By: Srijan Sharma & Prakrat Gupta

The colossal intelligence management failures of Mossad on October 07, 2023 when Hamas launched its largest attack on Israel, plunged the Middle East into a protracted and escalating conflict. This setback, which left Israel’s intelligence agency in a precarious position, has now been transformed into a story of redemption and revival. Mossad’s resurgence is a testament to the agency’s ability to reassess its strategies and pivot towards the Octopus Strategy, a precision-based approach that has dealt significant blows to the Axis of Resistance.

Mossad’s Failure

Israel had been caught off guard vis-à-vis Hamas, something which brings back the memories of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then, too, Israel failed to rightly assess its opponents’ intentions.

Although tensions between the two countries had been rising to that point, Israel did not expect Egypt and Syria to launch an attack on October 6, 1973. The Mossad had not been left completely without warning, however. At almost the last moment, a Mossad asset codenamed “Angel” communicated that Egypt and Syria were about to launch an offensive. However, the Mossad ignored the information as it ran counter to its assessment of Egypt. The institute did not believe that Egypt could attack Israel because it thought it did not possess the necessary technology to counter Israeli airpower. They were wrong. Egypt was able to carry out a compelling and complex offensive against Israel using Soviet SAM-6 missiles for air defence.

The 1973 failure contributed to the fall of Golda Meir’s government and the sacking of its military intelligence chief, Eli Ziera after the Agranant Commission investigated the failure of Israel’s defence forces and intelligence.

A close examination of Mossad’s intelligence misses shows that, then as well as now, the real problem in Israel’s famed intelligence agency does not lie in intelligence gathering or awareness of the threat; the real problem lies in the assessment and feedback part, which is an integral part of the intelligence cycle.

Nations often pay a heavy price for biased or half-baked assessments and underestimated feedback. Israel falters, not in raw intelligence but in intelligence management, either by assessing intelligence through a prejudiced or biased perspective or by underestimating the policy response warranted by the intel in hand.

Although we cannot say so with certainty, Mossad may well have received some prior intelligence on the October 7 attack. Still, they underestimated Hamas’s capability of carrying out a well-coordinated three-pronged attack. Four possible reasons why they thought this is:

1-Overconfidence in Israel’s technology—Iron Dome, border security, surveillance capabilities, etc.

2-Normalization of ties between Israel and Arab nations, which perhaps led Mossad to believe that the situation with Palestine, too, was thawing.

3-Divided Israeli attention in the West Bank and domestic politics. Israel feared that the recent surge in unrest in the West Bank would lead to widespread violence. Israeli citizens, too, were restless. Security establishments were therefore focused on the West Bank and domestic fronts and distracted from Gaza.

Iran’s nuclear obsession kept Mossad under the impression that Iran would not wish to stir the pot because it was engaged in delicate negotiations regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action via backchannels with the US. Israel might have been under the valid impression that Iran would not sabotage the nuclear deal by encouraging an offensive action by its ally Hamas, at least for a time. At the time, Iran was lowering the pace of its nuclear stockpiling. The action of lowering stockpiling can be seen as a deception to shift Mossad’s attention and make them believe that Iran was still vigorously pursuing the deal via backchannels. If, as per some reports, Iran was behind the attack, it succeeded in carrying out a covert proxy attack where Iran could exercise clean deniability and play safe. Even if not, the appearance of detente may have contributed to catching Israel off guard.

As strategic affairs expert and national security analyst Praveen Swami notes, “successful conduct of war demands endless intellectual creativity.” This statement underscores the crucial role of continuous innovation and adaptability in shaping effective war strategies, a point that the audience should feel is urgent and essential.

Learning From Failures and Mossad’s Comeback

After failure to pre-empt and prevent the 7^th October attacks, Mossad must have gone in introspection and taken a few lessons, which they took fifty-one years back in 1973, where they nearly missed intelligence. The Commission, which investigated this failure, recommended organisational changes in Mossad, but most importantly, Mossad established an analytical capability to challenge the military intelligence assessments. Mossad failed then because their feedback loop was closed and not expansive, and the agency’s inconsistency in analytic objectivity.

In 1973, Mossad believed that Arabs were weak and wouldn’t attack Israel; this same assessment, at least to some extent, prevailed last year when Mossad thought that Hamas would not execute such a significant attack.  The rigidity in the evaluation and of diversifying its assessment led to the intertwining of fatalistic intelligence approaches and security policies where Israel’s Mossad was to some extent convinced that Arabs would not attack them as they are weak and prospects of war were relatively weak; however, to their shock, 1973 war happened.  The Thumb rule of intelligence assessment says that produced intelligence must run from analysis, free from prejudices and bias. In contrast, Mossad’s strong objectivity, which lacked analysis and sometimes ran into prejudices, caused Mossad to make wrong estimations.

