For years, the United States has presented India as a natural partner in countering China. Washington has praised New Delhi as a like-minded democracy and a pillar of stability in the Indo-Pacific. But behind this cheerful diplomatic language, there is a quieter shift. The U.S. political establishment — especially under Donald Trump — is increasingly uneasy about India’s widening network of strategic partnerships.
To Washington, India’s “strategic autonomy” sometimes looks like India keeping its options open with America’s rivals. Cheaper Russian oil, mineral-focused cooperation with China, and participation in blocs like BRICS have triggered anxiety in U.S. circles that worry about losing leverage in future economic and security architecture.
Trump’s answer? Tariffs — his favourite foreign-policy hammer. By imposing up to 50% duties on Indian exports, Trump was not only playing the trade card; he was also signalling displeasure. The message was simple: If India deepens ties with Moscow and Beijing, there will be a cost.
This confrontation isn’t only about economics — it reflects a tug-of-war over who will shape global power in the decade ahead.
Minerals, Technology and the New Power Game
Critical minerals — copper, cobalt, nickel, manganese, rare earths — have quietly become the currency of global power. They sit inside the technologies that will drive the future: batteries, solar panels, defence electronics, AI chips, and advanced manufacturing.
Whoever controls access to these resources and their supply chains will shape the next strategic era. The U.S. has understood this, which explains Trump’s April 24, 2025 Executive Order fast-tracking American exploration of seabed minerals under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA). Even without formally joining UNCLOS or the International Seabed Authority, Washington has decided it cannot afford delays while China and Russia move ahead.
Against this backdrop, India’s efforts to secure minerals — sometimes involving Chinese or Russian partners — complicate U.S. planning. If India rises as an independent technology and supply-chain actor, Washington’s dominance in strategic industries becomes harder to defend.
The Russia–China Factor and India’s Tightrope Walk
Russia’s war in Ukraine transformed Moscow and Beijing into near-strategic twins. China calls itself neutral, but evidence points to deep economic and dual-use support to Russia.
India, meanwhile, is trying to walk a tight line: condemning violence in principle, avoiding direct criticism of Moscow, and dramatically expanding oil imports from Russia. Discounted crude has shifted Russia from a minor supplier to almost 40% of India’s oil basket by 2024 — a change too big for Washington to ignore.
When Modi praised his 2023 meeting with Putin as “excellent,” U.S. policymakers took notice. In their view, large-scale Russian oil purchases blunt Western sanctions and indirectly assist Russia’s war effort.
In truth, India sees these purchases as simple statecraft — energy security first, geopolitics second. But in Washington, the optics landed differently.
Tariffs as Political Pressure
Trump’s response came swiftly. First a 25% tariff, then an escalation to 50%, applied widely across Indian exports. American officials argued they were penalising New Delhi for helping finance Russia through oil.
Economists, however, warned of messy outcomes:
India’s growth could slip below 6%, against earlier estimates of 6.5%
U.S. buyers faced higher costs and scrambled to source from places like Turkey and Thailand
Supply-chain instability ironically rose inside the U.S. market
In short, the tariffs punished both sides. But for Trump, economics was secondary. The goal was to remind India of the value — and vulnerability — of access to the U.S. market.
New Delhi’s Strategic Autonomy Isn’t Changing
India’s foreign policy rests on one simple idea: never become dependent on any single power. So New Delhi juggles priorities — Russian defence ties, BRICS participation, engagement with China where necessary, strong security cooperation with the U.S., and a seat at the Quad.
To Washington, this sometimes feels inconvenient. To India, it is common sense.
Tariffs may irritate Indian policymakers, but they won’t push India into abandoning multi-alignment — if anything, they strengthen New Delhi’s desire to stay independent.
A Smaller but Notable Concern: North Korea
India’s limited diplomatic contact with North Korea has also contributed to U.S. unease. The relationship is hardly central to Indian strategy, but in Washington’s narrative, every sign of independent Asian diplomacy reinforces the belief that India won’t fully integrate into America’s security umbrella.
Conclusion
Trump’s tariffs do not simply reflect a trade dispute — they reveal a deeper American anxiety. India’s rise as a resource-secure, energy-independent, and diplomatically autonomous power challenges old assumptions about U.S. primacy.
Washington wants India as a partner in containing China. But India wants room to manoeuvre — not a camp to join. And in this new world, access to oil, minerals, and technology supply chains matters more than applause from a superpower.
Tariffs might sting economically, but they won’t change New Delhi’s strategy. If anything, they highlight the very reason India refuses to rely on any single great power: in global politics, friendship is useful — but autonomy is security.
In many fora that I am part of, an often-heard statement which one gets to discern whenever China’s rise is discussed, is that China is a communist nation or that China is an authoritarian country or that democracies progress slowly. These remarks became the pivot of penning this article to discuss that do democratic nations progress swiftly? Four nations have been studied in this article. China which is a single-party communist nation and Finland, Germany and Japan which have multi-party-political system.
China
In 1950, just a year after the Chinese Civil War had ended, the per capita GDP of China was just US$ 614 in current international dollars (adjusted for purchasing power parity). The same year USA had a per capita GDP of US$ 1974 and that of USSR the other superpower existing that time, had per capita GDP of US$ 1218.
However, China focussed on education as the literacy rate in China in 1949 was just between 20-40%. The communist party on taking over power, made education as one of its foremost priorities and through both formal schooling and literacy programmes was able to achieve school enrolment getting tripled, secondary school enrolment increasing by a factor of 8.5 and college enrolment quadrupling in the first sixteen years.
Though in the initial three decades of modern China, man-made disasters like The Great Leap Forward, The Great Famine and Cultural Revolution happened, but the focus of China from modern education never dithered. After the US President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in February 1972 which subsequently led to the establishment of the diplomatic relations between USA and China on January 01, 1979, China slowly started became a manufacturing hub as USA realising the vast pool of skilled and educated labour available in China started outsourcing manufacturing to China.
