The confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in early 2026 marks a significant turning point in the evolution of modern warfare. While missiles, drones, and airpower remain the most visible instruments of military conflict, the deeper transformation lies in the integration of artificial intelligence into nearly every stage of military operations. From intelligence collection and data analysis to target identification, logisticscoordination, and post-strike assessment, AI has begun to reshape the pace, scale, and nature of warfare. The American and Israeli campaign against Iran illustrates how algorithmic systems are increasingly embedded in military decision-making processes, compressing the time required to plan and execute complex operations while generating both strategic advantages and serious ethical concerns.
The escalation of the conflict began on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched a coordinated campaign of air and cyber strikes against Iranian military infrastructure. Fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, and naval platforms targeted missile launch sites, command centres, radar installations, and air defence networks across Iran. Within the first twenty-four hours of the campaign, reports indicated that approximately 1,000 targets had been struck. Such a scale of coordinated attacks would traditionally require weeks of intelligence preparation and operational planning. However, the speed with which these operations unfolded reflected the growing influence of artificial intelligence systems that enabled military planners to process vast volumes of intelligence data and prioritise targets at unprecedented speed.
One of the central technological tools supporting the campaign was the Pentagon’s Maven Smart System, an intelligence analysis platform designed to process large datasets derived from surveillance and reconnaissance sources. Originally developed to analyse drone imagery, the Maven system integrates satellite images, signals intelligence, intercepted communications, and battlefield reports into a unified analytical framework. Artificial intelligence algorithms within the system help identify patterns and anomalies across these datasets, allowing analysts to detect potential military targets far more rapidly than traditional intelligence workflows would permit. In practical terms, the system assists military planners in narrowing vast streams of raw data into prioritised lists of targets that commanders can evaluate before authorising strikes.
The impact of such technologies on military operations is often described as “decision-cycle compression.” Modern battlefields generate enormous volumes of information from satellites, drones, radar networks, cyber surveillance systems, and communications intercepts. In earlier conflicts, intelligence teams required large numbers of analysts to manually process this information, a time-consuming process that slowed operational planning. Artificial intelligence now allows this information to be analysed almost instantly. For example, during the opening phase of the 2026 campaign against Iran, AI-assisted systems reportedly helped military planners identify and prioritise hundreds of potential targets within hours, enabling the rapid coordination of simultaneous strike operations across multiple regions of the country.
Artificial intelligence also played a critical role in intelligence collection and interpretation prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Israeli intelligence agencies had spent years monitoring Iranian communications networks, intercepting signals intelligence, and analysing digital data streams associated with Iran’s military and political leadership. Increasingly, AI tools were used to sift through these vast volumes of intercepted data. Algorithms capable of speech recognition and pattern analysis helped identify key individuals, detect unusual communication patterns, and track movements across digital networks. These systems enabled intelligence agencies to monitor Iranian officials more efficiently and identify potential targets within Iran’s command structure.
In addition to communications analysis, AI systems also assisted in processing surveillance imagery from satellites and drones. Modern military reconnaissance platforms capture massive quantities of high-resolution images covering wide geographic areas. Artificial intelligence algorithms can rapidly scan these images and identify objects that match predefined characteristics, such as missile launchers, military vehicles, radar installations, or weapons storage facilities. By automatically flagging potential targets within these images, AI dramatically reduces the time required analysts to identify military infrastructure and assess its operational significance.
The integration of large language models into military intelligence systems further accelerated analytical processes. Systems such as Anthropic’s Claude were reportedly integrated with the Maven platform to assistanalysts in organising information and summarising intelligence reports. Large language models are particularly effective at synthesising large volumes of textual information, translating intercepted communications, and generating concise analytical summaries. By automating aspects of information processing, these systems enable intelligence teams to focus more directly on strategic interpretation and operational planning.
Despite the sophistication of these technologies, AI systems do not operate autonomously in combat operations. Military officials emphasise that artificial intelligence functions primarily as a decision-support tool rather than an independent weapons system. Commanders remain responsible for evaluating target recommendations and authorising strikes. However, the role of AI in generating and prioritising target lists has significantly accelerated the pace at which military decisions are made. In earlier conflicts, identifying a target might require days of intelligence verification. In the current environment, algorithmic systems can generate target suggestions within seconds.
The growing reliance on artificial intelligence has also transformed the logistical aspects of warfare. AI-enabled planning systems help military commanders allocate resources such as aircraft, missiles, drones, and surveillance assets. By analysing factors such as geographic proximity, weapon effectiveness, and operational risk, these systems recommend which units and weapons are best suited for specific missions. In some respects, the process resembles algorithmic matching systems used in commercial applications, where software rapidly pairs resources with tasks based on multiple variables. For military planners managing large-scale operations, such capabilities significantly improve operational efficiency.
Artificial intelligence also supports post-strike assessments, another critical component of modern warfare. After a strike operation, reconnaissance of drones and satellites collects imagery to evaluate the damage inflicted on targeted facilities. AI algorithms can compare before-and-after images to identify structural damage, detect destroyed equipment, and estimate whether targets have been successfully neutralised. These automated assessments allow commanders to quickly determine whether additional strikes are necessary or whether operations can move on to other objectives.
However, the increasing role of AI in warfare has also generated significant controversy and ethical debate. One of the primary concerns relates to the accuracy and reliability of algorithmic systems used in target identification. While AI systems can process enormous amounts of data, they are not infallible. In testing conducted by the United States military, object recognition algorithms used in intelligence analysis reportedly achieved accuracy rates significantly lower than those of experienced human analysts. Mistakes such as misidentifying civilian vehicles as military equipment can have devastating consequences when translated into targeting decisions.
Another concern involves the phenomenon known as “automation bias,” where human operators place excessive trust in machine-generated recommendations. When algorithmic systems produce target lists or intelligence assessments, there is a risk that analysts may accept these outputs without sufficiently questioning their validity. Over time, reliance on AI systems may also lead to what researchers describe as “cognitive offloading,” where human analysts become less capable of independently evaluating information because they rely heavily on automated tools.
These risks are particularly significant in high-pressure wartime environments where decisions must be made quickly. When artificial intelligence reduces complex analytical processes to rapid algorithmic outputs, commanders may face pressure to act on machine-generated recommendations without extensive deliberation. Critics argue that the accelerating pace of algorithmic warfare may increase the likelihood of errors and unintended civilian casualties.
Civilian casualties have indeed become a central issue in the conflict. Reports indicate that the American and Israeli bombing campaign has caused extensive damage to infrastructure across Iran, including schools, markets, energy facilities, and healthcare centres. Investigations into several strikes have raised questions about whether AI-generated targeting data contributed to errors in identifying military objectives. Although military officials maintain that human oversight remains in place for all strike decisions, the role of AI in shaping the targeting process has drawn intense scrutiny from human rights organisations and legal experts.
The strategic implications of AI-enabled warfare extend beyond individual strikes. Artificial intelligence allows militaries to operate at a tempo that would be impossible using traditional intelligence processes. By compressing decision cycles, AI systems enable rapid escalation of military operations. In the case of the American and Israeli campaign against Iran, the ability to identify and strike hundreds of targets within a single day demonstrated how algorithmic systems can dramatically intensify the pace of warfare.
Iran’s response to the campaign also reflects the growing influence of artificial intelligence in military strategy. Iranian forces launched missile and drone attacks against Israeli territory and American military installations across the Middle East. Some analysts believe that Iranian targeting decisions were also supported by algorithmic systems designed to identify strategic vulnerabilities in the regional infrastructure supporting American and Israeli operations. Notably, Iranian strikes targeted radar installations and data centres associated with surveillance networks and AI-driven command systems, suggesting an awareness of the technological infrastructure underpinning modern warfare.
The conflict has also expanded into the cyber domain, where artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role. Cyber operations accompanying the military campaign targeted communications networks, logisticssystems, and surveillance infrastructure. AI-assisted cyber defence systems help detect anomalies in network activity, identify potential intrusions, and respond to digital threats more rapidly than traditional methods. As cyber warfare becomes more integrated with conventional military operations, artificial intelligence is likely to play a central role in defending digital infrastructure and coordinating cyber responses.
Another emerging dimension of AI-enabled warfare involves attacks on digital infrastructure. Data centres that support cloud computing services and AI workloads have become strategically significant targets because they store and process the data necessary for intelligence analysis and military planning. During the conflict, strikes on data centres in the Gulf region disrupted digital services and highlighted the vulnerability of the technological infrastructure supporting modern military operations. These attacks demonstrate that future conflicts may increasingly focus on digital systems that underpin information processing rather than physical military installations.
The integration of artificial intelligence into warfare also reflects broader technological competition among major powers. AI systems developed by companies such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and other technology firms are increasingly embedded in national security infrastructure. Governments are evaluating which models perform best in intelligence analysis, translation, cybersecurity monitoring, and data processing. The involvement of private technology companies in military operations raises complex questions about the relationship between the technology sector and national security institutions.
At the same time, artificial intelligence remains dependent on human expertise and organisational capacity. Military AI systems require extensive infrastructure, including surveillance networks, data storage facilities, and highly trained personnel capable of managing and interpreting algorithmic outputs. Without these supporting structures, even the most advanced algorithms cannot function effectively. The American and Israeli campaign against Iran demonstrates how decades of investment in intelligence systems, data infrastructure, and military technology have enabled the integration of AI into operational planning.
Ultimately, the use of artificial intelligence in the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran illustrates the beginning of a new phase in the evolution of warfare. AI does not replace human decision-makers, but it fundamentally changes the speed and scale at which military operations can be conducted. Intelligence analysis that once required thousands of analysts can now be performed by small teams supported by algorithmic tools. Target identification that once took days can now occur within minutes. These changes have the potential to reshape strategic planning, operational coordination, and the nature of military conflict itself.
The broader significance of the conflict lies in the demonstration that control over data, algorithms, and digital infrastructure is becoming as important as control over territory or conventional military forces. In an era where artificial intelligence shapes intelligence gathering, targeting decisions, and operational planning, technological superiority may increasingly determine the outcome of conflicts. The American and Israeli attack on Iran therefore represents not only a geopolitical confrontation but also a preview of how artificial intelligence will influence the conduct of war in the twenty-first century.
About the Author
Sonalika Singh began her journey as an UPSC aspirant and has since transitioned into a full-time professional working with various organizations, including NCERT, in the governance and policy sector. She holds a master’s degree in political science and, over the years, has developed a strong interest in international relations, security studies, and geopolitics. Alongside this, she has cultivated a deep passion for research, analysis, and writing. Her work reflects a sustained commitment to rigorous inquiry and making meaningful contributions to the field of public affairs.
West Asia remains one of the most geopolitically volatile regions in the world, yet it continues to occupy a central position in India’s foreign policy priorities. The region is crucial for India’s energy security, trade connectivity, and diaspora welfare, while also serving as a strategic theatre where global and regional powers compete for influence. Over the past decade, India has significantly expanded its engagement with countries across the region through defence cooperation, economic partnerships, and emerging connectivity initiatives. However, the intensifying geopolitical rivalries involving Israel, Iran, the Gulf states, and external powers such as the United States have created a complex diplomatic landscape. For India, navigating these competing interests requires a careful balance between strategic autonomy and pragmatic engagement. As regional conflicts and geopolitical alignments continue to evolve, India’s approach toward West Asia reflects not only its national interests but also its broader vision of shaping a stable and cooperative regional order.
West Asia in India’s Strategic Calculus
West Asia occupies a central place in India’s foreign policy due to its strategic, economic, and geopolitical significance. The region is vital for India’s energy security as a substantial portion of its crude oil and natural gas imports originate from Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. In addition to energy, West Asia hosts one of the largest Indian diasporas in the world, with millions of Indian workers contributing significantly to India’s economy through remittances. These remittances constitute an important source of foreign exchange and support livelihoods across several Indian states. Furthermore, maritime routes passing through the Strait of Hormuz remain critical for India’s trade and energy transportation, making stability in the region an essential element of India’s national security.
Beyond economic interests, West Asia has also emerged as a significant arena for India’s expanding geopolitical engagement. Over the past decade, India has strengthened diplomatic and economic partnerships with multiple countries in the region while maintaining a policy of balanced engagement. India’s participation in emerging multilateral groupings and strategic partnerships reflects its growing ambition to play a larger role in shaping regional economic and security frameworks. However, ongoing conflicts and geopolitical rivalries in the region—particularly those involving Israel, Iran, and the United States—have created a complex environment that requires careful diplomatic navigation. As global power competition intensifies, India’s engagement with West Asia increasingly reflects the broader challenge of balancing national interests with evolving geopolitical realities.
Diplomacy of Balance: Navigating Rival Regional Powers
India’s West Asia policy has traditionally been guided by a principle of strategic balance, allowing it to maintain constructive relationships with multiple actors that often have conflicting interests. One of the most notable examples of this approach is India’s simultaneous engagement with Israel and Iran. India has developed strong defence and technological partnerships with Israel, making it one of its key security partners. Cooperation in areas such as defence technology, agriculture, cybersecurity, and intelligence sharing has grown steadily over the years. At the same time, India has preserved historically significant ties with Iran, driven by civilizational connections, energy cooperation, and strategic connectivity projects such as the Chabahar Port, which provides India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
This balancing strategy has also extended to India’s deepening partnerships with Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Economic cooperation with these countries has expanded significantly, with bilateral trade, investment, and infrastructure partnerships growing rapidly. Recent economic agreements and strategic partnerships illustrate India’s intention to build long-term economic and technological collaboration with Gulf states. However, increasing geopolitical polarization in the region poses challenges for India’s diplomatic balancing. As rivalries intensify between Iran and Israel or between the United States and Iran, maintaining equidistance becomes more difficult, forcing India to carefully calibrate its diplomatic responses to regional crises. In such a complex environment, India must continue to pursue a pragmatic diplomatic approach that safeguards its economic interests while avoiding entanglement in regional conflicts and preserving its long-standing principle of strategic autonomy.