The then chief of the Mossad, Zvi Zamir, described Israeli views of the Arabs succinctly: “We scorned them,” and thus, the intelligence process and the policy process became a “cross-fertilisation breeding disaster.  In simple words, Mossad didn’t scrutinise the intent and capacity. It picturised a superficial assessment of the enemy, which has a high possibility of being untrue.

Mossad’s core problem was hinted at by the Aghat Commission, which pointed out the agency’s failed assessments. However, this issue was far from solved. Mossad again came into a tight spot after its failure in the 1982 Lebanon Invasion, when the agency encountered a complex intelligence assessment.

The 1982 Failure

In 1982, Mossad and the top echelons of the Israeli security establishment believed that a short war with Lebanon against the Palestinian resistance movement led by Yasser Afarat could alter the balance of power in favour of Israel, for which Israel used the attack on the Israeli ambassador, in London as a critical reason to invade Lebanon.

Mossad believed that on the ground, their right-wing Christian ally-Phalangists (Kateeb Party), who are anti-Palestine and want to drive them out, would support them with on-ground intelligence and combat support. Therefore, Mossad began operational engagements with Phalangists; the agency further believed that strengthening right-wing Christians would help them to establish a pro-Israel government in Lebanon. Mossad strengthened them, but the agency over-relied on their assessments and advocated for them. The agency was not able to assess that these right-wing Christians have extremists face as well, which can backfire and damage Israel’s position both operationally and diplomatically. These right wings carried out brutal  Sabra and Shatila massacres, killing Palestine civilians and Shia Muslims. This incident significantly contributed to Israel’s withdrawal from the war, leading to the secret rise of Hezbollah.

Kahan Commission sat to inquiry this massacre, which held Israel as indirectly responsible. However, Mossad was not reprimanded, but Israeli Defence Minister Sharon dismissed as “personal responsibility” for “ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge” and “not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed”—Sharon’s negligence in protecting the civilian population of Beirut, which had come under Israeli control.

As for Mossad, the then Director Nahum Admoni put it succinctly: “Mossad tried to the best of its ability to present and approach the subject (of intelligence on Lebanon) as objectively as possible; but since it was in charge of the contacts, I accept as an assumption that subjective and not only objective relations also emerged. The Director acknowledged that subjectivity existed, but the agency preferred objectivity, which led to the limited assessment of right-wing Christian behaviour and the consequences of deploying them in refugee camps, showing the glaring error in Mossad’s assessment yet again.

Fixing The Error and Octopus Strategy

Mossad seems to have gradually fixed its assessment errors by bringing a broad view of its intelligence assessment without prejudices. The successful execution of the targeted assassination of Hams and Hezbollah top leadership and the preparation to handle escalations show three critical improvements in the agency.

1. Mossad is considering various dynamics and pre-strike assessments, which were limited earlier

• Giving space for more subjectivity and less rigid objectivity, carefully reading the balance of power instead of acting hastily.

• Following the Octopus strategy of carrying out precise strikes against high-profile targets means going for the head and not for Octopus tentacles, showing operational and strategic patience.

As Mossad redeems its agency’s image and rebuilds Israe’s strategic power steering in the complex dynamic of power balance, the agency must realise that it must continue intelligence flexibility with an analytic-objective approach to reimagine its dominance in the Middle East security and strategic dynamics.

By: Paarvana Sree, Research Analyst, GSDN

China’s nuclear weapons have been playing a significant role in its national strategy. We can see that China’s nuclear doctrine has a very strong continuity. China has also made readjustments in its nuclear doctrine by taking into consideration the changes in the external and internal environment and its strategic threat perception. We can see that China’s nuclear programme has devolved from anti-nuclear blackmail to the policy of minimum deterrence. The five major part of China’s nuclear doctrine are policy of nuclear declaration, nuclear development, nuclear deployment, nuclear employment and nuclear disarmament. China’s nuclear doctrine has its own characteristics as China is faced with a different situation and has its own strategic culture. China’s nuclear doctrine is linked with national development strategy, national security strategy, National defense policy and that of military strategy of China.

Brief history of China’s nuclear programme

Mao Zedong, China’s founding father believed that it was conventional weapons that would play a greater role in war than the nuclear weapons. When China’s nuclear programme began in 1950s China always wanted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. When China was working on modernizing the People’s Liberation Army which began in 1955, it was asserted that strategies for evolving a scientific base for China which was a mile stone in country’s nuclearisation which began in 1964. The emphasis for developing a nuclear weapon arsenal took place when United States tried to deter China’s involvement in Korean War. Many of the political leaders in China advanced for ‘master atomic energy’. This ultimately led to the development of China’s nuclear program which was consolidated with the aid from technological transfer agreements it signed with Soviet Union. Soviet Union assistance was indeed vital for China’s build of nuclear capabilities. Soviet Union gave  military and technical assistance for China and provided an experimental reactor and uranium processing units.