In 2007, when China became the world’s third largest economy, the world realised that not only had China become the global manufacturing hub but was also now a reckonable military power. Sensing the trouble that China was soon to pose to USA militarily the US President Barack Obama announced the Pivot to Asia policy on December 21, 2011 in which bulk of the American troops stationed in the Middle East were moved to the Indo-Pacific region. China had arrived as a superpower when in 2014 it declared that it was ready to fight any nation in all the six domains of modern warfare – land, sea, air, cyber, electromagnetic spectrum and space.
In just 65 years, China had risen.
China has a one-party-political system which has the Chinese Communist Party in total control of governance and military.
Finland
Finland declared independence from Russia on December 06, 1917. Finland had been part of Sweden till 1809 and then it became part of Russia till it became independent in 1917. That year, Finland had a weak economy with poor living conditions and its agrarian economy with poor climatic conditions was not conducive for efficient grain growing. However, the nation underwent rapid industrialisation following the World War II by developing heavy industry and establishing a Nordic-style welfare state.
Crippled by World War II by loss of one-tenth of its territory and manufacturing facilities totally destroyed by the Nazis, Finland became part of the Western European trade-liberalisation movement by joining the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and Bretton Woods agreement in 1948 and two years later in 1950 joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Subsequently, tariffs were eased and imports from market economies liberated from 1957. Investments climbed to rapid levels and GDP growth was 4.9% during the period 1950-73.
The agricultural policy introduced in 1950 which encompassed favourable loans and availability of agrarian resources soon led to over-production in several product groups and further to government-subsidized dumping on the international markets. Pension plans were introduced in 1962 and public health-care system was established in 1970.
Finland has a parliamentary republic system which has a President (head of state) and Prime Minister (head of government). Finland has a multi-party-political system with important political parties being the National Coalition Party, Finns Party, Social Democratic Party and the Centre Party.
By 1979, Finland was heavily modernised and was classified as a developed nation. In just 62 years, Finland had transformed.
Germany
After the defeat in World War II on May 08, 1945 and splitting in two nations, Germany found itself divided into West Germany and East Germany. The manufacturing industries had been totally destroyed by the Allied bombings which were carried out with great precision from late-1944 onwards as the Nazi Army under Adolf Hitler starting facing severe setbacks on one front after the other. Agriculture too was badly hit and the German economy collapsed in 1945 which is known as Stunde Null, a term in German languagemeaning “Zero Hour”.
Konrad Adenauer who became the first Chancellor of West Germany on September 15, 1949 and his Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard undertook rapid reconstruction and resurrection of the West German economy, which later came to be known as Wirtschaftswunder, the German term meaning “economic miracle”.
Starting with the Currency Reform which replaced the Reichsmark with the Deutsche Mark as the legal tender and cutting taxes sharply from 85% to 18% on moderate incomes, price controls were also abolished. As a result, food which was in severe shortage, started becoming available easily. Capital stock was rebuilt and economic output started increasing.
West Germany had to pay the victorious Allied nations US$ 2.4 billion per year, as the cost of the occupation as part of the war reparations. The last of the repayment was made in June 1971.
Notwithstanding, the huge amount involved in war reparations, West Germany concentrated on skilling its workers and soon these skilled workers were in great global demand, sending back the coveted foreign exchange to West Germany.
West Germany had a federal parliamentary democracy with the President (head of state) and the Chancellor (head of government). The constitution created a system with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. West Germany had a multi-party-political system with the prominent political parties being the Christian Democratic Union, the Social Democratic Party, the Free Democratic Party and the Greens.
The present-day Germany too has the same political system as was prevalent in West Germany.
In 1989, West Germany became a developed nation and within a year on October 03, 1990 both West Germany and East Germany reunified.
Thus, in just a short span of 44 years, West Germany not only became a developed nation resurrecting itself from total destruction post-World War II but also this financial power reunified the nation in only 45 years after being divided.
Japan
After the defeat in World War II, all manufacturing industries in Japan were destroyed by the Allied forces and agriculture and all the scientific institutions were so devastated that Japan started facing famine. The Japanese government was in deep debt and coupled with hyperinflation, the Japanese were in dire straits.
The Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan undaunted by the severe crisis facing the island nation, started economic reforms and the first such measure was the Inclined Production Mode which focussed on production of raw materials. To simulate growth, women were encouraged to work.
Between 1957 and 1973, Japan saw an annualised growth of around 10%. Hayato Ikeda, the Prime Minister of Japan from 1960-64, introduced the Income Doubling Plan which aimed to double the size of Japan’s economy in ten years.
In 1971, Japan became a developed nation. In just 26 years after total destruction in 1945 which included two nuclear attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which scarred the Japanese psyche, Japan had resurrected itself in an economic miracle that came to be known as Kodo Keizai Seicho in Japan.
Japan has a parliamentary constitutional monarch political system wherein the Emperor is the symbolic head of state and the Prime Minister heads the government. Power is separated into the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Japan has a multi-party-political system and the prominent political parties are the Liberal Democratic Party, Constitutional Democratic Party, Japan Innovation Party and the Democratic Party for the People.
Lessons learnt from the rise of successful democracies
The rise of the three nations having multi-party-political system democracies discussed above in the article clearly breaks the myth that multi-party-political system nations don’t become developed in a short time duration. It also breaks another myth that independent judiciary is an impediment in a nation’s progress as a developed nation.
For those who want to work, there are no excuses. For those who want to see their nation as a developed nation there are no excuses. Excuses only come into play only when personal interests matters more than a nation’s progress. To blame the dead is the easiest. To answer question’s about one’s performance is the toughest.
Correct policies and right intent propel a nation into the developed category. Blame-game and repeatedly playing-up the past doesn’t and neither does whining and crying whenever anything goes wrong. Accountability and responsibility should be of the highest order if a nation sees itself as a developed one in few decades.
Mao Zedong created blunders in the initial few decades of China after the civil war ended in 1949, be it in form of the Great Leap Forward, Great Famine or the Cultural Revolution. But he isn’t talked about in China for these actions.
