchange for sensitive intelligence information and to influence U.S. policy in its favor.

When caught in illegal acts, Qatar falls back on their policy of threatening to restrict energy supplies to countries that accuse it of corrupt and unethical practices.

The attack on Israel by Hamas has to be considered as a geo-political strategy by Iran and Qatar, working to destabilize the Middle-East peace process for their own gains. The current conflict has successfully stalled and maybe destroyed the Israel–Saudi Arabi Normalization Agreement, allowed Iran to gain prominence in the region’s politics, while putting those Arab states that have signed peace agreements with Israel into a difficult position whereby while trying to honor these agreements they have to deal with the unrest on the ground by their Muslim citizens who are majorly anti-Israel. This works in the favor of Qatar who is opposed to the global influence of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, who have accused Qatar of various crimes in the past. The Hamas offensive has encouraged smaller terrorist groups to attack U.S forces in the region, with rocket attacks on American military installations in Iraq and Syria.

If the current Hamas–Israel expands to become a U.S–Iran conflict, even through the use of proxies, it will affect global economy. Europe which is already under economic recessions due to the Ukraine–Russia war, will be adversely impacted as energy supplies from the Gulf would become scarce. The U.S. economy might also tip into severe recession and higher inflation, leading to a domino effect on other economies of the world that are tied to the U.S. economy. Scarcity of energy resources will mean higher logistics costs, increased production costs and reduced consumer spending.

The first question to be asked is this. At what point will USA, UK and the EU decide to abandon their support to Qatar to stop its funding of terrorists across the world, and try to normalize ties with Iran? Unless the influence of Qatar is removed from the geo-political equation, peace or even a restless peace will not materialize.

Therefore, the unspoken question has to be asked. Did Israel and its allies have complete knowledge of the impending Hamas attack on Israel, but decided to let it happen anyway for a greater geo-political strategy? The other line of thought is that, prior to this Hamas terrorist attack of 7^th October, the politics of Israel was deeply divided. Their current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on trial for corruption, and was being tried in their Court of Law for fraud, breach of trust, and accepting bribes. Three of his former close confidants have turned State’s evidence and are testifying against him. The current war is a welcome diversion from political problems, even if it has caused the killings of thousands on both sides. So, the moot question arises. Did some interested parties in Israel manipulate intelligence information for party political gains, not realizing that what they might have expected to be nothing more than ‘containable violence’, actually turned out to be a full-scale invasion?

While many will assume these questions to be in the area of an ‘unbelievable conspiracy’, the relationships of the past between the various players in the middle-east, the current relationships between Islamic nations and their fundamentalists, the issues faced by Israeli politicians in their own country, and their singular relationships with the USA; all of these will determine the outcome of the present Hamas–Israel conflict.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale and Logic in Politics - what's the difference?

In politics, the terms "rationale" and "logic" are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Rationale refers to the underlying reasons or justifications for a particular action or policy, while logic refers to the systematic and rational way of reasoning used to arrive at a conclusion or decision. In this article, we will explore the differences between these two concepts and provide two examples to illustrate their use in politics.

In politics, rationale often involves an assessment of the benefits and costs associated with a particular policy. This assessment can be based on a range of factors, including economic, social, political, and ethical considerations.

For example, the rationale for implementing a carbon tax may be based on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change. Proponents of the carbon tax may argue that it will provide an incentive for individuals and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint, leading to a decrease in emissions and an improvement in environmental outcomes. The costs associated with the tax, such as higher prices for energy and goods, may be seen as a necessary sacrifice to achieve this goal.

Another example of rationale in politics is the justification for military intervention. The rationale for military intervention may be based on the need to protect national security or to promote democracy and human rights. Supporters of military intervention may argue that it is necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis or to stop the spread of terrorism. The costs associated with military intervention, such as the loss of life and the financial burden, may be seen as a necessary sacrifice to achieve these goals.

Logic in politics refers to the systematic and rational way of reasoning used to arrive at a conclusion or decision. In politics, logic often involves a careful analysis of the evidence and a consideration of the possible outcomes of different policies.