China remarked that the acquisition of nuclear weapon was the best way to attain military supremacy in the bipolar world which was governed by the two hegemons at that time the USA and USSR. China also viewed nuclear weapons as a stronger defence strategy to avoid potential threats from the US and USSR. China’s nuclear relationship with USSR was however strained because of the ideological differences between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev. Soviet Union withdrew its technical assistance for China because of the growing dissatisfaction it had with China. The attack by Chinese forces on the Soviet soldiers on Zhenbao Island on Ussuri River further aggravated the tensions. China saw this as a deterrence measure against the Soviet aggression. Even though the relationship between China and Soviet Union ended, China continued its development of nuclear weapons and consequently held the first nuclear test on October 16, 1964 at Lop Nor site, detonating a Uranium 235 fashion device. China then became the fifth nuclear state in the world.

Key developments in China’s nuclear programme

1. Hypersonic weapons:

China is one of the nations to develop hypersonic weapon system. There are two types of hypersonic missiles. One is hypersonic glide vehicle and the other is hypersonic cruise missile. China had been experimenting the test of DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle since 2014. China built its first hypersonic wind tunnel in 2013. In 2023 it finished the construction of JF-22 hyper velocity wind tunnels. China also deployed its DF-17 medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) with a hypersonic light vehicle as a payload in 2020. DF-17 can carry either conventional or nuclear payload and has a range between 1800 and 2500 km. Besides developing hypersonic glide vehicles, China is testing hypersonic cruise missile that use scramjet technology. The China academy of aerospace aerodynamics conducted the test of Den Xing Kong-2 (Stray Sky 2) wave rider hypersonic flight vehicles in August 2018.

• Fractional orbital bombardment system ( FOBS)

The test for FOBS took place in August 2021 and in this a nuclear capable hypersonic missile was sent into an orbit and deorbited to achieve the target. The distance covered was 40000 km with a flight time of 100 + minutes. This was not a new technique as this technique was used by Soviet Union during the Cold War period. What is new with China is that China used  it with hypersonic glide vehicle. China is using these to escalate the formidable missile defence system of US.

• Increased nuclear arsenal

The Stockholm International Peace Research (SIPRI) reports that China has a stockpile of 500 nuclear warheads. By 2030 it may be increased to 1000 war heads says the US Department of Defence. China is building missile silos since 2021 in the north western desert of the country. This report expects that China has about 400 ICBMs in its inventory. China is going on with its construction in Lop Nor, the nuclear testing site. China also increased its production of plutonium through the efficient reactors. All this points out to the fact that China is going into a nuclear arms race with USA and Russia.

• Nuclear posture debate

The US Department of Defence says that China is now adopting the low posture called an early warning counter strike which was different from past. This enables China to launch a nuclear attack even when there is a suspicion of incoming missile. In such a situation China will launch an attack even though it had not hit the nuclear territory. These changed postures thus reveal a degree of aggression in Chinese nuclear planning.

Overall strategy and doctrine

China always maintained the policy of No First Use (NFU) and followed the policy of credible minimum deterrence following the 1964 nuclear test. China always followed the policy which emphasizes importance of second strike survivability of its nuclear weapons. In

this way we can view that the primary aim in modernizing and expanding the nuclear weapon arsenal is to maintain its position in global affairs and to build credible minimum deterrence from other states.

China is primarily concerned by its position in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is also to be noted that China is having a friendly relation with Pakistan in the transfer of nuclear technology, uranium mining and nuclear fuel supply. China also provides Pakistan the support to set up research reactors. Presently China’s nuclear doctrine consists of five elements-nuclear declaration, development, deployment, employment and disarmament. China replicated its support for nuclear disarmament while maintaining the importance of having an effective nuclear arsenal with a strategic second strike capability. The white papers published by China in 2019 reveal a detailed picture of China’s military and PLA strategies and very little about its nuclear weapon program. If it is true this means that China’s nuclear program is evolving around the surrounding geopolitical circumstances and countries threat perceptions. The white paper report of 2019 declared that China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country and keep its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. China also maintained the importance of defensive nuclear capabilities as the primary aim of its nuclear program. It also maintained complete and total nuclear disarmament as its priority and the goal of its nuclear strategy

Implications for India

Even though both India and China are nuclear weapons state they have certain implications for each other. China’s build-up of nuclear stockpile had been a major factor for India’s nuclear weapon program in the context of border dispute which occurred in 1962 and China’s nuclear test in 1964.