Genghis Khan of Mongolia invaded China in 1205 and is regarded as one of the most barbaric invaders ever. But he isn’t remembered in China on a daily basis.
West Germany did not talk of the ills of Adolf Hitler nor did Japan blame its rulers for the devastation caused due to the entry in World War II. And, neither did Finland keep on criticising Sweden and Russia, the nations that Finland was a part of till 1917.
Learn from the past but don’t repeatedly and regularly play-up the past. As for a person, a nation can only walk fast when looking forward and never backward.
A common lesson that emerges from the progress of China, Finland, Germany and Japan is that all these nations have kept religion away from politics. While in China, religion is a private affair within the four walls, in Finland, Germany and Japan religion has been kept totally away from politics and governance, though publicly one can be religious.
Swami Vivekananda, the famous Indian philosopher and religious teacher, had remarked “A country can never become developed if it’s youth are trapped in religion and caste”. Pakistan and Afghanistan can never become developed nations as both the nations are deeply mired with religion and feudal systems playing the pivotal role in Pakistani & Afghani politics and governance.
As a human can never have the ideal personal life for good professional growth, similarly no nation can ever have the ideal conditions to become developed. Those humans and nations that succeed do so despite having to encounter challenges.
A famous advertisement of yesteryears goes “The world steps aside, for the man who knows where he is walking”. Similarly, the world looks with awe and respect for the nation on the right track and pace to become a developed nation.
Rhetoric doesn’t have a long shelf life; realism does and creates permanency.
The famous Chinese proverb goes “The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now”, has a deep meaning for nations aspiring to be developed within a specific time frame.
About the Author
Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd) is the Founder-Editor, Global Strategic & Defence News and has authored the book “China’s War Clouds: The Great Chinese Checkmate”. He tweets at @JassiSodhi24.
On the surface, the recent turmoil in Nepal may seem like another protest against a government action. However, it stems from a mix of frustration, changing demographics, geopolitics, and long-standing domestic problems. For its neighbour India, what occurs in Nepal affects India directly. Trade, security, identity, and diplomacy all connect. Let’s explore the story. We will look at why the unrest happened, who is responsible, how it ties to India, and what it could mean for both countries.
The Immediate Trigger: Social Media Ban & Youth Anger
In September 2025, Nepal was hit by a massive wave of protests; because most of the protesters were fairly young people, they were quickly dubbed the Gen Z protests. The reason for the protest was the decision of the government to completely ban or seriously restrict such popular platforms among the population on social networks as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, X, Reddit, and others. But why was this ban especially explosive? First, for many Nepalese young people, social networks are the way they establish connections, mobilize, express their indignation. Secondly, the ban immediately turned from the suppression of the rights of freedom of speech to a massive protest against corruption, nepotism, high youth unemployment, a feeling that the game is not by the rules. Third, this is a protest about a generation many guys felt that they were deprived of an opportunity as elite children play with some other rules as before.
To understand why the unrest spread so rapidly, one must look beyond the immediate cause. The social-media ban was simply the match; the real fire had been smouldering for years beneath the surface.
Economic Discontent and Youth Unemployment
Inflation leaves Nepal’s dignified young people in an economic monastery: Jobs are hard to find or when you do find one, they pay so little money going home is out of the question. And no matter how hard you work for them there isn’t much chance of moving up the ladder because now career prospects are restricted too. Many families rely on the money their relatives send from India or the Gulf., It is an irony that quite in the negative sense: once they leave home, young Nepalis can live on but they cannot enjoy Contents of the Constitution. Standard Square’s will not be commensurate. Local people often say, “Just What Will It Be Like After Modernisation?” Any progress achieved will then ultimately reproduce itself in formlessness. Every roof in the village is fitted with a television aerial. All these “achievements.” But for a generation born after the breakup of a monarchy and educated dreams of democracy, capitalism, all this is nothing more than shattered sights.
Corruption and Political Nepotism
The same leading political figures and parties have dominated Nepal’s power structure for decades. Even despite periodic elections and frequent changes in government, there is a great sense among many Nepalese people that the system remains essentially corrupt. Political elites also have a nasty habit of lining their own pockets at the expense of their fellow countrymen. But the youthful activity of these power-holders in attempting to stifle online criticism was as much a confirmation for those who saw it as a reminder the power of Nepal is not responsible, but by inheritance.
A tenuous democracy ever since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal has been a republic. But the process has been messy and inconclusive. Frequent changes of government, struggles between parties for power, and slowness in implementing the constitution have made institutions weak. The mood of fresh beginnings is replaced by the feeling that nothing can change. The new generation, untainted by the past and yet living with its consequences, now wants to see an authentic alternative to hollow talk of reform.
The Streets Speak: How the Unrest Unfolded
What had started as only student protests suddenly became a national movement. Young men and women tens of thousands of them were carrying banners, shouting slogans and breaching curfews en masse. They were not led by a single party but brought together by common anger. The government response police brutality, tear gas, and mass raids merely widened the divide.
By early September, it was reckoned that across the country at least 19 people had died and hundreds injured. The world turned its attention towards Kathmandu. Local pressure forced the government to lift its ban on social media. Yet by then it was already too late. The call for political change had now unfolded into something much more long term–responsibility, employment, justice. The message was clear: this generation will not remain silent.
India and Nepal: A Relationship of Proximity and Paradox
And the roots. For the deeper meaning of Nepal’s troubles, we must also look southward: to India. India’s relationship with Nepal is one of the closest and most complex in the world. Shared between both the countries is a 1,750 mile long open border, joined cultures, generations of migration, trade and kinship combine in this easy-flowing river to form an inseparable whole. Yet their political relationship has been marked by periods of both friendship and argument. India is Nepal’s largest trading partner, as well as being the primary transit route for international commerce. All manner of goods, ranging from everyday consumer items to foodstuffs and medicines arrive in the country through Indian territory. This interdependent relationship means that when Nepal suffers any earthquake tremor it can be felt by the Indians immediately. At the same time, the closeness between them also brings about conflicts. Many Nepalis think that India has too much say over their country’s affairs, both political and economic, while Indian policy-makers often look at Nepal from the perspective of strategic security especially in terms of China.