Connectivity and Geoeconomics: The Promise of New Trade Corridors
In recent years, economic connectivity has become a central pillar of India’s West Asia strategy. One of the most ambitious initiatives in this regard is the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which aims to connect India to Europe through a network of railways, ports, energy pipelines, and digital infrastructure across West Asia. The proposed corridor has the potential to significantly reduce transportation time between India and Europe while strengthening trade integration among participating countries. By linking South Asia, the Gulf, and Europe through a modern connectivity network, the project reflects a broader shift toward geoeconomic cooperation in international relations.
Beyond trade facilitation, IMEC also carries important strategic implications. Many analysts view the initiative as part of a broader effort to diversify global supply chains and offer alternatives to existing infrastructure networks dominated by other major powers. For India, the corridor could strengthen its position as a major hub in global trade networks while deepening economic partnerships with Gulf and European economies. However, the success of such large-scale connectivity projects depends heavily on regional stability and sustained political cooperation among participating countries. Ongoing geopolitical tensions in West Asia therefore pose potential challenges to the implementation of such initiatives, particularly in terms of investment security, infrastructure coordination, and long-term political commitment among partner states.
Emerging Security Challenges in West Asia
The security environment in West Asia has become increasingly complex due to persistent conflicts, shifting alliances, and the growing involvement of external powers. Regional rivalries—particularly those involving Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and various non-state actors—continue to generate instability that affects global security and economic networks. For India, these tensions carry direct implications for maritime security, energy supply routes, and the safety of its diaspora. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of India’s oil imports transit, remains one of the most strategically sensitive maritime chokepoints in the world. Any escalation of military confrontation in the region could disrupt shipping routes, trigger volatility in global energy markets, and significantly increase India’s import costs. Consequently, developments in West Asia are closely monitored in New Delhi as part of its broader national security planning.
Recent geopolitical developments highlight the persistence of these challenges. Periodic confrontations between Israel and Iranian-backed groups, the continuing tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, and sporadic missile and drone attacks in the Gulf region underscore the fragile nature of regional stability. These security dynamics not only affect regional actors but also create broader economic repercussions for countries that rely on West Asian energy resources and trade routes. For India, the challenge lies in protecting its strategic interests while avoiding direct involvement in regional conflicts. This requires a combination of diplomatic engagement, maritime cooperation, and crisis management mechanisms with regional partners. By strengthening naval coordination, participating in multilateral security dialogues, and maintaining open communication channels with all major stakeholders, India seeks to mitigate the risks posed by an increasingly uncertain regional security environment.
India’s Expanding Role in Regional Diplomacy
As its global profile rises, India is gradually assuming a more active diplomatic role in West Asia. Unlike many external powers whose involvement in the region has historically been shaped by military alliances or ideological commitments, India’s engagement is largely driven by economic cooperation, development partnerships, and political dialogue. This approach has allowed India to maintain constructive relations with countries across the region despite their differing geopolitical alignments. By emphasizing economic development, infrastructure cooperation, and technology partnerships, India presents itself as a reliable partner focused on mutual growth rather than geopolitical competition.
India’s growing diplomatic presence is also reflected in its participation in emerging regional frameworks and multilateral initiatives. Platforms that bring together countries from South Asia, the Gulf, and the broader Indo-Pacific region increasingly recognize India’s potential role as a bridge between different geopolitical spaces. Through such initiatives, India seeks to promote economic connectivity, technological collaboration, and sustainable development across the region. At the same time, India’s long-standing diplomatic relationships provide it with a unique capacity to engage with actors who may otherwise have limited channels of dialogue. By encouraging communication and cooperation among diverse stakeholders, India can contribute to confidence-building measures and broader regional stability. In the long term, this diplomatic engagement may enable India to play a constructive role in shaping a more cooperative regional order.
Strategic Autonomy and the Future of India’s West Asia Policy
India’s approach to West Asia continues to reflect its broader foreign policy principle of strategic autonomy. Rather than aligning exclusively with any particular geopolitical bloc, India has sought to maintain flexible partnerships with multiple actors while prioritizing its national interests. This strategy allows India to engage simultaneously with competing regional powers, expand economic opportunities, and avoid direct involvement in regional conflicts. In a region characterized by shifting alliances and recurring tensions, such diplomatic flexibility has been a crucial element of India’s foreign policy success.
However, the evolving geopolitical environment may test the sustainability of this approach. Intensifying conflicts, growing great-power competition, and increasing expectations from strategic partners could limit India’s room for manoeuvre in the future. India will therefore need to strengthen diplomatic engagement, expand economic cooperation, and support multilateral dialogue to protect its interests in the region. By combining economic connectivity initiatives with proactive diplomacy, India can continue to play a constructive role in promoting stability and cooperation in West Asia while safeguarding its long-term strategic objectives.
Conclusion
India’s engagement with West Asia illustrates the delicate balance between geopolitical pragmatism and strategic autonomy that defines its foreign policy. The region’s importance for India extends far beyond energy imports, encompassing trade corridors, maritime security, diaspora welfare, and emerging economic partnerships. As geopolitical tensions persist and global power competition increasingly intersects with regional rivalries, India’s ability to maintain balanced relationships with diverse actors will remain a key diplomatic challenge. At the same time, initiatives focused on economic connectivity and multilateral cooperation provide opportunities for India to contribute constructively to regional stability and development. Ultimately, the success of India’s West Asia policy will depend on its capacity to combine diplomatic flexibility with long-term strategic vision, ensuring that its engagement with the region continues to support both national interests and broader goals of regional peace and economic integration.
At the same time, the rapidly evolving geopolitical environment in West Asia demands that India remain proactive rather than reactive in its diplomatic approach. Conflicts, shifting alliances, and economic transformations in the region will continue to influence global energy markets, trade routes, and security dynamics, all of which have direct implications for India’s strategic interests. By strengthening political dialogue with regional partners, enhancing maritime cooperation, and actively participating in multilateral platforms, India can play a constructive role in promoting stability and conflict management. Furthermore, deeper economic engagement through infrastructure projects, technology partnerships, and trade initiatives will help institutionalize long-term cooperation between India and West Asian states.
Looking ahead, India’s West Asia policy must also integrate emerging global priorities such as sustainable development, renewable energy collaboration, and digital connectivity. As Gulf countries diversify their economies and invest in new sectors, opportunities for partnership in innovation, green energy, and logistics are likely to expand. By aligning its strategic and economic initiatives with these transformations, India can strengthen its position as a trusted and long-term partner in the region. In this sense, West Asia will remain not only a critical component of India’s foreign policy but also an important arena where India’s aspirations for greater global influence and regional cooperation will increasingly unfold in the coming decades.
About the Author
Khushbu Ahlawat is a research analyst with a strong academic background in International Relations and Political Science. She has undertaken research projects at Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributing to analytical work on international and regional security issues. Alongside her research experience, she has professional exposure to Human Resources, with involvement in talent acquisition and organizational operations. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from Christ University, Bangalore, and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi.
The direct confrontation between Iran, Israel, and the United States that began in the last week of February has brought West Asia to a strategic turning point where regional war, missile technology, proxy networks and global power competition are appearing together. This conflict is no longer just a military clash between two or three countries; rather, it is gradually becoming an important dimension of a broader geostrategic restructuring. The conflict began when the United States and Israel launched joint air operations under the name operation epic fury and lion’s Roar against several Iranian military and security installations. These attacks targeted military command centers in Tehran, defense production structures in Isfahan and certain missile infrastructures. The objective was to weaken Iran’s long-range missile capability and damage the military structures associated with its nuclear program. In the initial phase, therefore, the attacks were mainly focused on military and strategic structures.
Immediately after these attacks, the way Iran responded took the conflict to a new stage. Moving beyond limited retaliation, Iran targeted the American and Israeli military network spread across the Middle East. In its retaliatory strikes, Iran used Fateh-110, Zolfaghar, Qiam-1, and Shahab series ballistic missiles, along with Soumar and Ya-Ali cruise missiles and long-range attack drones. In fact, the strike range of these missile systems is said to extend from several hundred kilometers to more than two thousand kilometers, which makes them fully capable of targeting Israel and American military bases located in the Gulf region. This strength increases further when the Dastvareh barracks in northwest Tehran geographically manages a wider network very effectively. In reality, such attacks are part of Iran’s well-considered asymmetric deterrence military strategy, in which it knows well how to balance a much stronger opponent through missiles and drones despite limited resources. As a result, the pace with which the United States was advancing through USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) had to be adjusted as Iran’s missile strike capability forced them to move out of its range.
In this context, it is also necessary to understand that in modern warfare it is no longer only the traditional army or air force that is decisive. Low-cost drones, mobile missile systems, and artificial intelligence are also changing the direction of war. Over the past two decades, Iran has invested heavily in its missile and drone capabilities, and this is why, despite relatively limited resources, it has been able to challenge powerful countries such as the United States and Israel.
The most important aspect of Iran’s strategy was that it targeted those bases that are considered the main centers of American military presence in the Middle East. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Naval Support Activity Bahrain in Bahrain, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, Ali Al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait, Muwaffaq Al-Salti Air Base in Jordan, and Ain Al-Asad and Erbil Air Bases in Iraq came within the potential range of Iranian missile and drone strikes. These bases were selected not only because of their strategic importance but also because they are key centers for America’s regional air operations, surveillance missions, and logistics networks. From a geopolitical perspective, it must be remembered clearly that if the operational capacity of these bases is affected, the regional military capability of the United States could be directly limited.
The second dimension of Iran’s attacks appears through its proxy network. Several militia groups active in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon intensified attacks on American and Israeli targets. In Iraq, a Shia militia organization claimed a drone attack on a US military facility near Baghdad airport. Similarly, attempts were made to target American soldiers in the Erbil region. Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has rocket reach toward northern Israel, and Iraqi militias attacking US bases made it clear through their activity that this regional conflict is gradually turning into a multi-front proxy war.
To understand this entire conflict, its historical context is also important. Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, relations between Iran and Israel have remained deeply antagonistic. Before the revolution, Iran under the Shah maintained relatively cooperative strategic and economic ties with both Israel and the United States. However, the revolution brought a major ideological transformation. The new Islamic Republic under Ruhollah Khomeini severed diplomatic relations with Israel, closed its embassy in Tehran, and adopted a strongly anti-Zionist position. At the same time, Iran-U.S. relations sharply deteriorated following the Iran hostage crisis, which entrenched decades of hostility. Since then, Iran has increasingly relied on regional proxy networks and ideological resistance to challenge Israeli and American influence in West Asia. Over the past four decades, the two countries have experienced several indirect confrontations, which are often described as shadow wars. In these shadow wars, cyber attacks, covert military operations, and the use of proxy organizations have been key strategies. For example, the Stuxnet cyber-attack that affected Iran’s nuclear energy program and the periodic Israeli air strikes in Syria are considered part of this shadow conflict. However, in the present era another important dimension of this war is connected with maritime geopolitics, or more specifically maritime chokepoint geopolitics. The Strait of Hormuz in West Asia is one of the most important routes for global energy supply. Nearly one-fifth of the world’s total seaborne oil trade passes through this route. If military tension in this region continues to increase or if naval confrontation occurs, it will have a direct impact on the global energy market. This is why the United States decided to further strengthen its naval presence in the Gulf region and reinforce the deployment of aircraft carriers. From the initial attacks to the current confrontation, this naval presence has been actively used.
Within this emerging trend of missile-centric warfare, several possible scenarios appear regarding the future direction of the conflict. The first scenario is that diplomatic pressure may gradually limit the conflict to restricted military actions. This would happen only if Iran’s military capacity becomes extremely weak, or if it compromises its sovereignty, or if civil unrest begins there. However, current trends suggest that this scenario may no longer be effective, especially if, after the death of Khamenei, the population has emotionally united. It now appears more likely that Iran may continue strong resistance in direct confrontation, and even if it suffers military damage, the possibility of surrender seems low; in such a situation the conflict may even shift from conventional war to guerrilla warfare. The second scenario is that the war may spread across the entire Middle East and countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf states may become fully involved. In such a case, if the conflict becomes more complex than expected, the United States may itself prefer that a third party or mediator appeal for a ceasefire. The third and more complicated scenario is that the conflict becomes part of global power competition, in which countries such as the United States, Russia, and China become indirectly involved. In that case, the war could continue for a long time without any clear decisive result, and instability may persist throughout the region. This would have wide-ranging effects on the security of West Asia as well as on maritime routes.
In this context, the role of the Indian Ocean region and India also becomes important. If American military bases in the Middle East remain under constant threat or their operational capacity becomes limited, the United States may need alternative logistical and strategic support in the Indian Ocean region. In such a situation, the possibility of cooperation from India could also be discussed. However, India’s foreign policy has long been based on strategic autonomy, and therefore India will need to maintain its diplomatic balance in any such situation. Under the current circumstances, India needs to adopt a realistic and far-sighted diplomatic approach instead of an overly generous or unclear position. Current developments indicate that Iran’s position appears stronger than expected, and the limited war strategy with which the United States moved forward now seems to be turning into a partially incorrect assessment. This may also be the reason why the United States has not formally declared it as a war so far.