Both India and China apply the principle of NFU and credible minimum deterrence and follow the policy of escalation which deals with nuclear threats. Both states argue that their nuclear weapons will play a decisive role in military conflicts between them. India’s nuclear strategy dealt with Pakistan and while that of China is pointed at the US. This had been highlighted by 1993 and 1996 peace agreements along the India-China border highlighting the need for confidence building. Military modernization of China is largely playing a role in India’s own modernization efforts as the need for deterrence paves way for greater tensions. China does not see India as a potential rival discounting India’s nuclear capabilities. The growing Pakistan-China relationship is a vital factor in India’s perception of China and its nuclear program. While framing India’s security architecture they take into account India’s unresolved border issues with Pakistan and China which plays a greater role in the nuclear domain.

Conclusion

China’s efforts to improve its nuclear capabilities have received the attention of stakeholders who are involved in global conversations dealing with nuclear weapons and disarmament.

China’s goal to modernize its military and nuclear capabilities is mainly aimed at establishing the supremacy in world order. The US and its larger nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to China. Thus, in order to overcome potential risk China pursued the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. North Korea’s proliferation of nuclear weapons and breakdown of international agreements like INF paved the way for China’s disinterest in engaging in disarmament with the USA. The China’s nuclear program will definitely play a tense role in the current nuclear world and whether global disarmament could become a reality, remains unachievable as on date.

By: Anuraag Khaund

On September 18-19, 2024, two days before the fourth QUAD Leaders’ Summit hosted by the US in Wilmington, Delaware, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister (PM) Alexei Overchuk had led a high level delegation to Pakistan, holding meetings with PM Shehbaz Sharif, President Asif Ali Zardari and with Deputy PM/ Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar. While the visit by the Russian Deputy PM was a normal occurrence in light of the burgeoning Russia- Pakistan relations in recent years especially areas such as trade, energy, defence cooperation and connectivity, what stood out during the visit was Moscow’s declaration of support, albeit conditional, for Pakistan’s membership into the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) forum. This move precedes the invitation extended to Islamabad to join the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) extended by President Vladimir Putin to Islamabad during the former’s State of the Union address to Pakistan last year. Such moves have raised concerns whether the above actions are aimed at expressing Russian displeasure over the growing strategic convergence between India and the West, especially the US.

Since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, following the dictum of strategic-autonomy and multi-alignment, India has maintained a balanced position by maintaining its traditional ties with Russia while also increasing its convergence with the West. This was highlighted in the Indo- Russian summit of July 2024 between PM Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin which saw the strengthening of cooperation in areas such as Arctic and Far East, INSTC and the Chennai Vladivostok Maritime Corridor. At the same time, the August 2024 visit taken by the Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to the US saw the signing of Security of Supply Chain Agreement (SOSA) and the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Assignment of Liasion Officers which ensures the ‘provision of reciprocal priority support in goods and services vital for national defence in order to mitigate unanticipated supply chain risks’ and the posting of Indian Armed Forces officers in key strategic US Commands. However, the maintenance of diplomatic balance by New Delhi has not been taken kindly by its partners, such as the US which has often expressed its disdain over India’s maintenance of neutrality over Russia in Ukraine and the continued engagement with Moscow. But now, in addition to the above, there might now emerge a similar pressure from Russia expressing displeasure over India’s bonhomie with the US.

The aforementioned invitation to Pakistan to join the INSTC which was reiterated again by Deputy PM Overchuk in the joint press conference with his Pakistani counterpart Dar would prove to be detrimental to India’s interest. The main purpose behind New Delhi’s interest and active participation in the INSTC was the need to find an alternative pathway to access and tap the markets of Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics (CARs) bypassing the obstruction posed by the geographic location as well as the political stubbornness of Pakistan. Bolstering Indian participation in the INSTC is the recent Indo- Iranian agreement on Chabahar port which stipulates Indian operation as well as investment in the equipment of the Shahid Behesti terminal of the port. Any possible Pakistani participation would not only provide Islamabad the opportunity to stymie Indian connectivity interests to Central Asia by leveraging its geographical position along the route but also affect Chabahar’s prospects through competition with the port of Gwadar along Pakistan’s Makran coast.

In the same press conference, in answer to a question, Overchuk also mentioned about the possibility of linking the INSTC with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China. Such a linkage would inevitably involve the flagship project of the BRI−the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) connecting the port of Gwadar with the town of Kashgar in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang. The above possibility will be detrimental to Indian interests as it would be counterproductive to New Delhi’s core vision of the INSTC being an alternative/ competitor to the BRI. In addition, the inclusion of CPEC− accused of blatantly violating Indian territorial integrity and sovereignty− into the  INSTC connectivity project initiated by India (along with Russia and Iran) at the first place would be a geopolitical and strategic irony and could be interpreted by both Beijing and Islamabad as New Delhi’s acquiescence of CPEC and by extension, the Sino-Pakistani position on Pakistan Occupied Jammu & Kashmir  (POJK).