The Economic Ripples Across the Border
The protests closed out trade links between the two countries when they closed down highways and cross-border trade posts. Indian border towns such as Raxaul, Gorakhpur and Sitamarhi all reported that as truckloads of goods were stranded in their confines, they had daily losses well over ₹10 crore. Small traders, transporters and labourers on both sides of the border had their means of livelihood disrupted by the turn of events. The turmoil also reminded both countries that their economic destinies are tied together. Economically, the unrest presented India–which has invested heavily in power plants, resources and infrastructure throughout Nepal–with both a financial and public relations problem. The question that faced Indian policymakers was just how to support stability in a way that wasn’t overbearing–a subtle balance that Delhi has struggled with for decades.
Security and Strategic Concerns
In the view of India’s security establishment, Nepal is a vital buffer state between itself and China. The open border while echoing the sweetness of friendship also opens vulnerabilities. During chaotic periods illegal trade, trafficking and extreme movements can all flourish. At the height of the protests, Indian agencies were put on alert, fearing that instability might spill over or be exploited by foreign actors.
Moreover, every episode of turmoil in Nepal sets in motion a geopolitical chess game. China, seeking to expand its influence in South Asia through investments and soft power, often presents itself to Kathmandu as an alternative partner. For India, which regards Nepal as part of its own natural sphere of eminence, the result is tension between the two countries. Therefore, the recent unrest was not simply about Nepal´s internal politics-it was purely of regional competition and realignment of alliances
The Emotional and Cultural Dimension
The India-Nepal relationship, however, is not just strategic. Millions of families on both sides of the border share language, religion, and blood. Hinduism and Buddhism flow into and out of the Himalayas from the fertile plains below. Countless Nepalis work and study in India; Indian tourists and pilgrims spend time at Nepal’s temples and go into the mountains. It is a relationship that is profoundly both deeply personal and political.
But friendship can also gradually give rise to discontent. In Nepal there are people who regard India as a big brother to China, compassionate but domineering. The memory of last year’s blockade which left Nepal suffering from severe shortages and saw many blame India is still fresh. This historical wound injects the suspicion that India is temporarily wrapping Nepal. Some of the protesters carried signs rejecting foreign interference at all in 2025. The nature of their appeal was sovereignty. Nepal should be allowed to depict itself through its own eyes, not those of others.
The Way Forward: Lessons for Both Nations
For Nepal, this turmoil is an uncomfortable but necessary experience. It discloses how pressing it is to fight corruption, create jobs and restore confidence in the institutions. Superficial changes will no longer satisfy a populace that is seeking something solid.
India, however, should regard Nepal as a sovereign partner in its own right, not simply as a sustainer of the Mother Tongue of Chinese Leadership. Real friendship lies in enabling others, not bending them to your will. In a manner that is consistent with its own policy stances and respects Nepalese freedom and choices, providing support for Nepal’s economy, education and communication could move a critical juncture into an epoch of mutual benefit.
The people should benefit both from this same mindfulness and this shared relationship. With an open frontier comes co-responsibility from environmental challenges some Italians may face in the Himalayas to fishing and migration. The disobedience obviously is a sign that stability in Nepal is no longer just a problem for Nepalis. It is a regional imperative.
Conclusion: From Unrest to Renewal
Nepal’s unrest in 2025 was not a case of isolated anger. It was the accumulation for many years of frustration from inequality, injustice, and denial of voice. It was a generational awakening in the nation seeking dignity and clear purpose.
The protests had shown that when the system fails to respond to people’s needs, one can even trigger a revolution in cyberspace.
For India, the turmoil next door is both a wake-up call and a reminder that true neighbourhood policy cannot base itself simply on pragmatism. South Asia’s stability depends upon empathy, understanding, and cooperation. As Nepal manoeuvres its uncertain future, India’s role will be examined: can it be a partner in moving forward rather than an emblem of pressure?
Ultimately, the story of Nepal’s unrest is more than politics. It is about a young democratic nation searching for its place in the modern world and a region struggling to forge relationships based not on power rivalry but mutual regard. If both Nepal and India can extract lessons from this crisis, the tragedy of unrest might yet be turned into a seed for regeneration not only for one country, but also the Himalaya, the heart of South Asian Asia.
When former United States President Donald J. Trump unveiled his “Peace to Prosperity” plan on January 28, 2020, the world watched with mixed emotions. Some hailed it as a bold step toward resolving one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history — the Israeli–Palestinian issue. Others saw it as an unrealistic attempt to impose peace rather than nurture it. Five years on, the question still lingers: Was Trump’s peace plan ever built to last?
As a research analyst looking back at its journey, it’s clear that the plan’s story is as much about human aspirations as it is about political maneuvering.
Understanding the Framework of the Plan
At its core, Trump’s plan sought to redraw political and economic realities in the Middle East. It recognized Israeli sovereignty over much of the West Bank — including the Jordan Valley — and offered Palestinians a demilitarized state with limited autonomy. Alongside these political terms came a promise of nearly US$ 50 billion in investments to boost Palestinian infrastructure, jobs, and development. The proposal, introduced with great fanfare at the White House on January 28, 2020, was marketed as a “realistic two-state solution.”
But realism, it turned out, was in the eye of the beholder. The plan was drafted without the participation of Palestinian representatives, who immediately rejected it. By making Jerusalem Israel’s “undivided capital” and offering Palestinians only a distant suburb, Abu Dis, as their capital, the plan appeared one-sided. It demanded Palestinian disarmament and political concessions while offering little in terms of genuine sovereignty.
Legitimacy and Acceptance: The Core Challenge
For any peace initiative to endure, it needs legitimacy — not just political approval, but emotional acceptance from those who live with its consequences. The Trump plan failed this fundamental test. The Palestinian Authority (PA) dismissed it as biased toward Israel, arguing that it endorsed occupation under the guise of peace. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called it a “historic breakthrough.”