In the coming years, this conflict will significantly affect not only the regional balance of power but also the direction of global geopolitics. As a result, a geographical pressure arc will emerge in West Asia. This will be a pressure arc in which energy routes, military bases, and great power competition will converge to create a new geopolitical reality. Considering all these possibilities, India must determine its diplomatic position carefully. If India continues to maintain an unclear or excessively neutral stance, it may weaken its strategic credibility and leadership capacity at the international level. Therefore, it is necessary for India to give balanced but clear diplomatic signals so that its national interests remain protected while its global role also remains strong.
The Department of Political Science of Galsi Mahavidyalaya successfully organized the Seventh International Seminar on 6–7 March at the college seminar hall. The conference was financially supported by the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi, and was jointly organised in collaboration with Guskara Mahavidyalaya and the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies. The two-day international academic event focused on India’s federal model, pluralist character, and democratic governance in the contemporary global context.
The seminar sought to examine how India has managed to sustain unity amid enormous diversity in religion, language, culture, and ethnicity through its federal democratic structure. At a time when many parts of the world are witnessing crises of democracy, multicultural tensions, and declining political tolerance, the conference highlighted how the Indian federal system continues to integrate diverse communities while maintaining democratic stability.
The seminar witnessed the participation of eminent scholars, diplomats, and researchers from India and abroad. Among the distinguished speakers were Siri Hettige, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka; Harihar Bhattacharyya, renowned scholar of federalism and former Professor of Political Science at the University of Burdwan; Former Professor Shibranjan Chatterjee, Omprakash Mishra, former Vice-Chancellor of North Bengal University and currently a Professor Jadavpur University; Arvind Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University; and Chintamani Mahapatra, former Professor at JNU. Other distinguished speakers included Lt. Col. J S Sodhi, Professor Jared Sonnicksen from Aachen University, Germany, Dr. Jhumpa Mukherjee of St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata; Professor Biswanath Chakraborty of Rabindra Bharati University; and Dr. Debasish Nandy of Kazi Nazrul University.
Delivering the keynote address, Professor Harihar Bhattacharyya presented a comprehensive analysis of Indian federalism and highlighted how the federal structure has evolved as a mechanism to manage diversity while maintaining national unity. He emphasised that Indian federalism represents a dynamic system that balances central authority with regional autonomy. Professor Omprakash Mishra discussed the complexities of centre–state relations in India, explaining how cooperative federalism and institutional negotiations have contributed to political stability and democratic continuity. Professor Biswanath Chakraborty provided an insightful analysis of the proposed “One Nation One Election” (ONOE) system and its implications for democratic governance and the federal balance.
Dr. Jhumpa Mukherjee elaborated on the federal provisions of the Constitution of India, explaining how constitutional safeguards ensure both national unity and regional autonomy. Dr. Debasish Nandy highlighted the role of India’s border states in shaping federal policies, particularly in the context of foreign policy formulation and regional diplomacy.
Professor Siri Hettige, Emiratus Professor from Sri Lanka delivered an important comparative lecture on pluralist constitutionalism in Sri Lanka and India, discussing how both countries have attempted to manage ethnic and cultural diversity through democratic frameworks.
Lt. Col. J. S. Sodhi delivered two significant lectures during the seminar. On the first day, he spoke on “Why Unity in Diversity is Important in India in View of External Challenges,” emphasising that India’s social cohesion and pluralistic identity are critical for national security in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment. On the second day, he presented another lecture titled “India’s Biggest Challenge since 1947: The 3.5-Front War Threat,” where he analysed emerging strategic challenges for India, including external security threats and internal vulnerabilities.
Professor Arvind Kumar delivered a historically grounded lecture on the evolution and functioning of Indian federalism, tracing its development from colonial constitutional arrangements to the contemporary democratic system. Professor Chintamani Mahapatra highlighted why the Indian model of federalism and democracy holds global relevance, explaining how India has managed to sustain democratic governance despite extraordinary social diversity.
The seminar began with an introductory address by Dr. Abhisek Karmakar, Associate Professor of Political Science, Convener of the seminar, and IQAC Coordinator of the college. In his remarks, Dr. Karmakar argued that the Indian model of federalism and democracy is fundamentally distinct from many Western theoretical frameworks, as it has evolved through the accommodation of deep social diversity and cultural pluralism. He stressed the need for more academic discussions and scholarly initiatives to decolonize political science discourse and interpret Indian democracy from indigenous perspectives.
The conference also featured several parallel technical sessions where scholars and researchers from various universities and colleges presented their research papers. The sessions were chaired by distinguished academics including Dr. Prasenjit Pal of Diamond Harbour University, Dr. Shilpa Nandy of Khudiram Bose Central College, Dr. Swagata Bhattacharyya of Vivekananda Mission College, Dr. Amrita Banerjee of Bidhan Chandra College, Asansol, Dr. Sabina Begum of Guskara Mahavidyalaya, Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Biswas of the Central University of Jharkhand, and Dr. Debatanu Maji of Bidhan Chandra College, Rishra, among others.
To encourage young scholars, Best Paper Awards were presented to several participants for their outstanding research presentations. Among the awardees were Subhra Debnath, Rahul Halder, Parna Ganguli, Binni Kumari, Puja Kumari, Shivam Kharel, and several others.
College Principal Dr. Amit Tiwary stated that organising such international seminars has become an integral part of the academic culture of the institution. He also mentioned that another international seminar had been organised by the department earlier in January this year. The President of the Governing Body, Mr. Partha Mondal, was present and played an important role in ensuring the success of the event.
Dr. Sudip Chatterjee, Principal of Guskara Mahavidyalaya and a joint organiser of the seminar, remained present throughout the two-day programme and contributed significantly to its success. Principals of several colleges associated with Galsi Mahavidyalaya through MoU collaborations were also invited, including Dr. Bijoy Chand of Raj College, Burdwan, and Dr. Pradip Banerjee of Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya.
The sessions were skillfully moderated by Dr. Shukla Barman of the Department of English, Galsi Mahavidyalaya. Over the two days, the seminar provided a vibrant intellectual platform for scholars and students to discuss India’s federal model, democratic resilience, and pluralist character in the context of contemporary global challenges.
About the Author
Dr Abhisek Karmakar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Galsi Mahavidyalaya, West Bengal, India. He also teaches in Rabindra Bharati University as an ad-hoc faculty. He completed his MPhil and PhD at the University of Burdwan. His book, Making of a Democratic Intellectual Tradition in India, was published in 2019 from Germany and Mauritius. He has authored over 41 articles in international and national journals including UGC CARE listed journals. In 2025, his co-authored book Federal Thought, is set to be published as it is signed by Routledge. He edited Challenges to Democracy in South Asia (2021) and has co-edited three additional books. A regular contributor to major English dailies, Dr. Karmakar has participated in international conferences in Germany, Italy, South Korea and Bangladesh. He is a life member of several academic associations and frequently appears in electronic media as a political analyst.
The parliamentary elections in Bangladesh were held recently on 12 February 2026. The elections marked one of the most significant political transitions in Bangladesh in decades. The victory of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Tarique Rahman, put an end of the Interim government by Muhammad Yunus and opened a new chapter in Bangladesh’s domestic politics and foreign relations.
Two years after a mass uprising that toppled the government of Sheikh Hasina, the country saw the leadership of Muhammad Yunus. Now it is in the hands of Rahman, whose party won 212 of the 300 seats in the parliament. While the election was somewhat exceptional and mostly about governance, democratic reforms, and economic recovery, however, it reignited an old question back into focus— how are relations between India and Bangladesh likely to evolve in the future? To a large extent the answer depends on the perception of India among the general population in Bangladesh.
Why India-Bangladesh Relation Became a Sensitive Issue
India has long been a crucial factor for Bangladesh’s political discourse, and Bangladesh is equally important for India. India-Bangladesh cooperation on trade, energy connectivity, and security extended very efficiently during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure. However, critics inside Bangladesh argued that Dhaka had become too dependent on New Delhi. According to many opposition leaders, India was perceived as a state backing the previous government politically and diplomatically. As a result, public sentiment towards India often became negative and begun to shape political conversation.
Anti-Indian remarks became new normal
Anti-India statements and even actions were frequently reported throughout these 18 months period. The most provocative remarks were related to India’s seven Northeastern states. At a protest rally, NCP leader Hasnat Abdullah said “seven sisters will be separated from India,”. Even the interim leader did not refrain from criticising India. In his speech during his visit to China, he specifically described India’s Northeast region as “landlocked” and suggested China to expand its presence in the region, and also Bangladesh could serve as a vital gateway to the ocean. He also added, “Bangladesh can provide huge potential for economic prosperity for the seven sister states, Nepal and Bhutan.” More shocking statement came after a terror attack in Pahalgam district of Jammu and Kashmir, when a retired Major General ALM Fazlur Rahman wrote on social media that, “If India attacks Pakistan, then Bangladesh should occupy all Northeastern states”. Even in his farewell speech, Muhammad Yunus made a point of mentioning the region. Following the political turmoil and transition, there were also incidents targeting minority Hindu communities. Several homes, businesses and temples belonging to Hindus were vandalised by mobs. On 18 December, a Hindu man named Dipu Chandra Das was reportedly lynched and burned by a mob after accusations of blasphemy in Bangladesh. During his tenure, Bangladesh witnessed a significant surge in anti-India sentiment.
Simultaneously, in India, certain politicians and civil society members have expressed a range of offensive remarks targeting Bangladeshis, with some referring to Bangladeshi migrants in derogatory terms such as “termites.” Such language has naturally sparked outrage in Bangladesh and raised concerns about communal tensions and the perception of Bangladeshis in India. Adding fuel to that was the death of Sharif Osman Hadi, who was a key figure in Bangladesh’s 2024 student-led uprising. He was a vocal critic of Indian influence in Bangladeshi politics. So, a claim that India was involved has circulated, adding another layer of sensitivity to India–Bangladesh relations leading Indian authorities to temporarily close visa centres in some areas.
A Political Recalibration in Bangladesh
In 2024, turmoil gripped Bangladesh and it wasn’t long before headlines across major media outlets reported the exile of Sheikh Hasina. Bangladesh did not hold an election during this period of 18 months as reforms were being prepared and political tensions were settling.
The BNP secured a clear parliamentary majority, allowing Rahman to form the government and begin shaping Bangladesh’s domestic and foreign policy priorities. Determined to restore democracy, he stated, “this victory belongs to Bangladesh, belongs to democracy,”. Leaders from around the world, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, congratulated Rahman on social media and later spoke with him to reaffirm India’s commitment to close bilateral ties. In response, the BNP expressed gratitude to India for acknowledging the outcome.
Following his electoral victory, Tarique Rahman signalled that Bangladesh would pursue constructive ties with India while prioritizing its own national interests first. He emphasized that Dhaka seeks cooperation with all neighbours but expects relations to be based on mutual respect, fairness, and reciprocity. Rahman stated that, “The interests of Bangladesh and its people comes first and it will determine our foreign policy.”
Rahman, the son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and former President Ziaur Rahman, recently lost his mother. Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, representing India attended the funeral, which General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, BNP secretary took it as a “a positive gesture”. Mentioning about Sheikh Hasina he also stated that “in the long run, she will not remain relevant in politics. Relations between India and Bangladesh can and should move forward beyond her” and “we want to build even better ties.”
BNP’s 31-point agenda presents an opportunity to specify that issues such as trade balance, water sharing, border management, and regional connectivity would likely be approached from a more interest-driven perspective. Rahman’s remarks suggested that his government is likely to focus on recalibrate the relationship in order to project foreign policy that is less aligned with any single external partner.
The new government seems to have adopted a relatively practical approach toward India. Rahman now faces the burden of repairing the strain in relations that developed during the period of the Interim government. Analysts highlighted that the leadership in Dhaka appears to be interested in stabilizing relations rather than escalating tensions. Recently Foreign Minister Dr Khalilur Rahman commented that “We aim to maintain good relations with all countries, especially our neighbours, based on respect and mutual benefit.” There are some early signs of a thaw in relations or at least positive shift from both sides in that direction.
Mixed Public Sentiment
Bangladeshi public outlook towards India are rarely uniform. They tend to reflect several domestic political considerations and broader regional dynamics. People in Bangladesh generally recognize India’s geographic and economic importance. Ranging from trade routes, energy cooperation, to border management, these issues make engagement unavoidable. However, issues such as water sharing, border incidents, and trade imbalances continue to generate uncertainty and fuel a culture of finger-pointing among the general people.
Certain political groups or members and civil society actors remain doubtful of India’s intentions and influence in Bangladeshi politics. People blame India for supporting Hasina. Reflecting this sentiment Humaiun Kobir, foreign affairs adviser noted that, “people in Bangladesh see India as complicit with Sheikh Hasina’s crimes.” Another indication of the tense relations came recently in January, when the Bangladesh withdrew from the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 after its cricket board opposed travelling to India. There are very few signs of warm or enthusiastic sentiment towards India among ordinary Bangladeshis at the grassroots level.
However, at present, to a large extent, the focus of the general public priorities tend to focus more on governance, jobs, and global integration rather than ideological positions on India. Although, scepticism towards India still exists, but such priorities have not manifested in anti-India action. For the time being, the outlook is generally mixed, though not entirely hostile.
What the Election Means for India
From New Delhi’s standpoint, the election and the new administration presents both challenges and opportunities. During interim government in Bangladesh, there were repeated calls urging India to hand over Hasina and senior members of Awami League who left the country after the uprising. However, India has yet to respond publicly. The new government may raise the issue to address domestic political expectations.
India seems to be adjusting to a leadership that has historically had a more complicated relationship with it. However, with all changes, there is an opportunity to restructure relations on a broader institutional foundation rather than depending heavily on personal ties with former leaders. Strategic observers and regional analysts believe that the relationship could enter a more interest-driven and somewhat conditional phase, based on economic cooperation and strategic necessities rather than political alignment.