Moreover, the joining of the INSTC and the BRI/ CPEC would also allow Pakistan to pursue its plan of linking Chabahar and Gwadar as ‘sister ports’ which was first envisaged in 2016 and even received support from China. In the backdrop of the growing strategic convergence between Iran and China as well as Tehran’s  increasing dependence on Beijing in the face of Western sanctions, China is well positioned to bolster efforts towards synergising the ports of Gwadar and Chabahar through its influence over both Tehran and Islamabad. Coupled with the Chinese penetration in Bandar Abbas, a greater Chinese influence over Chabahar and Gwadar would provide it with strategic leverage over the critical Straits of Hormuz chokepoint. Most importantly, this linkage would fly in the face of Indian strategic interests and aspirations of developing Chabahar not only as a gateway to Central Asia but also an alternative and attractive transhipment hub vis-a vis Gwadar.

The other significant development of seismic potentiality was the support extended by Moscow to Pakistan’s membership bid for the BRICS. This should be seen in the light of the recent expansion of the BRICS membership last year which saw the inclusion of five new members− Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Ethiopia as well as the interest expressed by 33 other countries to join the grouping. From the Pakistani perspective, membership into BRICS would not only come with economic benefits such as access to investment and the New Development Bank (NDB) but also an increased international profile and prestige. But from the Indian viewpoint, inclusion of Pakistan would affect the nature of the BRICS from a geoeconomic grouping to a geopolitical one  and even add to the pro- Chinese tilt of the platform. The possible transformation of the BRICS into a pro-Chinese club should also be seen in the fact that in the same press conference, Overchuk referred to BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as ‘brotherly organisations’− the SCO being a platform where India’s strategic space is outmanoeuvred by Chinese clout.    

Both the above moves by Russia, which have adverse implications for India, can be seen as subtle moves on the part of Moscow expressing its displeasure over New Delhi’s increasing convergence and alignment with the West, especially the US and in forums such as QUAD. This is particularly in areas such as defence cooperation where Russia has traditionally enjoyed a dominant space with India. Some experts also suggest that the displeasure might also stem from PM Modi’s visit to Ukraine ; the focus on New Dehi-Kyiv defence cooperation have also raised eyebrows. Most significantly, reports of Indian ammunition being used in the Ukrainian offensive against Russia and alleged Indian ignorance of the same despite Moscow’s protests have also contributed to annoyance with India.

Yet, not all is lost in the Indo-Russian Druzba-Dosti (Friendship in Russian and Hindi respectively). This can be witnessed in the tampering down of the stated Russian support to Pakistan’s bid with Overchuk’s emphasis on ‘consensus’ (within the BRICS members) and ‘due process’ on inclusion of due process. This toning down of the statement could be seen as a signal allaying Indian concerns while reference to the intra-BRICS discussions based on ‘equality, mutual respect, and consensus’ as well as the ‘special brotherly relationship’ between the ‘sovereign and free BRICS nations’ by Overchuk could be seen as hinting towards the importance attached by Moscow to its strategic partnerships with the other members especially India. This could be seen as Russian exercise of its own ‘strategic autonomy’ vis – a vis New Delhi and Islamabad.

The above exercise of strategic autonomy by Moscow could be further corroborated by the Russian expression of support to India and Brazil’s bid for permanent membership at the UN Security Council by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the recent 79^th UN General Assembly. Despite its outreach to Pakistan, Russia would not risk to alienate an ally as vital as India whose continued support and engagement, especially its oil and defence imports  has helped Moscow sustain its economy in these trying times.  Moreover, the importance of India’s current weight in the international system as well as its ability to act as a bridge or peacemaker with the West is also not lost on Moscow.

Yet, a close listening of Overchuk’s answers during the press conference would reveal that while addressing the question regarding Pakistan’s BRICS membership, the Russian Deputy PM began answering it by outlining the brief history of the grouping as initially comprised of four nations with South Africa joining it later. However, while mentioning the initial four countries of Brazil, Russia, and China, somehow India does not find mention in the statement. Perhaps a slip of tongue on the part of Overchuk or a deliberate and overt sign of Russian annoyance?  