This imbalance doomed the plan’s credibility. When one side sees victory and the other feels betrayal, peace becomes a mirage. The Palestinian rejection meant that the plan never became a shared vision — only a declaration from one side of the negotiating table.
Regional Dynamics and Power Politics
In Middle Eastern diplomacy, no country operates in isolation. The region’s power politics often determine whether a peace plan survives or fails. After the Trump plan’s release, several Arab states — including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan — normalized ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords between August 13, 2020, and December 10, 2020.
While these agreements were celebrated in Washington and Tel Aviv, they bypassed the Palestinian issue altogether. Instead of empowering Palestinians, they made them feel further abandoned. Nations like Iran, Turkey, and Qatar capitalized on this resentment, presenting themselves as the true guardians of the Palestinian cause. Rather than healing divisions, the Trump plan ended up deepening them — not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but within the broader Arab world.
Economic Promises and Ground Realities
Money, as the plan emphasized, can build bridges — but only if there’s trust beneath them. The Trump administration promised a massive US$ 50 billion economic boost to Palestine and its neighbors. On paper, this sounded transformative: new roads, modern hospitals, schools, and tourism initiatives. In reality, those investments never came to life.
By mid-2021, there were no concrete projects or financial commitments to back the promise. For Palestinians struggling under occupation, the proposal felt hollow — a peace bought, not built. Economic prosperity without political dignity rarely wins hearts. What the plan failed to grasp was that people don’t just want jobs; they want justice.
Security Provisions: Strength or Weakness?
Security concerns have always been central to any Middle Eastern peace deal. The Trump plan emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself, granting it continued control over airspace, borders, and even parts of Palestinian territory. It envisioned a “demilitarized” Palestine — a concept that might bring short-term calm but long-term resentment.
History offers lessons here. After the Oslo Accords were signed on September 13, 1993, there was hope — yet over the years, unchecked settlement expansion and restricted movement eroded trust. The Trump plan risked repeating that pattern, cementing control rather than encouraging cooperation. Peace cannot grow in an environment where one side feels permanently confined.
Changing U.S. and Israeli Politics
Politics rarely stands still — especially in Washington and Tel Aviv. When President Joseph R. Biden Jr. took office on January 20, 2021, his administration quietly set aside much of Trump’s Middle East agenda. The White House re-emphasized traditional diplomacy and the need for negotiations based on pre-1967 borders. In Israel, a series of elections between 2021 and 2023 reshaped its leadership, further complicating any consistent follow-up.
Without bipartisan and bi-national support, Trump’s plan became more of a historical document than a living policy. No later government — American or Israeli — fully embraced it, leaving it stranded between legacy and abandonment.
The Human Side of Peace
Beyond speeches and strategy papers, the true measure of peace lies in how it touches everyday lives. A Palestinian farmer cut off from his land, a child stopped at checkpoints on the way to school, an Israeli family fearing rocket attacks — these experiences define whether peace feels real.
Diplomatic plans often ignore these human truths. Yet, it is in these small, everyday interactions that trust can begin to form. Easing border restrictions, promoting people-to-people exchanges, and fostering dialogue through education are as vital as any political agreement. Peace that doesn’t heal hearts will never last on paper.
International Response and Global Shifts
The international community’s reaction to Trump’s plan was cautious. The European Union, on January 29, 2020, reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution aligned with international law. The United Nations echoed this stance, urging direct negotiations instead of unilateral decisions. Meanwhile, China and Russia criticized the plan as an attempt to reshape the region on American terms.
In the years since, the geopolitical map has shifted. The war in Ukraine, beginning February 24, 2022, and new diplomatic alignments — like the Saudi–Iran agreement on March 10, 2023 — have changed priorities. China’s growing role as a mediator, particularly in the Gulf region, shows that the U.S. no longer dominates the Middle East peace narrative. Any future peace framework must now account for this multipolar reality.
What Lies Ahead: Possible Scenarios
Partial Implementation: Some economic and security measures may continue under new leadership, offering limited calm without lasting peace.
Policy Reversal: Future U.S. or Israeli governments could formally abandon the plan, reverting to older peace processes.
Revised Multilateral Effort: A new initiative led jointly by the United States, European Union, and Arab League might adapt elements of the Trump plan into a more inclusive framework.
Conclusion
Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan was bold but incomplete. It reflected a transactional approach — one that sought quick wins rather than genuine reconciliation. As of October 15, 2025, it stands more as a chapter in history than a living vision for peace.
Lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be engineered through power imbalances or economic incentives alone. It requires empathy, mutual respect, and political courage. Until leaders on both sides recognize that peace is not about dominance but coexistence, every plan will fall short of its promise.
The road to peace is long and winding, but it begins with a single truth — no solution will ever work unless it speaks to the hopes, fears, and dignity of the people it’s meant to serve.
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) was among the most ambitious international connectivity projects announced in the recent years. On September 09, 2023, it was officially announced at the G20 Summit in New Delhi. It is projected that the project will connect India to Europe through a railroad system, ports, and shipping routes that will pass through the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and then to Greece and the rest of Europe. It was seen as a game changer that would enhance trade, energy cooperation and political relations between Asia, Middle East, and Europe.
The announcement of IMEC was generally perceived to be in opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China, which is already spreading in Asia, Africa, and Europe. In contrast to BRI, IMEC was focused on transparency, sustainable development, and joint investment. To India it provided a direct land-sea connection to Europe without having to use the Suez Canal or the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. To the Gulf countries, it was a new non-oil logistics and digital opportunity. To Europe and the United States, it was a means of diversifying trade routes and reducing the increasing influence of China.
The IMEC project is under serious doubt two years after its grand launch. The excitement that was attached to its announcement has died because of a few political and practical issues. The greatest failure was experienced following the outbreak of war in Gaza. The war has paralyzed the process of normalization between Israel and the Arab states which was a critical pillar to the success of IMEC. Saudi Arabia and Israel were supposed to be the major partners in the corridor, yet their relations deteriorated as the war escalated and humanitarian issues were raised. The central route of the corridor is blocked without political cooperation between these two countries.