For example, the logic of trade policy may involve an assessment of the benefits and costs of free trade versus protectionism. Proponents of free trade may argue that it promotes economic growth and leads to lower prices for consumers, while opponents of free trade may argue that it leads to job losses and inequality. The logic of trade policy involves weighing these different factors and determining the best course of action based on the available evidence.

Another example of logic in politics is the use of cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis involves weighing the costs and benefits of a particular policy or decision to determine its overall value. For example, cost-benefit analysis may be used to assess the economic impact of a new infrastructure project or to determine the most effective way to allocate government resources. The logic of cost-benefit analysis involves a systematic and rational approach to decision-making that is based on empirical evidence and quantitative analysis.

Overall, the difference between rationale and logic in politics lies in their focus. Rationale refers to the underlying reasons or justifications for a particular policy or action, while logic refers to the systematic and rational way of reasoning used to arrive at a conclusion or decision. Both concepts are important in politics, as they help policymakers and citizens to make informed decisions based on evidence and analysis.

Understanding the differences between these concepts can help to clarify political debates and facilitate more effective decision-making.

 

 

Global International Relationships from 1980s to date.....

In this article, we will look at International Relationships across the world from the 1980s to date, with specific focus on the diplomatic policies of India across the world and their development.

Since the 1980s, the global geopolitical landscape has undergone significant changes, marked by the rise of China and the rapid transformation of Asia. These changes have brought about complex international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia.

The 1980s: The Cold War Era Continues

The 1980s were marked by the continuation of the Cold War and the heightened tensions between the United States and the erstwhile Soviet Union (USSR). This period saw the proliferation of nuclear weapons, regional conflicts, and proxy wars between the two superpowers. The Western countries, Europe, and most of Asia remained firmly aligned with the United States, while India and China maintained a policy of non-alignment.

In 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era in global politics. This event paved the way for closer relations between Western countries and Europe on the one hand, and Asia on the other.

The 1990s: The Rise of Asia

The 1990s saw the emergence of Asia as a major economic powerhouse, with the rapid growth of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. China also began to open up its economy to foreign investment, leading to significant economic growth, while India’s economic liberalisation of 1991 helped to create an economy that was market and service oriented and expanded the role for private and foreign investment.

This period also saw the establishment of closer relationships between Western countries, Europe, and Asia. The United States, in particular, sought to deepen its ties with Asia, as evidenced by the Clinton administration's "pivot to Asia" policy.

The 2000s: China's Rise and the War on Terror

The 2000s saw the rise of China as a global economic and military power. This period was marked by China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, which paved the way for its integration into the global economy. It also saw the United States launch the War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. This led to closer cooperation between Western countries, Europe, and Asia in the fight against terrorism.

The 2010s: Shifts in Global Power

The 2010s saw significant shifts in global power, with China emerging as a major competitor to the United States. The Obama administration continued the Clinton administration’s "pivot to Asia" policy, which helped deepen the United States' engagement with Asia. At the same time, the European Union started to face significant challenges, including debt crisis and the refugee crisis. This led to increased tensions between Western countries and Europe, particularly over issues such as immigration and economic policy.

The 2020s: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Growing Tensions

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2019, has had a significant impact on international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia. The pandemic has highlighted the interdependence of the global economy and the need for closer cooperation between nations. However, the pandemic has also led to growing tensions between the United States and China, particularly over issues such as trade, intellectual property, and human rights. This has led to increased competition between the two countries, which could have significant implications for the future of global politics.

It remains to be seen how these relationships will evolve in the coming years. The United States under the Biden administration has signalled a shift towards greater cooperation and engagement with other nations, particularly in the areas of climate change and global health. However, the ongoing tensions with China and the challenges facing Europe due to the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict which could complicate these efforts.

As of today, the future of international relationships between Western countries, Europe, China, and Asia will depend on a complex mix of economic, political, and social factors. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is more important than ever for nations to work together to address common challenges and pursue shared goals.