Regional Implications
The political transformation in Bangladesh also has implications beyond India. Strategically, Bangladesh occupies an important position between South and Southeast Asia. Its foreign policy decisions certainly influence regional dynamics involving neighbouring states. This is particularly significant for India, as Bangladesh lies close to the Siliguri Corridor, which is a crucial land link to the seven Northeastern states. Aa a result, New Delhi remains sensitive to Dhaka’s growing engagement with China and Pakistan.
The recent Bangladesh election is widely seen as ending the Awami League’s long alignment with India and initiate potential closeness with Pakistan. China at the same time has intensified its diplomatic connections and investment in Dhaka. Constantino Xavier, a senior fellow at New Delhi think-tank Centre for Social and Economic Progress, said that, “China is steadily building its influence both in the open and behind the scenes, benefiting from the crisis in India-Bangladesh relations”. China’s, the Bay of Bengal, and regional connectivity initiatives further enhance evolving power dynamics. Hence, the election attracted significant attention from both international and regional actors concerned about geopolitical alignment.
Conclusion
One month after the 2026 elections, the outlook for India among Bangladeshis and its new administration appears to be evolving but not drastically changing. Political authority may fluctuate, and debates about sovereignty and influence might still continue, but ground realities—geography, trade, and security still bind the two neighbours together. The 2026 elections therefore revived this discussion, particularly among the new generation of voters, who were prominent during the 2024 protests.
The real test of India-Bangladesh relations will come in the months ahead. If the new government can address domestic interests and expectations while managing relations with India, practically, the post-election period may lead to repositioning partnerships. Therefore, one month after election… it would be too soon to comment on how Bangladesh’s foreign policy towards India will evolve, however, early indications suggest that Dhaka is very likely to pursue a balanced foreign policy and a careful adjustment rather than a dramatic change in attitudes towards India.
About the Author
Trishnakhi Parashar is an enthusiastic and dedicated learner with a Master’s degree in International Relations/Politics from Sikkim Central University. Her academic journey is further enriched by a certification in Human Rights and Duties, a Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resource Management from Tezpur University, and a Diploma in International Affairs and Diplomacy from Indian Institute of Governance and Leadership.
Having begun her career at Tech Mahindra, Trishnakhi transitioned into the research field to pursue her deep-rooted passion for international affairs. She is currently interning at Global Strategic and Defence News, where she continues to refine her analytical skills. Her core interests include international relations, terrorism, diplomacy, and geopolitics—fields she explores with rigor and critical insight. Trishnakhi is committed to meticulous research and driven by a determination to contribute meaningfully to global discourse. With a vision to carve out her own niche, she aspires to leave a lasting impact on contemporary international issues.
The parliamentary elections held in Nepal on 5 March 2026 represent one of the most consequential political developments in the country since the democratic transition of the early 1990s. The results have produced a dramatic restructuring of Nepal’s political landscape, signalling a generational shift in leadership and a profound transformation in public attitudes toward governance. The rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), led by Balendra Shah popularly known as Balen has challenged the long-standing dominance of traditional political forces such as the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist). For India, Nepal’s closest neighbour and one of its most strategically important partners in South Asia, the outcome of these elections carries far-reaching geopolitical, economic and diplomatic implications. The emergence of a new political leadership in Kathmandu offers opportunities for renewed engagement but also introduces uncertainties in the evolving dynamics of India–Nepal relations.
The 2026 elections were conducted in a highly charged political environment shaped by the youth-led protests of September 2025. These demonstrations, often referred to as the Gen-Z movement, were triggered by deep frustration among younger citizens over corruption, unemployment, political patronage, and perceived authoritarian tendencies within the ruling establishment. The immediate spark came from the government’s controversial attempt to restrict social media platforms, which many young Nepalis interpreted as an attempt to suppress dissent. What began as online mobilisation rapidly evolved into large-scale protests across the country. The demonstrations escalated into violence during the “Day of Rage” protests of 8–9 September 2025, resulting in the deaths of 76 people and injuries to more than 2,000 others. The crisis ultimately forced the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the dissolution of parliament. An interim administration led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki oversaw the transition to fresh elections, promising to restore political stability while responding to the demands of the protest movement.
The elections thus became more than a routine democratic exercise; they represented a referendum on Nepal’s established political order. For more than three decades, the country’s politics had been dominated by a limited group of leaders and parties, primarily the Nepali Congress and various communist factions. While these parties played a central role in Nepal’s democratic transition and the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, their prolonged dominance gradually produced widespread dissatisfaction. Frequent changes in government, factional infighting, corruption scandals and limited economic progress eroded public confidence in traditional leadership. Over the past two decades, Nepal witnessed fourteen changes of government, reflecting chronic political instability that hindered policy continuity and economic development. The Gen-Z protests brought these grievances into sharp focus, highlighting a generational demand for accountability, transparency, and new leadership.
Against this backdrop, the Rastriya Swatantra Party emerged as a powerful political alternative. Founded in June 2022 by media personality Rabi Lamichhane, the party quickly gained traction among urban voters, professionals and young citizens seeking a break from conventional political practices. Its emphasis on clean governance, institutional reform, and economic modernisation resonated strongly with voters disillusioned by the failures of traditional parties. The entry of Balendra Shah into the party’s leadership further strengthened its appeal. Shah, a civil engineer, former rapper and the widely popular mayor of Kathmandu, had already built a reputation as a reform-oriented administrator who challenged entrenched interests. His ability to communicate directly with young voters through social media and grassroots engagement transformed the RSP’s campaign into a nationwide movement for political renewal.
The electoral results reflected the depth of this transformation. The RSP delivered a stunning performance, capturing the overwhelming majority of directly elected seats and emerging as the dominant force in proportional representation. The party’s projected overall tally of around 180 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives places it close to a two-thirds majority an achievement rarely seen in Nepal’s democratic history. The outcome simultaneously marked the collapse of traditional parties. The Nepali Congress, once the leading political force in the country, was reduced to a small parliamentary presence, while the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) suffered an even more dramatic decline. The symbolic centrepiece of this political upheaval occurred in the eastern constituency of Jhapa-5, where Balendra Shah defeated former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, a veteran leader who had dominated Nepali politics for decades. The result was widely interpreted as a clear rejection of the old political elite.
The rise of the RSP reflects broader structural changes within Nepali society. Demographic shifts have significantly increased the political influence of younger voters. Nearly one million first-time voters participated in the 2026 elections, many of whom belonged to the digitally connected generation that organised the protests of 2025. For this generation, ideological debates that once defined Nepal’s political competition have become less relevant than issues of governance, employment and economic opportunity. Their political preferences are shaped less by traditional party loyalties and more by expectations of efficiency, accountability, and transparency. This transformation in voter priorities compelled even established parties to alter their campaign strategies, emphasising economic development and service delivery rather than ideological narratives.
For India, these political developments carry significant implications. India and Nepal share a unique and deeply interconnected relationship shaped by geography, history, culture and economics. The two countries share an open border of more than 1,700 kilometers, enabling the free movement of people and goods. Millions of Nepali citizens work in India, while large numbers of Indian pilgrims and tourists travel to Nepal each year. Economic ties are equally strong. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, its principal source of investment and the primary market for its hydropower exports. The two countries also cooperate closely in areas such as energy connectivity, infrastructure development, and disaster management. Given this depth of interdependence, political changes in Kathmandu inevitably influence India’s strategic environment.
One of the most immediate implications of the election results is the possibility of greater political stability in Nepal. The country’s history of fragile coalition governments has often complicated policy implementation and slowed economic reforms. A strong parliamentary majority for the RSP could provide a rare opportunity for stable governance and long-term planning. For India, political stability in Nepal is generally viewed as beneficial because it reduces uncertainty in bilateral projects and facilitates sustained cooperation. Several major Indian-backed infrastructure initiatives, including hydropower projects such as Arun-3 and cross-border electricity transmission lines, had slowed during the political turmoil of 2025. The emergence of a stable government may enable these projects to regain momentum, strengthening regional energy connectivity and supporting Nepal’s economic growth.
Energy cooperation represents one of the most promising areas of India–Nepal partnership. Nepal possesses enormous hydropower potential, estimated at more than 40,000 megawatts of economically feasible capacity. However, the country has struggled to develop this resource due to political instability, regulatory challenges, and infrastructure constraints. In recent years, India has become an important partner in Nepal’s hydropower development, both as an investor and as a market for electricity exports. Nepal has already begun exporting several hundred megawatts of electricity to India, and this figure is expected to increase significantly in the coming years. A government committed to economic modernisation and infrastructure development could accelerate hydropower projects, benefiting both countries through increased energy trade and regional energy security.
At the same time, the new political landscape in Nepal also presents diplomatic challenges for India. The RSP’s leadership has occasionally expressed strong nationalist sentiments and criticised what some Nepalis perceive as India’s “big brother” approach in bilateral relations. Issues such as border disputes, economic dependence, and political interference have periodically generated tensions between the two countries. The territorial disagreements involving Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura remain particularly sensitive. These disputes intensified in 2020 when Nepal published a revised political map incorporating the contested territories. Although both sides have since attempted to manage the issue through diplomatic channels, it continues to influence public perceptions in Nepal.
Balendra Shah’s political rhetoric has sometimes emphasised Nepal’s need for greater strategic autonomy in its foreign policy. This emphasis reflects a broader trend among younger Nepali leaders who seek to diversify the country’s international partnerships. While such an approach does not necessarily imply hostility toward India, it suggests that the new government may pursue a more assertive and independent diplomatic posture. For India, this means that managing relations with Nepal will require greater sensitivity to Nepali public opinion and a willingness to engage with emerging political actors who may not share the traditional patterns of bilateral engagement.
Another important dimension of Nepal’s foreign policy is its relationship with China. Over the past decade, China has expanded its economic presence in Nepal through infrastructure investments, trade and development assistance. Many of these initiatives are linked to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), under which China has financed projects such as highways, airports and hydropower facilities. The expansion of Chinese influence in Nepal has occasionally generated strategic concerns in New Delhi, particularly because Nepal occupies a critical geographical position between the two Asian powers. India traditionally regarded Nepal as part of its immediate strategic neighbourhood, and the increasing involvement of external actors has altered the regional balance.
The new government in Kathmandu is likely to continue Nepal’s long-standing strategy of balancing relations between India and China. This approach reflects Nepal’s geopolitical reality as a small state located between two major powers. By maintaining constructive relations with both neighbours, Nepal seeks to maximise economic opportunities while preserving its political autonomy. However, the way this balancing strategy is implemented will influence India’s strategic calculations. If Nepal deepens its economic engagement with China through large-scale infrastructure projects or expanded security cooperation, India may view these developments with caution.
At the same time, the presence of a strong and popular government in Nepal could create opportunities for more constructive regional diplomacy. A leadership that enjoys broad domestic support may be better positioned to pursue pragmatic economic partnerships with both neighbours without being constrained by internal political rivalries. For India, engaging proactively with the new Nepali leadership could help build mutual trust and reduce misunderstandings that have periodically affected bilateral relations.
Economic cooperation will remain a central pillar of India–Nepal relations in the coming years. Beyond hydropower, the two countries are working to strengthen connectivity through cross-border railways, highways, and integrated check posts. Improved transport infrastructure has the potential to boost trade, tourism, and investment. Nepal’s strategic location between India and China also creates opportunities for it to function as a transit hub linking South Asia with the Himalayan region and beyond. If managed effectively, this connectivity could contribute to broader regional economic integration.
Another important aspect of bilateral relations is the movement of people across the open border. The India–Nepal border is one of the most unique international frontiers in the world, allowing citizens of both countries to travel, work and reside freely in each other’s territory. This arrangement has fostered deep social and cultural connections but has also created occasional security concerns related to smuggling and illegal activities. Maintaining the benefits of open borders while addressing emerging security challenges will remain an important priority for both governments.
Ultimately, the 2026 elections in Nepal represent a historic turning point in the country’s democratic evolution. The rise of the Rastriya Swatantra Party and the defeat of established political elites demonstrate the power of generational change and public demand for accountable governance. Whether this transformation leads to lasting institutional reform or simply inaugurates, another phase of political experimentation remains uncertain. Much will depend on the ability of the new leadership to translate its electoral mandate into effective governance and economic progress.
For India, the moment calls for careful diplomatic recalibration. The political landscape in Nepal has changed significantly, and the assumptions that guided bilateral relations in the past may no longer be sufficient. Rather than viewing Nepal’s political transformation with apprehension, India has an opportunity to engage constructively with the new leadership and support Nepal’s aspirations for stability and development. By strengthening economic cooperation, respecting Nepal’s sovereignty and addressing sensitive issues through dialogue, India can help ensure that the evolving relationship remains mutually beneficial.
In this sense, the 2026 elections mark not only a domestic political shift within Nepal but also a critical moment for regional diplomacy. As Nepal navigates a new phase of political leadership and policy priorities, the future of India–Nepal relations will depend on the ability of both countries to adapt to changing circumstances while preserving the deep historical ties that have long connected them. If managed wisely, this period of transformation could open the door to a more balanced, cooperative, and forward-looking partnership between the two neighbours.
About the Author
Sonalika Singh began her journey as an UPSC aspirant and has since transitioned into a full-time professional working with various organizations, including NCERT, in the governance and policy sector. She holds a master’s degree in political science and, over the years, has developed a strong interest in international relations, security studies, and geopolitics. Alongside this, she has cultivated a deep passion for research, analysis, and writing. Her work reflects a sustained commitment to rigorous inquiry and making meaningful contributions to the field of public affairs.