Besides the war, the other significant issue is the uncertainties regarding the funding and management of IMEC. To date, there is no elaborate plan or budget. The corridor was declared as a collective initiative of India, the United States, the European Union, and the Gulf states but there is no official body or secretariat established to organize it. The countries have shown interest, but unless there is institutional support, the project will be just on paper. Conversely, the BRI of China already has an established mechanism that is long-term financed by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund.
Practical infrastructure challenges also exist. The construction of new railway lines through deserts in Saudi Arabia and linking them to the existing ports in UAE, Jordan, and Israel will take years to be constructed and will cost colossal amounts of money. Another challenging task is to harmonize technical standards, customs procedures, and logistics among so many countries. In addition, the strategy to transport goods effectively between Indian ports such as Mundra or Nhava Sheva to Europe via the Mediterranean involves advanced port handling systems and digital tracking, which is yet to be developed.
The other issue is that IMEC competes with other projects in the region. Turkey has also offered its own trade route called the Iraq Development Road that will link the gulf to Europe via Turkish ports. China is also building on its Belt and Road relationships with the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are also members of the BRI. This conflict of interests causes confusion regarding the areas where countries would invest their resources. Indicatively, Saudi Arabia might not be willing to be fully committed to IMEC when it already enjoys strong economic relations with China.
Whether the partners have the same strategic goals is also a question. In the case of India, IMEC is concerned with the ease of accessing European markets and becoming more involved in international trade. In the case of the United States and Europe, it concerns the establishment of a political alliance that will make China less powerful. In the case of Gulf countries, it concerns mostly economic diversification and logistics. In case the motivations are not the same, it is difficult to have shared priorities and schedules.
However, these challenges have not completely abandoned IMEC. India continues to market the concept at the global level. On May 13, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a visit to the United Arab Emirates, during which both parties discussed the ways to advance the corridor. On July 16, 2024, the European Union said that it was still willing to consider how the project could be reinstated when the situation in the region was stable. But the development has been slow and most of the work has been confined to discussions and not real construction.
IMEC currently seems to be a long-term vision rather than a project. The concept remains strategically powerful, yet its effectiveness will be determined by the peace in the Middle East and the enhancement of the collaboration between partners. In the absence of stability and proper financial framework, IMEC could end up the same way as most other ambitious regional projects which were initiated with great expectations but failed to become a reality.
The future of IMEC is now hinged on whether the participating countries will be able to overcome political suspicion and establish a clear and transparent roadmap. In case the peace is restored in the region and the partners coordinate their objectives, IMEC might turn into a strong symbol of the cooperation between the continents. Up to that point, it is a good dream that is awaiting the appropriate circumstances to materialize.
Oplus_32
About the Author
Sanjay Mummana is currently working as a System Analyst at the National Stock Exchange. He has completed his graduation from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, with a major in Mechanical Engineering and a minor in Computer Science and Engineering. Alongside his professional role, he is preparing for the UPSC CAPF (Assistant Commandant) examination.
Kautilya (also known as Chanakya) was India’s political strategic thinker and philosopher of the 4th century B.C during Chandragupta Maurya’s reign. As per the early texts, Chanakya was responsible for education and then became the Prime Minister of Chandragupta. This was a time of great instability in North West India. The disintegration nature of the Northwest kingdoms and later the fear of Greek invasion by Alexander they had to deal with it was Kautilya’s persistent guidance and strategy that Chandragupta was able to dethrone Dhanananda and overrun the Greeks and other Indian rulers in Northwest India. The Indian subcontinent, under the rule of Chandragupta guided by Kautilya, for the first time in ancient India, became united. Kautilya has two celebrated works- Arthshastra and Nitishastra.
The doctrine of ‘Seven Prakriti’ or ‘the Saptanga theory’ is one of the chief components of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and to understand the Saptanga theory, first one needs to develop the basis of the concept of ‘State’. In his conceptualization of the state, two objectives are of utmost importance: one is the practice of ‘Dharma’, where the state is perceived to have the responsibilities being ‘Rakshak’ (Protector) and ‘Palak’ (Nurturer). Kautilya imagined the ‘state of nature’ was complete ‘Matsyanaya’ or ‘anarchy’, when the people give the rights to maintain the law and order to the state. People agreed to pay taxes to the ‘state’ in exchange for their well-being and security. However, unlike Western contractualism, Kautilya does not use the contract to give the state absolute power instead he believed that the welfare of the people is the ‘ethical obligation’ of Kautilya’s state.
Interestingly, although Aristotle and Kautilya belong to the contemporary age, Aristotle’s thought of equating state with nature, where people assumed to be living a community life, is in direct contrast with Kautilya’s definition of ‘state’. Though the notion of the modern state is a new invention only after the Westphalian treaty, wherein the state should have a defined territory, people, currency, governance model, and so on. After taking care of these criteria only, the United Nations Organization considers the membership of a ‘state’. Surprisingly, centuries back Kautilya set some similar elements, from the Westphalian notion of ‘state’, to differentiate between state and non-state elements. Among the Doctrine of the Seven Prakritis, ‘Swami’ or the ruler is the soul of the body, and the other six elements are necessary for the proper functioning of the same.
In Kautilya’s state, ‘Swami’ has extensive authority but he also highlights the imperative of the ruler’s ‘ethical obligation’ for the welfare of its people. However, in terms of shaping inter- state relations, Kautilya gives the ruler to think independently of its internal policies. Kautilya, was a pragmatic thinker, who knew the cruciality of leadership qualities in the ruler as it influenced the foreign policy significantly. For example, India, during the period of PM Jawaharlal Nehru had an ‘idealistic’ approach to foreign policy, while the Indira Gandhi doctrine of India’s foreign policy was based on pragmatism. The military intervention of India in the Liberation War of erstwhile East Pakistan in 1971 is a classic example of a major shift in India’s foreign policy. The next element of Kautilya’s state is ‘Amatya’ (Minister), which can be specifically considered as India’s foreign affairs minister in this context. The minister of foreign affairs appears to have the ground experience and expertise in the international political realm.