India has been an important player in international diplomacy for several decades. In the period between 1995 to 2021, and has developed strong diplomatic relationships with several countries across the world, including China, Europe, USA, and also the economically weak nations.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards China

India and China share a complex relationship that has been marked by several historical and territorial disputes. Despite this, India has pursued a policy of engagement and cooperation with China. In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and China engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2003 landmark agreement on the "Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question." This agreement laid the foundation for resolving the border dispute between the two countries. However, tensions between India and China flared up in 2020 following a border clash in the Galwan Valley. This has led to a significant deterioration in the relationship between the two countries, with India adopting a more assertive stance towards China, while attempting to keep the relationship isolated from frequent open conflict, while conducting a series of diplomatic initiatives at the border level, as well as at international levels.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards Europe and the U.K.

In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and Europe engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2004 India-EU Summit. This summit led to the adoption of the "Joint Action Plan" which aimed to deepen the relationship between India and the EU in areas such as trade, investment, and science and technology.

India has also pursued a policy of engagement with the United Kingdom, with both countries establishing a strategic partnership in 2004. In 2021, India and the U.K. signed the "Roadmap 2030," agreement which set out a comprehensive plan for deepening the bilateral relationship between the two countries in areas such as trade, defence, and technology.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards the United States

India and the United States have developed a strong strategic partnership over the past two decades. This partnership has been marked by closer cooperation in areas such as defence, trade, and energy.

In the period between 1995 to 2021, India and the United States engaged in several high-level diplomatic talks, including the 2000 "New Framework for the US-India Défense Relationship" and the 2005 "US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement." In recent years, the strategic partnership between India and the United States has continued to grow. In 2021, India and the United States signed the "US-India Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership," which aimed to deepen the bilateral relationship between the two countries even further.

India's Diplomatic Policy towards Economically Weak Countries

India has pursued a policy of engagement and cooperation with economically weak countries across the world, particularly in the African continent. India's engagement with these countries has been guided by the principle of “South-South cooperation”, which aims to foster economic development and promote mutual cooperation among developing countries. In 2008, India and Africa signed the "New Delhi Declaration," which aimed to deepen the economic and strategic relationship between India and Africa.

India has also established several capacity-building programs in African countries, aimed at promoting human resource development and strengthening institutional capacity. These programs have included the Pan African e-Network project, which aimed to provide telemedicine and tele-education services to African countries, and the India-Africa Forum Summit 2015, which aimed to deepen the relationship between India and African nations in areas such as trade, investment, and technology.

In addition, India has also pursued a policy of engagement with Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands for establishing several economic and strategic partnerships with countries of these regions, including the India-CARICOM Joint Commission in 2009, which aimed to deepen the economic and strategic relationship between India and Caribbean nations; and has established several capacity-building programs in these countries, aimed at promoting human resource development and strengthening institutional capacity. These programs have included the establishment of centres of excellence in various sectors, including information technology, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. India’s relationship with the Pacific Island nations has deepened with the establishment of the FIPIC in 2015. The recent meeting between Prime Minister Modi and the leaders of the India-Pacific Islands Developing States (PSIDS) at New York (2019) focused on the view towards building close partnership with the Pacific Island nations and work closely to advance mutually beneficial developmental goals. 

Moving forward, India's diplomatic policy will need to be guided by a mix of economic, political, and social factors. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is more important than ever for nations to work together to address common challenges and pursue shared goals. India's diplomatic policy will need to reflect this reality and aim to deepen the relationship between India and other nations across the world.

This brings us to the importance of the G20 forum where India is a member and has been elected to hold the Presidency of the G20 in this year 2023. The G20 group of countries, also known as the Group of Twenty, is an international forum that brings together the world's leading developed and emerging economies to discuss global economic and financial issues. The G20 consists of 19 countries and the European Union, representing around 85% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world's population.

Importance of the G20

The G20 has emerged as a key platform for international cooperation on global economic issues, providing a forum for countries to discuss and coordinate policies that can promote sustainable and inclusive growth, create jobs, and reduce poverty. The G20 has become increasingly important in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which highlighted the need for greater international coordination and cooperation to address global economic challenges.

It plays an important role in promoting international trade and investment, ensuring financial stability, and addressing global issues such as climate change, inequality, and social inclusion. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the G20's role in promoting global economic cooperation and ensuring economic stability has become even more crucial.