Japan’s unwavering dedication to Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a testament to its transformative influence on the global stage. Since its inaugural participation in the Colombo Plan during the 1950s, Japan has embarked on a journey of progress, innovation, and exemplary leadership in international development. The strategic expansion and diversification of Japan’s ODA initiatives, notably observed in the 1960s and 1980s, propelled the nation to emerge as a pivotal donor, second only to the United States by 1989. Milestones such as the introduction of ODA loans, the establishment of the Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers program, grant aid, and the creation of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) underscored Japan’s commitment to global development.
In subsequent decades, Japan further solidified its position as a top donor, evidenced by establishing the ODA Charter in 1992 and the inception of the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) process in 1993. Initiatives like the inaugural Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting 1997 showcased Japan’s dedication to fostering peace, prosperity, and sustainable development across diverse regions. Entering the 21st century, Japan’s ODA efforts evolved to address emerging global challenges, highlighted by the revision of the ODA Charter in 2003 and the establishment of the Development Cooperation Charter in 2015. Embracing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015 further reinforced Japan’s commitment to global development goals, reaffirming its role as a responsible member of the international community. Guided by principles such as human security and self-help efforts, Japan’s development cooperation transcends mere financial assistance, embracing a holistic approach encompassing grant aid, technical cooperation, and loan aid. Its proactive participation in peace talks, ceasefire monitoring, and economic development projects demonstrates its commitment to tackling the underlying causes of conflict and creating long-term peace.
This paper explores Japan’s ODA policies and their application in post-conflict settings. By examining Japan’s interventions in conflict-ridden regions such as Yemen, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, we seek to illuminate how Japan’s multifaceted approach contributes to the well-being of affected populations, facilitates reconciliation, and cultivates stable and prosperous environments conducive to lasting peace. This research endeavors to underscore Japan’s pivotal role in shaping the future of conflict-ridden regions, serving as a testament to its enduring pursuit of peace and development on a global scale.
From Vision to Action: Japan’s ODA Journey and Its Global Impact
Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) program embodies a multifaceted approach to international development guided by historical, geopolitical, economic, and humanitarian considerations. This comprehensive strategy underscores Japan’s commitment to addressing global challenges while promoting peace, prosperity, and human dignity. Historically, Japan’s ODA initiatives are deeply rooted in its acknowledgment of past wrongs and its determination to contribute positively to the international community. Shaped by its involvement in World War II and its colonial past, Japan’s sense of responsibility drives efforts to foster reconciliation and goodwill through ODA. Notably, Japan’s substantial contributions to Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines demonstrate a tangible commitment to the region’s post-war reconciliation and economic development.
Geopolitically, Japan strategically leverages ODA as a tool for diplomacy, enhancing its influence and soft power on the global stage. A prime example is Japan’s active African engagement through platforms like the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD). By extending significant aid and forming partnerships with African nations, Japan aims to strengthen diplomatic ties and mitigate the influence of other major regional powers. Similarly, Japan’s diplomatic overtures through ODA are crucial in conflict-ridden regions like Yemen and Sri Lanka. Japan’s humanitarian aid and support for peacebuilding in Yemen contribute to its diplomatic presence in the area, fostering goodwill and stability. Japan’s investment in infrastructure development and capacity-building initiatives in Sri Lanka stimulates economic growth. It reinforces diplomatic relations, positioning Japan as a critical partner in the country’s post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
Economically, Japan’s ODA initiatives are aligned with its strategic interests, fostering market access for Japanese businesses while promoting economic growth in recipient countries. For instance, Japan’s investment in infrastructure projects in Bangladesh and Indonesia stimulates local development and creates opportunities for Japanese companies to engage in lucrative contracts, reinforcing economic cooperation. Similarly, in Yemen and Sri Lanka, Japan’s investment in infrastructure development projects, such as port facilities and transportation networks, supports economic growth and opens avenues for Japanese businesses to invest and operate in these regions, thereby enhancing economic cooperation between Japan and the recipient countries.
Humanitarian principles drive Japan’s ODA response to global crises and disasters. Following events like the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Japan swiftly provided humanitarian assistance and reconstruction aid to affected areas, showcasing its commitment to alleviating suffering and supporting recovery efforts. Moreover, in conflict-affected regions like Yemen and Sri Lanka, Japan’s humanitarian aid is crucial in addressing the urgent needs of vulnerable populations, including refugees and internally displaced persons. By providing essential assistance and support, Japan upholds humanitarian values and promotes human dignity, contributing to efforts for peace and stability in these regions.
Ethical imperatives underpin Japan’s ODA approach, emphasizing fairness, justice, and compassion principles. Japan’s contributions to international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) exemplify its commitment to humanitarian assistance, irrespective of political considerations. This ethical stance reinforces Japan’s responsibility as a responsible global citizen dedicated to collectively addressing pressing global challenges. In Yemen and Sri Lanka, Japan’s adherence to Moral principles is demonstrated through its support for conflict resolution efforts, respect for human rights, and provision of humanitarian aid, regardless of political affiliations or interests. Japan’s ODA program manifests its global citizenship and responsibility to promote peace, prosperity, and human dignity worldwide. By integrating historical, geopolitical, economic, and humanitarian considerations into its ODA initiatives, Japan plays a significant role in shaping the future of international development and fostering a more equitable and sustainable world. Through its engagements in conflict-affected regions like Yemen, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, Japan demonstrates its commitment to addressing complex challenges and promoting peace and stability on a global scale.
JAPAN ODA RECIPIENTS AND OVERVIEW OF THE CASES
Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) has supported countries grappling with conflict and instability, including the Philippines, Yemen, and Sri Lanka. Each case presents unique challenges and complexities rooted in diverse historical, political, and socio-economic factors. In the Philippines, the conflict stems from a combination of historical grievances, ethnic tensions, and socio-economic disparities. The insurgency led by groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the New People’s Army (NPA) has its roots in historical marginalization, political grievances, and the quest for self-determination among minority groups, particularly in the Muslim-majority areas of Mindanao.
Similarly, Yemen’s conflict is characterized by a complex interplay of political, religious, and socio-economic factors. The Houthi insurgency, supported by Iran, has led to a protracted civil war, exacerbated by sectarian tensions, political fragmentation, and external interventions by regional powers. Economic instability and widespread poverty have further fueled grievances and perpetuated the cycle of violence. In Sri Lanka, the conflict has been primarily driven by ethnic tensions between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil communities. Decades of discrimination, political marginalization, and grievances over language rights and land ownership have fueled the separatist aspirations of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), leading to a prolonged civil war that lasted nearly three decades.
Unraveling the Course and Stages of Conflict
The conflicts in the Philippines, Yemen, and Sri Lanka have followed distinct trajectories, each marked by periods of violence, attempts at peace negotiations, and ongoing humanitarian crises. In the Philippines, the conflict has been characterized by intermittent bouts of intense fighting and efforts at peace negotiations. The Bangsamoro peace process, initiated in the 1990s, has witnessed numerous agreements and setbacks, reflecting the intricate nature of addressing historical grievances and striving for sustainable peace. Similarly, the government’s attempts to address the communist insurgency have seen periods of ceasefire agreements followed by renewed hostilities, highlighting the challenges of reconciling competing interests and ideologies.
Yemen’s conflict escalated dramatically after the Houthi insurgency in 2014, leading to a devastating civil war and humanitarian disaster. Despite efforts by regional and international actors to broker ceasefires and peace agreements, the conflict has persisted with little signs of resolution. Widespread famine and disease outbreaks have exacerbated the suffering of Yemeni civilians, prolonging the cycle of violence and instability. In Sri Lanka, the conflict unfolded over decades, culminating in the military defeat of the LTTE in 2009. Reconstruction efforts, attempts at reconciliation, and political reforms have characterized the post-war period. However, challenges persist in addressing deep-rooted socio-economic disparities and ensuring meaningful political representation for minority groups.
To address these conflicts, countermeasures have been implemented with varying degrees of success. The government has pursued a comprehensive approach in the Philippines, combining military operations with diplomatic engagement and peace talks. Efforts to promote economic development and social inclusion in conflict-affected areas have been integral to long-term stability and peacebuilding efforts. Similarly, countermeasures have focused on humanitarian assistance, diplomatic engagement, and peace negotiations in Yemen. International actors, including Japan, have provided significant humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of Yemeni civilians. Diplomatic initiatives to foster dialogue and reconciliation among warring factions have been ongoing, albeit with limited success amidst continued violence and political instability. In Sri Lanka, post-war efforts have involved reconstruction, reconciliation initiatives, and political reforms. The government has prioritized infrastructure development and economic revitalization alongside efforts to address grievances among minority communities. International support, including Japan’s ODA, has played a crucial role in promoting lasting peace and stability in the country.
The conflicts in the Philippines, Yemen, and Sri Lanka present complex challenges requiring comprehensive approaches that address the root causes of conflict, promote dialogue and prioritize humanitarian assistance and socio-economic development. Japan’s ODA has supported these efforts, reflecting its commitment to fostering peace, stability, and prosperity in conflict-affected regions.
Comparative Analysis Of Japan’s ODA in Post-Conflict Countries
HOW MUCH AID IS GIVEN?
Japan’s approach to providing aid to Yemen, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka reflects a nuanced strategy tailored to each country’s specific needs and contexts. Japan has swiftly responded to the urgent humanitarian crisis in Yemen, allocating 1.8 million US dollars in Emergency Grant Aid for the dire food situation. Focusing on immediate relief highlights Japan’s responsiveness to pressing needs in conflict-affected regions.
Japan’s commitment spans over two decades in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao, with a total aid of USD 515 million since 2002, supporting over 100 projects. This long-term engagement underscores Japan’s dedication to fostering sustainable development and peace in the region. The diverse range of projects across various sectors indicates a comprehensive approach to addressing multifaceted challenges. Sri Lanka benefits from Japan’s multifaceted aid strategy, with recent contributions including a US$ 547,443 grant for the Skavita Humanitarian Assistance and Relief Project and substantial funding exceeding US$ 43 million for mine clearance activities. The varied projects, from livelihood initiatives to infrastructure development, showcase Japan’s commitment to addressing a spectrum of challenges in post-conflict recovery.
Comparatively, Japan’s aid in Yemen is characterized by immediate and focused interventions to alleviate pressing humanitarian needs. In the Philippines, the long-term commitment is evident, emphasizing sustained development across diverse sectors. Sri Lanka experiences a mix of immediate relief and ongoing support, showcasing Japan’s adaptability in tailoring aid strategies to the unique circumstances of each country.
SCOPE OF AID
When examining the scope of Japan’s help to the Philippines, Yemen, and Sri Lanka, it is clear that Japan takes a flexible and comprehensive strategy customized to each country’s specific requirements. Japan’s aid primarily focuses on political transition support, normalization initiatives, and socio-economic development projects in the Philippines. The multifaceted approach addresses the complex challenges of Mindanao’s peace and development process. Japan’s aid is strategically aligned with the region’s advancement and stability, encompassing various aspects of political and socio-economic transformation.
Similarly, Yemen benefits from Japan’s aid across a broad spectrum of sectors, reflecting a comprehensive strategy to address immediate needs and contribute to long-term reconstruction and development. Sectors such as food security, healthcare, education, water, sanitation, economic stability, governance, and environmental protection are all encompassed. This broad scope demonstrates Japan’s commitment to meaningfully impacting the vulnerable populations in Yemen and the country’s overall reconstruction, with a holistic approach covering various facets of humanitarian and developmental needs.
Likewise, in Sri Lanka, Japan’s aid covers an extensive range of sectors, reflecting a commitment to addressing immediate needs and contributing to long-term development. From demining operations and economic recovery through livelihood projects to the improvement of transportation networks, enhancement of power supply, water supply and sewage management, policy development, institutional reform, human resource development, climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and improvement of social services including health and education, Japan’s aid spans across diverse areas. This comprehensive approach underscores Japan’s commitment to fostering holistic development and resilience in Sri Lanka, with interventions that touch various aspects of the country’s socio-economic landscape.
PURPOSE OF AID
Japan’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to Sri Lanka, Yemen, and the Philippines underscores a comprehensive commitment to addressing immediate humanitarian needs, fostering long-term development, and contributing to peace-building efforts in conflict-affected regions. Japan’s aid is multifaceted (ODA) to Sri Lanka is meticulously crafted to address various developmental challenges while fostering long-term sustainability and prosperity. Through multifaceted programs and projects spanning infrastructure development, energy transformation, social services enhancement, and disaster risk reduction, Japan exemplifies a steadfast commitment to supporting Sri Lanka’s journey toward comprehensive growth and resilience. Initiatives such as the Program for Strengthening Transport Network receive significant allocations, demonstrating Japan’s dedication to bolstering Sri Lanka’s economic foundations. Additionally, investments in projects like the Promoting a Free and Open Maritime Domain underscore Japan’s commitment to enhancing Sri Lanka’s disaster resilience with substantial allocations for projects such as the New Bridge Construction Project over the Kelani River and the Light Rail Transit System in Colombo.
Furthermore, through programs focused on policy development, institutional reform, and human resource development, Japan facilitates the creation of robust governance structures and nurtures local expertise, exemplified by projects such as the Project for Capacity Development on Effective Public Investment Management. With a keen emphasis on climate change adaptation and disaster resilience, Japan’s ODA initiatives equip Sri Lanka with the tools and capacities necessary to mitigate risks and respond effectively to natural calamities. Through these strategic investments and partnerships, Japan underscores its unwavering dedication to advancing Sri Lanka’s development agenda and fostering enduring collaboration for the mutual benefit of both nations.