Understandably, the drafting of India’s foreign policy has a significant contribution of the foreign affairs ministers at every time. As suggested by Kautilya, as a precaution against potential conspiracies, the ruler should balance with having three Amatyas. Thus, in inter-state relations, apart from the foreign affairs minister, the defense minister and finance minister also play a crucial role in shaping foreign policy. Regarding the element of ‘Durga’ or fortified capital’ to defend the territory, it is the tangible representation of the state’s defensive capabilities. Hence, in contemporary times, there can be a comparison between ‘Durga’ and the concept of ‘nuclear deterrence’ as a means of defense. Theoretically, the ‘security dilemma’ during the Cold War era has maximized the acquisition of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Putting the example of the ongoing Russia- Ukraine War, Ukraine is not a nuclear power, and Ukraine got security assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. regarding its sovereignty after signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1994 (UN, 1994). From this current example, it is understandable that ‘Durga’ in contemporary times refers to having defensive capability with WMD.
Although, India, being a signatory of the ‘No First Use Policy’, can claim that its nuclear doctrine is a defensive measure, countries like Pakistan, a hostile neighbor of India, or North Korea as a ‘rogue state’ might lead to the situation of an ‘Offensive-Defensive Dilemma’. The fourth element ‘Janapada’ refers to the territory inhabited by people, and holds significance as the source of revenues. Kautilya emphasizes the king’s responsibility for the well-being and security of the people. Applying this concept in foreign policy, India has nearly 18 million diasporas, the largest diaspora community in the world. India, biennially organized Non-Resident India Day to acknowledge the immense contributions of the Indian diasporas abroad regarding businesses, investment, intellectual discourse, and so on. Reciprocally, the Indian embassy in the respective countries is responsible for taking care of the diaspora community if they face any trouble.
The foundational principle of assuming embassies as a country’s territory can be connected to the concept of ‘Janapada’. Apart from the diaspora, in 2023, during India’s G20 presidency, Indian government has adopted a‘bottom-up’ approach to make all the people of India proud and to make them realize the key drivers of India’s growth story. Kautilya’s next element in state-building is ‘Bala’ or army is deemed a critical requisite for the stability and protection of the state. The next element ‘Kosha’ or the treasury is deemed necessary to support the king in undertaking welfare functions. The two elements ‘Bala’ and ‘Kosha’ are part of the state’s hard power element in foreign policy. The next element ‘Mitra’ is the key to the foreign policy of any country. Kautilya differentiates between two types of Mitras- ‘Sahaja’ (Natural) and ‘Kritrim’ (Artificial). In India’s context, Bhutan is ‘Sahaja mitra’ and the U.S. is the ‘Kritrim mitra’ coming closer to fulfilling certain objectives.
Four principles of Kautilya’s foreign policy
Kautilya’s vision for foreign policy was marked by strategic thought, aiming at elevating the strength of the monarch not only on the domestic front but in the international arena. Kautilya outlines four approaches in foreign policy:
Sam (Peace)
Under this policy, a country needs to maintain its peaceful relations with the other
countries. India’s ‘Friendship Agreement’ with its neighbours is an example of India’s efforts to make diplomatic relations friendly. PM J.L. Nehru’s ‘Panchsheel doctrine’ also portrays the connections with Kautilya’s thought. India’s current attempt to normalize the border situation with China since the Galwan Valley happened in 2020 is also India’s effort towards maintaining the status quo with the implementation of Kautilya’s policy of ‘Sam’.
Dam (Economic Diplomacy) Kautilya in his ‘Mandala theory’ states that ‘the immediate neighbour is the natural enemy’. Considering this principle, economic cooperation should be used as a diplomatic tool. In 2023, India and Bangladesh announced that they intend to use their official currency as a means for bilateral trade either with the Rupee or Taka India and China, as ‘natural enemies’ also have immense economic interdependence.
Danda (Coercive Diplomacy) Kautilya in this policy recommends the use of force if necessary. In 1971, after a widespread genocide in erstwhile East Pakistan by the Pakistani troops, India militarily intervened to liberate the erstwhile East Pakistan and as a result the creation of Bangladesh had happened.
Bheda (Use of Espionage) Kautilya suggests employing espionage to gain strategic advantages. Recently, India’s irritation and eventually Sri Lanka’s objection to the entry of China’s research ships into the Indian Ocean for the potential espionage factor is the example of ‘Bheda’.
Kautilya’s conceptualization of ‘Vijigishu’ and its strategizing ‘Mitras’
Kautilya provides the structural framework for conflict of interests or the friend-foe relationships in his ‘raja mandala’ theory. The theory is precisely a concept of geopolitics and diplomacy. The central kingdom or state referred to as ‘Vijigishu’ and the inter-state relations will be surrounded by the central kingdom. Kautilya firmly believes the approaches for dealing with friends and enemies and even with neutral states and bystanders depend on the concrete circumstances and correlation of the power. Kautilya offers a range of foreign policy options to ‘Vijigishu’ or the ruler of the central state, which is commonly referred to as ‘Shadgunya Niti’. The first two policy options are the two polarized: ‘Samdhi’ or Peace treaties and ‘Vigraha’ or war. India, after independence, has made efforts to sign the Peace and Friendship treatise with its neighbors.
In Kautilya’s imperative of ‘war’, he entails that war inevitably leads to great human and material losses even for the victors and thus war should be the ultimate option for a country when all the other policies have failed to yield results. ‘Vijigishu’, literally means to have a victorious mindset despite facing obstacles. However, the expansionist nature of the Kautilyan state should be seen in the geo-historical context of the Indian subcontinent. Notably, in the Arthshastra, no expansionist policy was given beyond the Indian subcontinent. In terms of the militaristic view of Kautilya, he emphasized more on defense capabilities and barred the ruler of the central state from going unnecessarily for offensive measures. Unlike Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, Kautilya’s idea is considered as the grand comprehensive strategy not the military strategy with the use of tactical warfare. Kautilya’s theorization of an intelligence network is the key instrument for the state to prevent conflict situations.