Anuraag Khaund is pursuing PhD in International Politics from the School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat. He has published opinion pieces in The Diplomat, Deccan Herald, Kashmir Observer and Modern Diplomacy.  His interests include International Relations and Geopolitics with a focus on Eurasia, East, West, South and Southeast Asia. In addition to geopolitics, he also looks at the intersection between civilizational histories and current global politics. The author can be contacted at khaundanuraag@gmail.com

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Meghna Dasgupta, Research Analyst, GSDN

South Asia is a home to nearly 2.04 billion people, and is marked by its rich cultural diversity and complex socio-political landscape. The region faces several external as well as internal issues which has often threated its stability and has caused significant unrest. Factors like colonial baggage, ethnic and religious divides, and border disputes remain the most significant problems in South Asia. The partition of British India in 1947, which led to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan resulted in communal violence of unprecedented level, displacement of millions, and left a feeling of antagonism over territorial dispute over Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict remains a trigger for both the nuclear armed states even today, with both the countries striving for control over the region. Conflict between the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka had resulted in a civil war that lasted for almost three decades. Similarly, Pakistan continues to struggle with sectarian violence between the Shia and Sunni Muslims causing tensions and unrest. Hindus and Muslims in India have often engaged in riots which has been further exacerbated by political actors, and information warfare.

The recent political upheaval in Bangladesh, which resulted in the dramatic ousting of Sheikh Hasina further highlights the political instability in the region. Sheikh Hasina has however claimed that this upheaval was the result of a foreign interference. This political instability in Bangladesh will likely cause security and economic difficulties for India. Pakistan has also been struggling with economic inefficiencies since the 2022 flood, and had sought help from the IMF and bilateral creditors. The 2024 elections in Pakistan were marred by allegations of irregularity and lack of fairness. The influence of the military remained significant, which further orchestrated various aspects of the election. Terrorism in Pakistan has worsened since the Taliban came to power in the neighbouring Afghanistan and the collapse of ceasefire with Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP).

Sri-Lanka has been struggling with economic hardships, and the recent elections are a hope towards a more stable economy, that promotes sustainable and inclusive growth. This election aims to attract investors, so as to help quarter of 22 million population raise out of poverty. In 2023, Nepal faces its first recession in over six decades. Nepal is also under scrutiny for still discriminating against women, even after amending its citizenship law in 2023. According to UNICEF, 33 percent of girls and 9 percent of boys are married before the age of 18 (Human Rights Watch , 2023).The rate of child marriage is believed to have increased during the pandemic. India has been facing criticisms for its subtle shift towards right-wing politics, and nationalistic Hindutva ideologies. This has caused a feeling of insecurity among the religious minorities. The 2023 Manipur clashes further exasperated the tensions. 2023-2024 has been the year of elections, or campaigning for several South Asian countries, and the chaos and struggles during this period raises the question whether democracy is struggling in South Asia or not.

The colonial past of South-Asia has set a precedence for its contemporary challenges. The strategy of “divide and rule” led to ethnic and religious tensions, particularly between the Hindus and the Muslims. The 1947 partition sowed distrust, and animosity between India and Pakistan, leading to the long-standing violent rivalry. This remains a major source of instability in South Asia. Similarly, the arbitrary drawing of Durand line between Pakistan and Afghanistan during the colonial era has remained a source of tension between both the countries. One of the most persistent problems in South Asia is the territorial disputes. The 2020 border dispute between India and Nepal in the Lipulekh-Limpladora-Kalapani region has harmed the long-standing ties between the two countries. The conflict worsened the personal relationship of both the countries, leading to hostile feelings. Areas of dispute like Kashmir, Siachen Glacier, Aksai Chin, Sir Creek, and Doklam has been a reason for contention between countries like India, Pakistan, Bhutan, and China (Nayak, 2023). These grievances and disputes are fueled nationalism, geo-political factors, and historical grudges. China plays a significant role in the dynamics of South-Asia. The Belt and Roads Initiative (BRI) increased China’s presence in South Asia. The BRI serves a way for China to ensure economic development in Asia. Nepal who has been historically dependent on India, views China as a new partner, and an alternative to its dependence on India. Thus, the 2020 standoff was viewed by several scholars as an outcome of growing Chinese influence in South Asia. China is trying to challenge the Indian sway in the region. China has also established a strategic post at Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port. The recent military pact between Male and China, and withdrawal of Indian troops from Maldives is also a concern for India and USA. Pakistan is a key partner in China’s BRI project. This new-fashioned Cold War has had profound impact on the regional dynamics of South Asia, threatening its internal stability.