Similarly, Japan’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to Yemen is not just a strategy but a lifeline. It’s a comprehensive approach that tackles urgent humanitarian needs, fosters long-term stability, and drives development in this conflict-ridden nation. Through a series of programs and projects, Japan is making a tangible difference, elevating Yemen’s humanitarian situation, supporting national reconstruction efforts, and empowering local communities to build resilience amidst ongoing challenges. Japan’s approach to ODA for the Republic of Yemen is unique. The ‘Rolling Plan By Japan for the Republic of Yemen’ is a multifaceted strategy that balances immediate humanitarian aid with long-term development assistance. It’s not just about giving aid but investing in critical sectors such as food security, healthcare, education, and infrastructure redevelopment. This approach underscores Japan’s commitment to addressing Yemen’s complex challenges and sets it apart from other nations.
Moreover, Japan’s commitment extends to human resource development through initiatives like the “Program for Human Resource Development in Yemen.” This initiative focuses on strengthening governance, promoting economic recovery, and advancing regional development through comprehensive training initiatives. With a generous allocation of funds, Japan aims to cultivate a skilled workforce capable of driving Yemen’s progress across vital sectors. Japan’s commitment to Yemen is not just words but actions. Its transformative grant aid projects, such as ‘The Project for the Rehabilitation of Aden Intra-Urban Roads’ and ‘Project for Preventing Oil Spill from the Floating Storage and Offloading Safer,’ are making a real difference. These projects are about infrastructure, stability, and environmental preservation. They are tangible proof of Japan’s commitment to Yemen’s future. Furthermore, Japan’s 10 million US dollars in Emergency Grant Aid, administered through the World Food Program, highlights its commitment to addressing the dire food crisis in Yemen. This assistance aligns with Japan’s mission to respond to urgent humanitarian needs and support peace efforts mediated by the United Nations. Through active collaboration with international organizations and concerned nations, Japan underscores its dedication to fostering peace, stability, and sustainable development in Yemen, offering hope for a brighter future amid adversity.
Japan’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to the Philippines embodies a multifaceted approach aimed at fostering socio-economic development, enhancing infrastructure, and supporting peace-building efforts, particularly in conflict-affected areas like Mindanao. Under the Rolling Plan By Japan for the Philippines, Japan has implemented several key projects across critical sectors. One such project is the Rehabilitation of Houses in Marawi. Japan collaborated with UN-Habitat Philippines to construct 462 permanent houses in Barangay Patani, Marawi City, providing hope to those displaced during the 2017 Marawi Siege. With a generous grant of USD 10 million (PHP 500 million), Japan’s commitment to revitalizing Marawi City underscores its dedication to supporting the Mindanao Peace Process and fostering regional development. Another significant initiative is the Massive Water Project for BARMM, culminating in Maguindanao. Japan partnered with the International Labour Organization (ILO) to complete a level II ground source electric water pump system, benefiting approximately 70 households. This initiative, part of the ILO-Japan Water and Sanitation Project, reflects Japan’s commitment to addressing water needs in remote areas of Mindanao, contributing to livelihoods and community resilience. Additionally, Japan’s support for livelihood and education, such as the JICA-supported Pond for Aquaculture of Tilapia, has provided former MILF combatants with sustainable income opportunities, promoting economic empowerment and contributing to the successful normalization of conflict-affected communities. Beyond these initiatives, Japan’s aid to the Philippines encompasses a wide range of projects that promote socio-economic development, disaster management, and human resource development, strengthen the partnership between Japan and the Philippines, and contribute to peace, stability, and prosperity across the nation.
Overall, Japan’s aid to Sri Lanka, Yemen, and the Philippines exemplifies a holistic approach to addressing the multifaceted challenges of post-conflict recovery. Through targeted interventions spanning demining, economic recovery, infrastructure development, and governance support, Japan fosters peace, reconciliation, and sustainable development in conflict-affected regions, thereby contributing to broader regional stability and prosperity.
HOW AID IS UTILIZED?
Japan’s aid is channeled in Yemen through specific infrastructure rehabilitation and environmental protection projects. For example, Japan has contributed to rehabilitating urban roads in Yemen’s major cities, such as Sana’a and Aden, to improve transportation networks and support economic activities. Additionally, Japan has supported preventive measures against oil spills in Yemen’s coastal areas, highlighting its commitment to addressing environmental challenges and promoting sustainable development.
Japan’s aid is strategically utilized in the Philippines through flagship programs like the “Japan-Bangsamoro Initiatives for Reconstruction and Development” (J-BIRD). Through J-BIRD, Japan has supported the rehabilitation of houses in Marawi City, which was heavily affected by conflict, to facilitate the return of displaced residents and promote stability in the region. Furthermore, Japan has invested in extensive water projects in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), addressing the region’s critical need for access to clean water and sanitation facilities.
In Sri Lanka, Japan’s aid is tailored to address various challenges, including post-conflict recovery, economic development, and disaster resilience. For instance, Japan has supported the SHARP initiative for demining in conflict-affected areas, facilitating the return of displaced populations and enabling reconstruction efforts. Additionally, Japan has partnered with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on livelihood projects to empower vulnerable communities and promote economic opportunities. Furthermore, Japan’s investment in critical infrastructure projects, such as road construction and airport development, contributes to long-term economic growth and regional connectivity. Overall, Japan’s aid utilization in these countries demonstrates a flexible and adaptive approach, focusing on addressing specific needs and promoting sustainable development.
IMPACT OF THE AID?
Japan’s aid to Yemen is a beacon of hope, reaching out to the country’s most vulnerable populations in their time of need. With unwavering commitment, Japan is set to assist 20,000 displaced Yemenis, providing critical cash assistance for their immediate needs, including food, shelter, healthcare, and other essentials. This aid is not just about relief; it’s about restoring dignity and hope. An additional 3,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) will gain access to vital legal support, while 5,000 IDP families will be guided to specialized services. Japan’s generous contribution will enable the UNHCR to foster peaceful coexistence, social cohesion, and improved living conditions for the displaced and host communities through swift infrastructure projects benefiting nearly 50,000 individuals. Japan’s solidarity is not a one-time gesture but a testament to its enduring partnership with the UNHCR and its steadfast commitment to addressing Yemen’s pressing humanitarian and protection needs. Kazuhiro Higashi, Charge d’affaires at the Embassy of Japan, underlines the importance of cash assistance as a dignified support form, allowing displaced Yemenis to prioritize their most urgent needs in a profound crisis. As Yemen enters its ninth year of conflict, this initiative stands as a beacon of hope, a symbol of Japan’s unwavering commitment to making a positive impact in the face of adversity.
The impact of Japan’s aid is particularly profound in the context of Yemen’s devastating conflict, which has inflicted severe economic hardship, eroded development gains, and disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, especially women and girls. With an estimated 21.6 million Yemenis requiring humanitarian assistance and protection services in 2023 and over half of the displaced population in dire need, Japan’s support extends beyond mere assistance; it extends a promise of resilience, offering a glimmer of hope amid the daunting challenges that persist in Yemen’s enduring crisis.
Similarly, Japan’s extensive cooperation with the Mindanao peace process is a testament to its unwavering commitment to peace and development in the region. With a substantial contribution totaling USD 515 million (PHP 26 billion) since 2002, Japan has been pivotal in advancing various facets of Mindanao’s peace and development agenda. This commitment is reflected in over 100 projects designed to support the political transition, advance the normalization process, and foster socio-economic infrastructure development. The impact of Japan’s aid is profound and far-reaching. Through initiatives such as the “Japan-Bangsamoro Initiatives for Reconstruction and Development” (J-BIRD), Japan has contributed over 50 billion yen towards specific projects. These include enhancing administrative capabilities, uplifting livelihoods, promoting industrial and infrastructure development, and improving access to education and healthcare. These projects have directly impacted more than 350 villages, fostering economic growth and stability in the region. Furthermore, Japan’s active engagement on the ground is more comprehensive than just financial aid. It includes the deployment of embassy staff members as socio-economic development advisors, who play a crucial role in the success of the projects. This, along with its participation in international monitoring and contact groups, underscores its commitment to ensuring the success of peace-building efforts in Mindanao. In addition to focusing on the peace process, Japan’s aid extends to other critical sectors. For instance, its investments in transportation infrastructure, such as the Metro Manila Railway Networks, have significantly improved the region’s connectivity. Its support for disaster management has enhanced the Philippines’ resilience to natural calamities. And its human resource development scholarships have empowered the country’s workforce. These investments further contribute to the overall socio-economic development of the Philippines. Overall, Japan’s aid to the Philippines has had a transformative impact, fostering peace, stability, and prosperity in Mindanao while strengthening the partnership between the two nations. Japan’s steadfast commitment to the region continues to be a beacon of hope, paving the way for a brighter future for the people of the Philippines.
IMPACT OF AID
In assessing the impact of Japan’s aid in the Philippines, Yemen, and Sri Lanka, it is evident that the aid initiatives have generated significant and diverse positive outcomes across various sectors. In the Philippines, rehabilitating houses in Marawi and establishing a potable water system in Maguindanao showcase tangible improvements in the lives of those affected by the 2017 Marawi Siege. These projects contribute to physical reconstruction and symbolize hope and stability, emphasizing Japan’s commitment to Mindanao’s reconstruction and rehabilitation. The livelihood and education initiatives, particularly the JICA-supported Pond for Aquaculture, exemplify Japan’s focus on fostering sustainable income sources and disseminating knowledge, contributing to peace and harmony in Mindanao.
In Yemen, Japan’s aid has significantly impacted various fronts. Cash assistance for food, shelter, and healthcare directly benefits internally displaced persons, addressing immediate humanitarian needs. Infrastructure projects, such as rehabilitating urban roads and preventive measures against oil spills, improve living conditions for displaced and host communities. The long-standing involvement in demining activities has ensured the safe return of families to their homes and eliminated the threat posed by landmines and unexploded ordnance.
Similarly, Japan’s robust commitment to aiding Sri Lanka’s development is evident through its multifaceted assistance initiatives across various sectors. One notable example is the Program for Strengthening Transport Network. Japan’s investment in road construction and urban transportation upgrades has alleviated traffic congestion, facilitating smoother mobility and economic prosperity. Japan’s support for the Bandaranaike International Airport Development Project and establishment an Oil Spill Incident Management Training Program underscores its dedication to bolstering Sri Lanka’s maritime and aviation infrastructure. Furthermore, Japan’s contributions to the Program for Improving Power Supply, including projects like the Habarana-Veyangoda Transmission Line Construction Project, highlight its commitment to transforming Sri Lanka’s energy landscape toward sustainability and efficiency. In the social services realm, Japan’s healthcare assistance, exemplified by the Health and Medical Service Improvement Project, has elevated healthcare standards and accessibility, positively impacting the well-being of Sri Lankan citizens. Moreover, Japan’s collaborative efforts with international organizations, such as the Eastern and North Central Provincial Road Project supported by the World Bank, demonstrate its commitment to leveraging partnerships for maximizing developmental impact. Overall, Japan’s aid to Sri Lanka encompasses a comprehensive approach that addresses critical infrastructure, energy, healthcare, and social welfare needs, fostering sustainable development and resilience in the nation.
So, specific impacts vary based on the unique contexts of each country; Japan’s aid consistently demonstrates a commitment to addressing immediate needs, fostering long-term development, and creating positive changes in social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The multifaceted approach in each country underscores Japan’s adaptability and commitment to tailoring its aid efforts to the specific challenges and opportunities present in each region.
CONCLUSION
In a world marked by evolving challenges, Japan’s dedication to international development and its support for post-conflict countries stand as a beacon of hope and progress. Through its unwavering commitment to official development assistance (ODA), Japan has not only extended a helping hand to nations like Yemen but has also showcased a comprehensive approach to addressing global issues. As we navigate this ever-changing landscape, the importance of ODA in tackling pressing global concerns, from environmental conservation to health crises and humanitarian needs, remains undeniable. While some donor countries may face economic constraints and “aid fatigue,” Japan’s commitment to international cooperation and development assistance continues to shine brightly. As a leading donor nation, Japan understands its pivotal role in promoting peace and prosperity on the world stage. By strengthening ties with developing countries, Japan elevates its global stature and advances its broader national interests. Drawing from its experience of post-war reconstruction and abundant financial and technological resources, Japan is uniquely positioned to support other nations’ economic development actively. In a world where the significance of ODA is rising, Japan’s steadfast commitment to international contribution through foreign policy and development assistance takes on even greater importance. Japan’s leadership in reaffirming the necessity of support for the ongoing efforts of post-conflict countries underscores its role in shaping a more prosperous, peaceful, and inclusive global community.
About the Author
Khushbu Ahlawat is a research analyst with a strong academic background in International Relations and Political Science. She has undertaken research projects at Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributing to analytical work on international and regional security issues. Alongside her research experience, she has professional exposure to Human Resources, with involvement in talent acquisition and organizational operations. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from Christ University, Bangalore, and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi.
The nature of global power is undergoing a profound transformation. Historically, geopolitical influence was determined by territorial expansion, military strength, and industrial production. In the twenty-first century, however, technological capabilities—particularly artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems—are increasingly shaping global hierarchies. Algorithms now influence financial markets, digital communication, public administration, and even strategic decision-making in governments and militaries. As societies become more dependent on data-driven technologies, control over algorithmic systems has emerged as a new dimension of sovereignty.