Agenda of the G20

The G20 agenda is focused on promoting sustainable and inclusive growth, creating jobs, and reducing poverty, while being committed to promoting open and fair trade, and to ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all members of society. The G20 agenda is guided by a number of principles, including the importance of cooperation and coordination, the need for inclusive and sustainable growth, and the importance of promoting economic stability and financial reform, across the world.

Policies of the G20

The G20 has implemented a number of policies which include efforts to promote investment in infrastructure, to increase access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, and to promote the development of skills and education. It has also implemented policies to promote open and fair trade, including efforts to reduce trade barriers and to promote the development of regional and global trade agreements. It has worked to address issues related to global financial stability, including efforts to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions, and to promote transparency and accountability in financial markets, and has played an important role in promoting the Paris Agreement on climate change, and in supporting efforts to promote sustainable development and reduce inequality.

The presidency of the G20 is transferred from country to country on an annual basis to ensure that the organization remains inclusive, representative, and responsive to the changing needs and priorities of its members. By rotating the presidency, different regions and countries have the opportunity to lead the organization and bring their unique perspectives and priorities to the table. This helps to promote continuity and stability, while also ensuring that different countries have the opportunity to shape the agenda and priorities of the G20. This ensures that the organization's decision-making processes are more visible and transparent and helps to promote public trust in the organization and ensures that its policies and priorities are aligned with the needs and interests of its members.

During the 2016 G20 summit, which was hosted by China, the focus was on promoting innovation and sustainability, and the launch of initiatives such as the Green Finance Study Group and the Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance, while Japan's presidency in 2019, was focused on promoting innovation and digitalization; with the aim to “realize and promote a free and open, inclusive and sustainable, human-centered future society” and recognize the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as being at the core of the development agenda and other global issues. 

The 2020 G20 summit, hosted by Saudi Arabia, focused on promoting global cooperation to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts, and launched initiatives such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator and the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI). These initiatives helped to promote international cooperation and solidarity in the face of a global crisis, reflecting the unique priorities and leadership of Saudi Arabia as the host country.

India, as the host of the G20 summit in 2023 is focused on promoting the universal sense of one-ness, via the theme 'One Earth, One Family, One Future'. Essentially, this affirms the value of all life; human, animal, plant, and microorganisms, and their interconnectedness on the planet Earth and in the wider universe. The theme also spotlights LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), with its associated, environmentally sustainable and responsible choices, both at the level of individual lifestyles as well as national development, leading to globally transformative actions resulting in a cleaner, greener and bluer future.

The period from the 1980s to the present day has seen significant changes in the international relationships between countries across the world. The emergence of Asia as a major economic and military power, and the rise of China as a global competitor to the United States, have led to complex and evolving relationships between these regions.

India's diplomatic policy towards China, Europe, the United States, and economically weak countries between 1995 to 2021 has been marked by several successes and challenges. While India has developed strong partnerships with several countries across the world, it has also faced several challenges, particularly in the areas of border disputes and trade negotiations.

India’s soft diplomacy is reflected in its international relationships. Its vision is optimistic and is based on the principles of non-violence, largely pluralistic governance and a non-threatening global leadership. The legacy of India’s culture, history and ancient philosophy has shown the world that India is a largely harmonious nation that has assimilated various different religions and ethnicities over the centuries, and has never forgotten its own culture and the philosophy of peace, and has been a stalwart champion of inter-civilizational and inter-cultural exchanges.

The current government has created innovative ideas by blending traditional soft-power elements of dialogue and mutual agreements, with the inclusiveness of the Indian diaspora in its diplomatic efforts, the global promotion of Yoga, and initiatives such as ‘Destination India’ and ‘Know India’ in advancing the nation’s national interests.

Since 2014, the Indian government under the leadership of our Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested substantial resources to enhance India’s diplomatic capabilities. Embassies across the world have been increased, and higher levels of interactions with regional organizations like ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), has intensified cultural, economic, and diplomatic relationships with its Eastern and South Asian neighbours through the Look–East Policy, the Act–East Policy, and the Neighbourhood First Policy, all of which are focused on fostering stronger international ties which would translate into commercial and strategic benefits for India.

“There are three trips you take to India: the one you think you’re going to have; the one you actually have; and the one you live through once you go back home”.