Terrorism poses one of the most significant threats to the stability of South Asia. The South Asian countries have not been able to create a “truly pluralistic society”. Pakistan in particular has been the breeding ground for several terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). These groups have been the perpetrators of terror and violence not only in Pakistan, but in the neighboring South Asian countries as well. Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia have been accused of funding extremist movements in the region. The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and its subsequent withdrawal from the country had long lasting impacts on the regional security of Soth Asia. Political Instability still remains a major source of concern in the region. Nepal transitioned from a monarchy to a republic in 2008, after decades of Maoist insurgency. However, the region’s political landscape is still not stable, and undergoes frequent government changes. Bangladesh is currently struggling with severe political turmoil. The protests against job quotas steamrolled into a much broader movement which has led to the ousting of Sheikh Hasina. Her sudden exit will have far reaching consequences on the bilateral relation of Bangladesh with its South Asian neighbors. Amidst the ongoing struggle, transboundary water cooperation between India and Bangladesh is a critical area that needs attention.

Poverty and unemployment remain one of the most critical factors contributing to instability in South Asia. Countries like Afghanistan and Nepal remain plagued by poverty. 20 percent of the population in South Asia still lives under the international poverty line (TM Tonmoy Islam). This fuels social discontent and distrust. The rise of Taliban and Mujahedin, and the subjugation of Rohingyas in Myanmar led to mass migration to the neighboring South Asian countries, particularly Bangladesh. This creates a security dilemma, which further increases tension. South Asia’s reaction to mass exodus has always been positive despite its own complex ethnic structure. The region is extremely susceptible to natural disasters like cyclone, floods, and droughts. These have become more frequent in the past few decades. Countries like Bangladesh and Maldives faces existential threats from rising sea levels. South Asia is an agriculture intensive region, thus making this region extremely susceptible to climate change. Both India and Pakistan are still grappling with water crisis, which further exacerbates the difficulties regarding the sharing of Indus River water.

Unrest and Instability in South Asia is a result of several complex factors like poverty, political instability, colonial baggage, territorial dispute, terrorism, weak civil institutions, environmental challenges, and geo-political rivalries. The consequences of the instability are far reaching, and have an impact on world politics as well. A stable South Asia is crucial for development of India. India’s Neighborhood First Policy, and institutions like SAARC play a significant role in mitigating the tensions in the region. Peaceful relationship and synergetic co-development of the South Asian countries should be the ultimate goal.

By: Samadrita Goswami

Afghanistan has always been a fragmented state lacking little to no centralised authority. Afghanistan only came to be recognised as a sovereign state in 1919 after the Third Anglo-Afghan war.  Considering the geographic location, it was considered as a strategic buffer zone to the British, which was separating British India from Czarist Russia. The post-World War II era saw the beginning of bloc politics started between the US and the USSR and Afghanistan was brought in the middle of a new ‘Great Game’. Afghanistan, along with being a scattered state, came to be the most affected in experiencing a series of “hot” turmoil due to the politics of the cold war. Adhering to its name, Afghanistan is known as the Grave of Empires, it has always resisted against foreign invasion, from the British, Russians and finally, the Americans.

The Rise of the Taliban

Victoria Schofield states that the Soviets did not bring peace and prosperity but instigated the total breakdown of Afghanistan since 1979 which resulted in a jihadist uprising in the country that further took the shape of insurgency after the Soviet withdrawal of 1989. It has been brought to attention that these Afghan guerrillas were getting sufficient financial aids from the US between 1981 and 1985, the aid marked a significant rise from US$ 30 million to a staggering US$ 280 million. Given the geography of Afghanistan, there is not much scope for its agrarian aspirations so, it depended on the production of drugs, especially opium. It can be said that throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Afghanistan ran on the “generosity” of both the blocs who eventually suffered from a “donor fatigue” and left the country in a more deepened disaster.

Another aspect of the rise of the Taliban regime has to be the deficiency in the root of its problem that is education. Since the mid-1980s, Afghan Islamists established Islamic boarding schools with international funding which followed the traditional Deobandi school of Sunni Hanafi Islam. These young boys were educated in accordance to Islamist philosophy, which included military training, front-line engagement, and militant activities. In the late 1980s, alumni of these institutes became prominent preachers in mosques across Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocating for militant warfare.

According to Abdulkader Sinno, Afghanistan was never a liberal democracy where popular will inevitably resulted in a new ruler. Understanding how the Taliban’s objective led to ground successes is crucial for making a convincing case. Sinno gives some reasons as to why the Taliban regime rose to prominence by stating how they successfully incorporated local Pushtun leaders by appealing to their followers, using their specialised knowledge of Pushtun power dynamics, and capitalising their own momentum.

With the rise of the Taliban regime, the position of women has been an integral theme to be discussed. Although, oppression of women can be often associated with the Medieval Islamic world, it has to be considered that Muslim women, in the Middle Ages had the right to own property and often independently on contrary to the European Christian women in the era. Juan R.I. Cole tries to explore the workings in the public and private spheres in Western political thought relating it with the Afghan distinction of the inner and outer domain. Radical fundamentalism in any religion undermines a rational public realm, promoting authoritarian leadership, sexism, and religious domination.