Algorithmic sovereignty refers to a nation’s ability to design, regulate, and deploy algorithmic systems according to its own legal frameworks, political priorities, and social contexts. These systems determine how information flows across digital platforms, how automated decisions are made in sectors such as finance or healthcare, and how governments manage critical infrastructure. For instance, AI-powered recommendation algorithms on social media platforms shape public discourse and influence political mobilization, demonstrating how algorithmic systems increasingly affect democratic processes.
Recent technological developments illustrate how algorithms are becoming embedded in national governance systems. India’s AI-enabled drone defence network “Indrajaal”, capable of protecting large geographic areas from drone threats, demonstrates how AI is becoming central to national security infrastructure. Similarly, modern military command systems such as the Indian Army’s SAKSHAM AI command-and-control platform integrate real-time data and automated analysis to enhance battlefield awareness.These examples highlight that algorithms are no longer confined to the commercial technology sector; they are now integral to national security, governance, and strategic autonomy.
Global Competition for Algorithmic Sovereignty
The strategic importance of artificial intelligence has triggered intense global competition among major powers. Governments increasingly recognize that AI capabilities will shape economic productivity, technological leadership, and geopolitical influence. As a result, countries are investing heavily in AI infrastructure, research, and industrial policy to secure leadership in the emerging digital order. The global race for AI dominance has become comparable in significance to earlier technological rivalries such as the nuclear or space races of the twentieth century.
The United States currently maintains a significant advantage in the global AI ecosystem, driven largely by the technological capabilities of private companies. American firms such as Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia dominate cloud computing infrastructure, advanced semiconductor technologies, and foundational AI models used worldwide. These companies shape the architecture of the global digital economy, giving the United States significant influence over technological standards and innovation networks. Recent developments continue to reinforce this leadership: massive investments in AI data centres and infrastructure are expanding global computing capacity and consolidating the position of major American technology companies.
China has emerged as the most determined challenger to American technological dominance. Through coordinated industrial policy and massive public investment, Beijing has prioritized artificial intelligence as a strategic technology. China’s national AI strategy aims to establish the country as the global leader in AI innovation by the end of this decade. Meanwhile, the European Union has taken a regulatory approach by introducing comprehensive legislation such as the AI Act and promoting digital autonomy initiatives. Across the world, governments are recognizing that algorithmic control is not merely a technological matter but a core element of geopolitical competition.
India’s Algorithmic Dilemma: Innovation Without Control
India occupies a distinctive position in the global digital landscape. Over the past decade, the country has developed one of the most advanced digital public infrastructures in the world. Platforms such as Aadhaar, the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), and the broader Digital India ecosystem have transformed financial inclusion and public service delivery. These initiatives demonstrate India’s capacity to deploy digital technologies at massive scale, creating systems that serve hundreds of millions of citizens.
However, despite these achievements, India still depends heavily on foreign companies for advanced AI technologies. Many of the foundational machine learning models used by Indian startups and enterprises are developed and controlled by global technology firms. This dependence creates structural vulnerabilities, as critical digital infrastructure may rely on algorithmic systems that are designed outside the country’s regulatory or strategic control. For example, global technology companies continue to invest heavily in AI infrastructure within India, highlighting both the country’s growing technological significance and its continued reliance on foreign AI ecosystems.
India’s linguistic and cultural diversity also presents a unique technological challenge. AI models trained primarily on Western datasets often fail to accurately interpret Indian languages or local contexts. To address this gap, India has begun developing indigenous AI models tailored to its own linguistic landscape. Platforms such as Sarvam AI and the government-supported BHASHINI language initiative, which supports dozens of Indian languages, illustrate attempts to build localized AI capabilities. These initiatives represent early steps toward creating algorithmic systems that reflect India’s social realities rather than imported technological assumptions.
Algorithmic Governance and Democratic Accountability
As algorithmic systems become embedded in governance structures, the question of accountability becomes increasingly critical. Artificial intelligence now assists governments in a wide range of administrative functions, including welfare distribution, law enforcement, urban planning, and public health management. While such systems can improve efficiency and decision-making, they also raise significant concerns regarding transparency, bias, and democratic oversight. Algorithms are often described as “black boxes,” meaning that even experts sometimes struggle to fully understand how complex machine-learning systems reach their conclusions. When such opaque systems are used in governance, citizens may find it difficult to challenge decisions that affect their rights and opportunities.
In democratic societies, the legitimacy of governance depends on transparency and accountability. Algorithmic systems must therefore operate within regulatory frameworks that ensure fairness, explainability, and public oversight. Several countries have already begun developing policies to address these concerns. The European Union’s AI Act, for example, introduces risk-based regulations for AI systems used in critical sectors such as healthcare, finance, and law enforcement. The legislation requires transparency in high-risk AI applications and imposes strict obligations on developers to prevent discriminatory outcomes. Such initiatives highlight the growing recognition that algorithmic systems must be governed by ethical and legal frameworks rather than left solely to market forces.
India is also beginning to address these challenges. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act and ongoing discussions around AI governance frameworks indicate that policymakers are increasingly aware of the risks associated with algorithmic decision-making. Government initiatives promoting responsible AI emphasize principles such as transparency, fairness, and inclusivity. For example, India’s Responsible AI for Youth programme aims to introduce students to ethical AI development, fostering a generation of technologists who understand both the opportunities and responsibilities associated with artificial intelligence.
The issue of algorithmic accountability becomes even more critical in the context of social media and digital platforms. Algorithms used by major online platforms determine which content is amplified and which remains invisible. In several countries, these algorithms have been accused of amplifying misinformation, political polarization, and harmful narratives. India has witnessed similar challenges, particularly during major political events when online platforms become key arenas of political mobilization and information dissemination. Ensuring transparency in how these algorithms function is therefore essential for protecting democratic discourse.
Another important dimension of algorithmic governance relates to public sector decision-making. AI systems are increasingly used to analyze large datasets in areas such as healthcare diagnostics, agricultural planning, and disaster response. While these technologies can improve efficiency and predictive capabilities, they must be carefully designed to avoid reinforcing existing social inequalities. For instance, AI-based credit scoring systems may unintentionally discriminate against marginalized communities if they rely on incomplete or biased datasets.
Strengthening algorithmic governance therefore requires a combination of regulatory frameworks, institutional capacity, and public awareness. Governments must invest in independent oversight mechanisms capable of auditing algorithmic systems and ensuring compliance with ethical standards. Universities and research institutions also play an important role by developing interdisciplinary expertise in technology policy, ethics, and law. By integrating democratic accountability into the design and deployment of algorithmic systems, India can ensure that technological innovation remains aligned with the values of an open and inclusive society.
Building India’s Path to Algorithmic Sovereignty
Achieving algorithmic sovereignty will require sustained investment in technological infrastructure, research, and human capital. Artificial intelligence systems depend on advanced computing infrastructure, including high-performance processors and large-scale data centres capable of training complex machine learning models. Recognizing this need, India has launched the IndiaAI Mission, a national initiative designed to expand computing capacity, support AI startups, and develop indigenous large language models tailored to the country’s needs.
At the regional level, several Indian states are also investing in AI ecosystems. Telangana, for example, has introduced a comprehensive AI roadmap that includes high-performance computing infrastructure, startup accelerators, and AI research hubs designed to position the state as a global centre for artificial intelligence innovation. These initiatives demonstrate how regional governments and private-sector partnerships are contributing to the development of a domestic AI ecosystem capable of competing in global technology markets.
Equally important is the development of talent and innovation networks that support AI research and entrepreneurship. Government initiatives now aim to train millions of citizens in AI-related skills, expanding the country’s technological workforce and enabling wider participation in the digital economy. Combined with investments in open-source AI platforms and collaborative research networks, these efforts could enable India to build a robust technological ecosystem that balances innovation with democratic governance and strategic autonomy.
Strategic Opportunities for India in the Global AI Order
While the rise of artificial intelligence presents significant challenges, it also offers unprecedented opportunities for countries capable of leveraging their technological and demographic strengths. India possesses several structural advantages that could enable it to emerge as a major actor in the global AI ecosystem. With a large pool of highly skilled engineers, a rapidly expanding startup ecosystem, and one of the world’s largest digital markets, India has the potential to become a global hub for AI innovation.
One of India’s most significant strengths lies in its digital public infrastructure. Initiatives such as Aadhaar, UPI, and the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) demonstrate how government-supported digital platforms can enable large-scale innovation. These systems operate as public digital goods, allowing startups and businesses to build new services on top of shared infrastructure. Extending this model to artificial intelligence could enable the creation of an “AI public infrastructure”, where shared datasets, computing resources, and algorithmic tools are accessible to researchers and entrepreneurs across the country.
India’s startup ecosystem is already playing an important role in developing indigenous AI solutions. A growing number of technology companies are focusing on areas such as natural language processing, healthcare diagnostics, agricultural analytics, and financial technology. Startups working on multilingual AI tools are particularly significant in the Indian context, as they address the linguistic diversity that global technology platforms often struggle to accommodate. These innovations not only strengthen domestic technological capabilities but also create solutions that could be exported to other developing countries facing similar challenges.
The global demand for AI solutions tailored to emerging economies represents a major opportunity for India. Many developing countries share similar challenges related to linguistic diversity, infrastructure limitations, and resource constraints. AI technologies designed specifically for these contexts could enable India to position itself as a leader in “Global South AI solutions.” By exporting affordable and scalable digital technologies, India could expand its technological influence while supporting development partnerships across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Another strategic opportunity lies in international collaboration. As artificial intelligence becomes a central issue in global governance, countries are increasingly forming alliances to establish shared technological standards and research initiatives. India’s participation in international forums such as the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) and its cooperation with countries like the United States, Japan, and members of the European Union reflect growing engagement in shaping global AI norms. These partnerships can facilitate knowledge exchange, joint research projects, and the development of interoperable technological ecosystems.
At the same time, India must ensure that international collaboration does not undermine its technological autonomy. Strategic partnerships should complement domestic innovation rather than replace it. By investing in indigenous research institutions, strengthening university-industry collaboration, and expanding access to advanced computing infrastructure, India can build the foundations of a resilient AI ecosystem capable of competing at the global level.
Ultimately, the future of the global technological order will be shaped by how countries navigate the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence. Nations that succeed in combining innovation, governance, and strategic foresight will play a decisive role in shaping the digital economy of the future. For India, the challenge is not merely to adopt AI technologies developed elsewhere but to actively participate in designing the algorithms, platforms, and governance frameworks that will define the next phase of global technological development.
By leveraging its demographic strengths, entrepreneurial ecosystem, and digital infrastructure, India has the potential to emerge as a major architect of the algorithm-driven world order. Achieving this vision will require sustained investment, institutional coordination, and a clear strategic commitment to technological sovereignty. If these conditions are met, India can transform the challenge of algorithmic dependence into an opportunity for technological leadership and global influence.
Conclusion
The rise of artificial intelligence is reshaping the foundations of global power. In the digital age, sovereignty is no longer defined solely by territorial control or military capabilities but by the ability to design and govern technological infrastructures that shape economic and political life. Algorithms increasingly influence how societies function, from financial systems and healthcare networks to national security and democratic communication.
For India, the pursuit of algorithmic sovereignty represents both a strategic challenge and an opportunity. The country has already demonstrated its ability to build large-scale digital infrastructure capable of serving millions of citizens. The next phase of technological development will require extending this success into the domain of artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance.
By investing in domestic research, strengthening digital infrastructure, and building responsible regulatory frameworks, India can ensure that its technological future remains aligned with its democratic values and developmental priorities. In an increasingly algorithm-driven world, nations that control the design and governance of digital technologies will shape the rules of the global order. For India, ensuring algorithmic sovereignty is therefore not merely a technological ambition—it is a strategic imperative for the decades ahead.
About the Author
Khushbu Ahlawat is a research analyst with a strong academic background in International Relations and Political Science. She has undertaken research projects at Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributing to analytical work on international and regional security issues. Alongside her research experience, she has professional exposure to Human Resources, with involvement in talent acquisition and organizational operations. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from Christ University, Bangalore, and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi.
Electoral Politics and Digital Democracy in India: Source Internet
Introduction
Over the past decade, India has witnessed a profound transformation in the nature of its electoral politics as digital technologies and social media platforms have become central to political communication and democratic participation. The rapid expansion of internet access, the widespread availability of affordable smartphones, and the proliferation of social networking platforms have fundamentally altered how political actors engage with citizens. Platforms such as WhatsApp and X (Twitter) have evolved into powerful political arenas where campaigns are organized, narratives are constructed, and public opinion is shaped. In a country that conducts the world’s largest democratic elections, the integration of digital communication tools has allowed political actors to reach voters with unprecedented speed and precision. Unlike traditional campaign methods that relied heavily on mass rallies, television advertising, and print media, digital platforms enable continuous interaction between politicians and voters, allowing political communication to occur instantly and across geographic boundaries. This transformation has also been facilitated by initiatives aimed at expanding digital connectivity, including government programs designed to increase internet access and digital literacy across rural and semi-urban areas.
This digital transformation first became highly visible during the 2014 Indian General Election, often described by political analysts as India’s first “social media election.” The campaign strategy of Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party demonstrated how digital platforms could be used to mobilize support, amplify political messaging, and shape national narratives. The use of social media to broadcast speeches, engage supporters, and promote campaign slogans marked a significant shift from traditional electoral strategies. By the time of the 2019 Indian General Election, digital campaigning had become even more sophisticated, with political parties operating extensive networks of online volunteers, data analytics teams, and social media managers. During the 2024 Indian General Election, the integration of artificial intelligence, meme culture, targeted advertising, and real-time digital engagement further expanded the scope of online political communication. Political leaders increasingly used short videos, live streams, and interactive digital campaigns to engage young voters who form a significant portion of India’s electorate.
At the same time, the rise of digital campaigning has also intensified debates about the implications of social media for democratic governance. Scholars of digital politics argue that while social media platforms have enhanced citizen participation and expanded access to political information, they have also introduced new challenges related to misinformation, algorithmic bias, and the commercialization of political communication. The ability of political actors to micro-target voters using personal data has raised concerns about privacy and transparency in electoral processes. Consequently, understanding how digital technologies are reshaping electoral politics is essential for evaluating both the opportunities and the risks associated with the evolving landscape of digital democracy in India.
Social Media and the Transformation of Election Campaign Strategies
Social media platforms have fundamentally transformed the strategies used by political parties during election campaigns in India. Campaigns that once depended on physical rallies and traditional media coverage now rely heavily on digital communication strategies that operate continuously throughout the electoral cycle. Political parties today maintain dedicated “digital war rooms,” where teams of strategists monitor social media trends, analyze public sentiment, and design messaging campaigns aimed at influencing voters. These digital teams track online conversations, identify emerging political issues, and craft responses that can quickly gain traction on social media platforms. The ability to respond instantly to political developments allows parties to shape narratives before they are widely reported in mainstream media. For instance, leaders from major political parties frequently use X (Twitter) to make policy announcements, criticize opponents, and respond to breaking news events, thereby transforming the platform into a key arena of political competition.
A prominent example of digital campaigning occurred during the 2019 Indian General Election with the viral hashtag #MainBhiChowkidar, promoted by supporters of Narendra Modi. Millions of social media users adopted the slogan in their online profiles, creating a large-scale digital campaign that reinforced the political narrative of anti-corruption and national security. The campaign was amplified across platforms such as X (Twitter) and Facebook through short videos, graphics, and coordinated posts by party leaders and volunteers. In response, opposition parties such as the Indian National Congress used digital platforms to highlight issues such as unemployment, economic inequality, and agrarian distress, attempting to counter the ruling party’s narrative by promoting alternative hashtags and campaign messages. Another significant example is the Bharat Jodo Yatra led by Rahul Gandhi between 2022 and 2023. Although the campaign involved a physical march across several states, social media played a crucial role in amplifying its message by broadcasting speeches, sharing images of public interactions, and mobilizing supporters nationwide. Daily updates, short clips, and photographs from the march were widely circulated on digital platforms, helping the campaign maintain continuous visibility in national political discourse. Supporters and volunteers also used hashtags and online discussion forums to promote the campaign’s themes of social unity and economic justice. Digital media therefore allows political campaigns to combine physical mobilization with online engagement, creating hybrid campaign strategies that extend their reach far beyond traditional campaign methods while sustaining political momentum throughout the electoral cycle.
WhatsApp and Grassroots Political Mobilization
While elite political debates often unfold on platforms like X (Twitter), the messaging application WhatsApp has emerged as the most influential tool for grassroots political mobilization in India. With hundreds of millions of users spread across urban centers, semi-urban towns, and rural villages, WhatsApp allows political campaigns to communicate directly with voters through decentralized networks of messaging groups. These groups frequently function as localized political communication channels where party workers distribute campaign materials, share political updates, organize community meetings, and coordinate voter outreach activities. Political parties have developed sophisticated hierarchical messaging structures in which national-level campaign teams create standardized campaign content that is circulated to state-level coordinators, who then forward it to district leaders and grassroots volunteers. This layered communication model enables political messages to travel rapidly across thousands of communities, ensuring that campaign narratives reach even remote constituencies within hours. In many cases, these groups also include local influencers such as community leaders, teachers, or small business owners who help legitimize and further disseminate political messaging among their social networks.
The role of WhatsApp networks became particularly evident during the 2019 Indian General Election, when political parties reportedly operated tens of thousands of WhatsApp groups to coordinate campaign activities and maintain continuous communication with supporters. These groups were used to circulate short videos, policy explanations, campaign posters, and speeches from political leaders, often translated into multiple regional languages to reach diverse voter bases. During the 2024 Indian General Election, WhatsApp groups were widely used to highlight government welfare initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, which provide cooking gas subsidies and financial assistance to farmers. Campaign workers circulated testimonials from beneficiaries, short explanatory videos, and infographics to illustrate how these programs affected local communities. In addition, WhatsApp was frequently used to mobilize voters by sharing reminders about voter registration deadlines, polling dates, and booth locations. In several states, party volunteers also used WhatsApp to coordinate transportation for elderly voters and to organize local campaign events. This form of localized digital communication allows political parties to tailor their messaging to specific communities, languages, and socio-economic groups, thereby strengthening grassroots mobilization and transforming WhatsApp into a powerful instrument of electoral politics in contemporary India.
Public Discourse, Polarization, and Regulatory Challenges
The growing influence of social media has significantly reshaped public discourse in India, creating both new opportunities for democratic participation and new challenges for political stability. Platforms such as X (Twitter) have become key spaces where journalists, activists, political leaders, and citizens debate public policy issues in real time. Many major political controversies now emerge and gain momentum on social media before reaching mainstream news outlets. For example, debates surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act and the 2020–2021 Indian Farmers’ Protest gained widespread visibility through viral hashtags, live video streams, and online campaigns. Activists used social media platforms to coordinate protests, share real-time updates from demonstration sites, and mobilize supporters across different regions of the country and the Indian diaspora abroad. Similarly, discussions surrounding policies such as the Farm Laws of 2020 and debates on unemployment, inflation, and governance frequently trend on digital platforms, shaping national conversations even before they appear in television debates or newspaper editorials. These developments illustrate how digital platforms have expanded the scope of democratic engagement by enabling citizens, journalists, and civil society groups to participate actively in political debates and hold political leaders publicly accountable.
However, the rapid spread of political content on social media has also intensified concerns about misinformation, hate speech, and digital manipulation. False rumors, edited videos, and misleading narratives often circulate widely on encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp, making it difficult for regulators to track their origin or verify their authenticity. During several election cycles, viral messages containing unverified claims or communal narratives have spread quickly within private messaging groups, sometimes influencing public perceptions and local political tensions. Scholars studying digital democracy argue that algorithm-driven content distribution on platforms like X (Twitter) can create “echo chambers,” where users are primarily exposed to viewpoints that reinforce their existing ideological preferences, thereby deepening political polarization. Concerns have also emerged regarding the use of coordinated online campaigns, automated bots, and AI-generated political content during elections. In response, the Election Commission of India has introduced guidelines requiring political parties to disclose digital campaign expenditures and label AI-generated political advertisements during election periods. Fact-checking organizations such as Alt News and BOOM Live have also become crucial actors in identifying and debunking viral misinformation. Despite these efforts, regulating digital political communication remains extremely challenging because encrypted messaging networks and decentralized content sharing make monitoring and enforcement difficult. As a result, balancing the protection of free expression with the need to maintain electoral integrity continues to be one of the most complex policy dilemmas confronting India’s evolving digital democracy.
Conclusion
The rise of social media has fundamentally transformed electoral politics in India by reshaping how political campaigns are conducted, how citizens engage with political information, and how public narratives are formed. Digital platforms have expanded the reach of political communication, enabling leaders to connect directly with voters and mobilize supporters across geographic and social boundaries. Platforms such as WhatsApp and X (Twitter) have created new opportunities for citizen participation by allowing individuals to share opinions, debate policy issues, and engage directly with political leaders. In many ways, these platforms have democratized political communication by reducing the barriers that once limited access to national political discourse. Political actors now operate in an environment where speeches, campaign rallies, and policy announcements can be instantly broadcast to millions of citizens, generating immediate public responses and online debates. Moreover, digital media has enabled regional leaders, grassroots activists, and civil society groups to gain visibility in national political conversations, thereby broadening the scope of democratic engagement beyond traditional political elites.
At the same time, the growing reliance on digital platforms for electoral communication introduces significant risks that must be addressed to safeguard democratic institutions. The spread of misinformation, the use of coordinated digital propaganda campaigns, and the emergence of artificial intelligence–generated political content raise serious concerns about the integrity of electoral processes. Instances of viral misinformation during elections have demonstrated how quickly unverified claims can shape public perceptions, particularly when shared within private messaging networks. In response, institutions such as the Election Commission of India have begun developing guidelines to regulate online political advertisements and monitor digital campaign practices. Technology companies are also under increasing pressure to strengthen content moderation systems and improve transparency in political advertising. Strengthening digital literacy among citizens, improving transparency in online political advertising, and developing robust regulatory frameworks will therefore be essential for ensuring that digital technologies strengthen rather than undermine democratic governance. As India continues to expand its digital infrastructure and internet connectivity, the influence of social media on political life is likely to grow even further. Ultimately, the future of digital democracy in India will depend on how effectively political institutions, technology companies, and civil society organizations collaborate to balance technological innovation with the core democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation.
About the Author
Khushbu Ahlawat is a research analyst with a strong academic background in International Relations and Political Science. She has undertaken research projects at Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributing to analytical work on international and regional security issues. Alongside her research experience, she has professional exposure to Human Resources, with involvement in talent acquisition and organizational operations. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations from Christ University, Bangalore, and a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Delhi.
INS Vikrant has had a bigger effect on India’s maritime imagination than most other ships. Vikrant, which the Indian Navy bought from Britain and turned into a Majestic-class carrier in 1961, was more than just a new ship. It became a strategic tool that changed the balance of power in the Indian Ocean, especially during the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh.
The name lives on in the INS Vikrant, India’s first aircraft carrier built in India. There is a story about changing doctrine, industrial ambition, and strategic independence, as well as naval gear, between these two ships.
The Beginning of a Maritime Vision
Vikrant (R11) went into service while India was still working on its security policy. The trauma of 1962 had shown weaknesses on land, but India’s geography—being a peninsula and sitting on important sea lanes—meant that the focus had to be on the sea. Aircraft carriers gave us reach, a way to scare off enemies, and the ability to change plans.
Most postcolonial governments had trouble keeping their navies up and running, but India’s decision to run a carrier showed that it wanted to do more than just protect its coastline; it wanted to project power throughout the Indian Ocean. Vikrant had a lot of mechanical problems in its early years, like boiler problems that slowed it down for a short time. Still, these limits didn’t make it any less important strategically. It was clear by the end of the 1960s that Vikrant would soon be in trouble.
The Eastern Theatre
In 1971, during the Indo-Pakistani War, Vikrant was sent to the Bay of Bengal to block East Pakistan’s navy. Vikrant was very important in the east, even though speed limits kept it from working in the west. Its Sea Hawk fighter jets attacked ports like Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, and Khulna, cutting off supply lines and leaving Pakistani troops alone.
The psychological side was just as important as the tactical side. The fact that a carrier was off the east coast showed that the navy was better than the rest. The Pakistani navy knew what Vikrant was up to and sent the submarine PNS Ghazi to stop it. Ghazi’s strange sinking off the coast of Visakhapatnam got rid of the main underwater threat, which made it possible for Vikrant to start its operations.
The blockade made the resistance in the eastern theater fall apart faster. Pakistan’s eastern command gave up in just thirteen days. The birth of Bangladesh was not just a naval victory; if Vikrant hadn’t been in charge of the sea routes, the campaign might have gone more slowly or had a different outcome.
Symbol and School of Belief
Vikrant’s legacy lives on after 1971. It started carrier aviation in India by training many generations of naval aviators and including the idea of sea control in its doctrine. It helped the Navy become known as a blue-water force that could operate far from shore for long periods of time.
Vikrant stood for individuality in a world that was divided during the Cold War. India kept its strategic options open by working with both Soviet and Western suppliers while still being able to make its own decisions. Running a carrier required good planning, technical know-how, and the ability to work well with others. These skills helped the entire defense establishment.
Vikrant’s hull was taken out of service in 1997 and then turned into a museum in Mumbai. It was torn down in 2014. By that time, though, its symbolic capital could not be taken away.
IAC-1: Industrial claim
The commissioning of the new INS Vikrant (IAC-1) in 2022 marked a historic change from being a buyer to being a builder. The warship, which was built at Cochin Shipyard, shows that the area has been able to design and build things for decades.
The new Vikrant is more than just a tribute to the old one in terms of strategy. It shows that India wants to protect the sea routes that run from the Strait of Hormuz to the Malacca Strait, which are important for its trade and energy imports.
People are still talking about carrier capability around the world, even though there are anti-ship missiles and drone warfare. But geography plays a big role in how India thinks. Marine security is not an option because there are more than 7,500 kilometers of coastline and large exclusive economic zones. Carriers can do more than just fight in traditional ways. They can also respond in flexible ways, like with disaster relief, deterrence patrols, and power projection.
A Continental Mindset for Maritime Legacy
People have long thought of India as a continental power that is obsessed with its borders. Vikrant disagreed with this point of view. It made officials realize that the ocean that surrounds the subcontinent is an important part of its future.
This change is shown in the current Indo-Pacific framework by maritime alliances, which are shown by exercises and strategic talks. Vikrant’s legacy includes making it normal for India to be a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region.
Memory, Metal, and Meaning
Warships are made of steel, but they also stand for something. The first Vikrant stood for determination at a key moment in India’s strategic history. The second one builds on that determination in a time of technological change and waters that are up for grabs.
In this sense, legacy does not mean remembering the past. It is a continuation of the goal. INS Vikrant is a good example of a guiding principle in India’s strategic thinking: sovereignty is protected not only at borders but also beyond them. For example, it enforced a blockade in 1971 and built ships in India in 2022.
As fighting at sea heats up in the Indo-Pacific, the name “Vikrant,” which means “brave,” is still appropriate. It reminds us that India’s maritime story is still being written and that the ocean is still very important to its safety, wealth, and strategic independence.