Why did the Taliban regime die down

Hannah Arendt has pointed out, there are major distinctions between a popular movement in opposition and one facing the problems of governance once in power. Revolutionary movements can have underlying tensions resulting from the leader’s own personality and political ideas. Like many earlier revolutionary groups, the Taliban failed to differentiate between leading a popular military movement and operating a functioning state.

The most important factor as to why the Taliban regime became ineffective in 2001, was the invasion launched by the US after the 9/11 terrorist assault took place. In early October 2001, the United States initiated an air campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, while the United Front forces in northern Afghanistan captured Mazar-e Sharif. Soon the rest of their forces, which had been positioned in the Panjsher Valley north of Kabul, moved against the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Kabul. In several major cities, such as Herat and Kabul, the city’s youth, who were fed up with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, took up arms and freed city centres before the arrival of United Front and coalition forces. This by no means guaranteed the Talibani regime’s annihilation but rather a hibernation which remerge to its fullest as the Ashraf Ghani’s government fell in 2021 coincided with the withdrawal of American troops.

The 2021 Taliban Takeover

The Afghan administration, supported by the US had lacked proper legitimacy and ability, monopolised international funding and established a massive corruption cartel. In 2020, under Trump administration, a negotiated peace agreement with the Taliban was signed, excluding the Afghan government. Since then, suspicion and tensions within the Afghan administration have grown. Finally, the Taliban took power but it also assured that Afghanistan would not be a breeding ground for terrorist activities against the US. Jhang Ji-Hyang points out that with the US presence in Afghanistan disintegrates, counter-terrorism would halt rapidly and the wanning of a liberal structure is inevitable.

Since the Taliban regained control in 2021, Afghanistan has faced enormous humanitarian and political issues. The international world has largely isolated the Taliban administration owing to concerns about human rights issues, notably those affecting women’s rights and minorities. Despite initial pledges of moderation, reports from 2023 and 2024 show a tightening authoritarian control, with severe Islamic rules being implemented more strictly. Afghanistan’s economy remains unstable, relying primarily on international help, which has declined under the current leadership. Furthermore, while the Taliban claim to be preventing terrorist activity on Afghan soil, regional instability has grown, increasing fears about the rebirth of extremist organizations. As the global geopolitical environment changes, the Taliban’s Afghanistan remains a focal point for worldwide discussions about terrorism and human rights and regional security.

By: Baadshah Chatterjee

For the first time in American history, Kamala Harris, an African-American woman on her father’s side, born in Jamaica, and Asian on her mother’s side, born in India, was chosen as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, one of the two major parties. She is also married to a Jew, Douglas Amhoff, and hence she represents a distinct minority. In the 2020 elections, President Joe Biden chose her to serve as his deputy mainly so that she would bring him votes from among the minority groups in American society.

Since she was chosen as a presidential candidate, Harris is running a similar election strategy and her success is also dependent on the mobilization of minorities.

Defining a minority is always a relative function against a majority. In the United States it was not always about “whites” versus “blacks”. There were a majority and a minority among the whites as well. Jews came from Europe to the United States in the first waves of immigration to it, and were considered a minority group on religious-ethnic grounds. Against the Protestant majority, the Catholics were also a religious minority, and only in 1960 was the first Catholic president, John Kennedy, elected. The most prominent minority group is that of blacks, “Afro-Americans”, who came to the United States to serve as slaves. It was a minority group based on race and color.

The involvement of Minorities in Politics

The involvement of minorities in politics is mainly related to the history of African-Americans. Historically, one can see its beginning in the American Civil War (1861-1865) which led to their release from the shackles of slavery.

The first African-American elected to the Senate was Hiram Rebels, a soldier in the Northern Army, and that was in 1870.

But he served in Congress for only one year. After him in 1875, another African-American senator, Blanche Bruce, was elected, but from 1881 to 1967, no African-Americans were elected to positions in Congress, and they continued to suffer from racism and severe discrimination, especially in the southern states.

President Abraham Lincoln who started a civil war to free black slaves was the head of the Republican Party, but in the twentieth century, this party became conservative while the Democratic Party became liberal, and were more sensitive to minority rights. That’s why most of them chose candidates on her behalf. The involvement of African-Americans in politics through the Democratic Party developed in three stages: in the 1930s and 1940s during the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt; in the fifties and sixties mainly during the period of President Lyndon Johnson and at the beginning of the twenty-first century with the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the United States.

Roosevelt built a broad coalition of workers, intellectuals, minorities (Jews, African-Americans, Catholics) and southerners, who were conservative, but voted Democratic, as a generational protest against Lincoln’s Republicans. Even then, the Democrats read the changing demographic map of the US and took advantage of it.