Among the other foreign policy options, ‘Asana’ or neutrality and ‘Dvaidhibhava’ or diplomatic double game seem to be very close sometimes in the realm of geopolitics. However, these two policies are very different from each other. India’s reiteration of ‘strategic autonomy’ is a striking example of maintaining neutrality. India’s continuation of the Non-aligned stance since the Cold War era with having the attitude of multi-alignment for the benefit of the country is the 21st-century style of Indian diplomacy. Eventually, the countries started to stress regional partnerships and trade negotiations in the era of ‘multilateralism decaying’. Kautilya, in the ancient era, also emphasized building regional allies or ‘mitras’.
In ‘Mandala’ theory, he points out that the next to one’s immediate neighbours is the natural friend and has a strategic advantage of two-front monitoring the common enemy. Therefore, the utmost importance is to build and maintain regional partnerships, especially in the neighbourhood region. The ‘Gujral doctrine’ of India was based on this principle of Kautilya. In that doctrine, while India advocated for ‘equal partnerships’ and ‘mutual respect’ with its neighbours, India would be the first responder whenever there was any crisis in its neighbourhood without expecting any reciprocity. This doctrine is based on the belief that India, as Kautilya’s ‘Vijigishu’, its power and stature are greatly linked to the nature of its ties with its neighbours. The other policy option is ‘Yana’ or preparing for war applies to the bilateral or trilateral military exercises of India.
Kautilya epitomizes the realism school of international thought but in a distinctive manner. Due to Eurocentrism, Kautilya has not been recognized yet as the proponent of the realist tradition in inter-state relations. While, Arthshastra has been largely recognized as the classic work on statecraft including economy and internal affairs, the diplomacy and military aspects of his book have been largely ignored for a long. Kautilya, if has to be placed as per the current intellectual tradition, must be standing as a pinnacle at the juncture of Political Science, Public administration, and international affairs. Kautilya’s legacy with his seminal work on ‘Arthashastra’ will be claiming the appropriate position in the non-Western international relations theories. To free intellectual discourse from Western dominance, scholars from Asia, Africa, and other non-western parts need to study our ancient scriptures, which will eventually help to explore the rich tradition and extent of strategic thought in the non-western world much before the Western world.
The Korean Peninsula is also still one of the most delicate geopolitical hotspots of the modern world. Several decades after the Korean War ceased to conclude with a peace treaty but in an armistice, the two Koreas are technically at war. The current research article expounds on the historical origins of the conflict, ideological polarisation, the role played by the region and the international community, and the dynamic relationship between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). It also explores the latest diplomacy, the security issues of the nuclear weapons and the possible ways that can be taken to bring lasting peace. By concluding, the article helps to analyse whether permanent peace settlement is achievable, taking in consideration both the political facts and emotional scars that still characterise the peninsula.
The division of two nations with the same roots, however, with very differing political ideologies, has taken place over the past seven decades as a result of an invisible, although heavily entrenched line that has up till now divided the Korean Peninsula. Whether peace can ever be achieved in this region is not a question of diplomacy, but it is also a question of history, identity, and existence. Although there have been several attempts at reconciliation, with summits and symbolic gestures, mistrust remains the order of the day, as far as inter-Korean relations are concerned. The situation is even made worse by the presence of foreign powers especially the United States and China. The answer to the question about the possibility of peace should be answered by searching the history of the conflict, evaluating its development, and analysing the way world changes can influence the future of the peninsula.
Historical background
The partitioning of Korea was not to be permanent. The Korean Peninsula was freed after decades of colonial occupation with the surrender of Japan in World War II in 1945. But rather than becoming united as a single nation, Korea became divided along the 38th parallel. The north was occupied by the Soviet Union and the south was under the rule of the United States. What started as a provisional administration was cemented into a full scale ideological divide as the cold war was fully fought out.
In 1948, two governments were formed. The North, ruled by Kim Il-sung, was a communist system which was close to the Soviet Union whereas the South, headed by Syngman Rhee was a capitalist democratic government which was allied with the United States. It then developed into the Korean War in 1950 when the North Koreans invaded the South. The conflict was a nightmare which claimed the lives of millions of people and caused a lot of destruction. In 1953, an armistice was signed but no peace treaty was signed and both governments were technically at war. The DMZ which was named the Demilitarised Zone was transformed into one of the most fortified in the world.
The Cold War and hostile embedding
Both Koreas were turned into superpower during the Cold War as proxies. North Korea was supported by the Soviet Union and China and created their own self-reliant ideology called Juche, which focused on the non-dependence on the foreign influence. South Korea was assisted by Americans to concentrate on economic modernization and political reformation and over time, South Korea evolved to be one of the liveliest democracies in Asia.
Besides dividing ideas, the Cold War established national identities, which were dissimilar. North Koreans grew up together with a personality cult that made their leaders to be worshipped and the south a puppet of American imperialism. On the other hand, the South Koreans saw the North as a source of totalitarianism. The two societies started separating culturally, their vision of the world, and their memory even though they were ethnically and linguistically the same. The physical separation was matched by the psychological one.
The Nuclear Question
The quest for nuclear arms by North Korea is the only major impediment to peace in the peninsula. The nuclear programme of Pyongyang has served as a deterrent and as a bargaining tool since the early 1990s. Nuclear capability is survival in a world where the regime feels that it is under attack by external forces. This is a serious security threat to its neighbours and the rest of the world.
Although there have been several agreements such as the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Six-Party Talks of the 2000s, there has not been steady progress. With every diplomatic advancement, provocation, sanctions and antagonism were followed in turn. The action of North Korea, which includes leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the further tests of the missiles, has strengthened the international alarm. The regime perceives denuclearization as equivalent to being vulnerable and the United States and South Korea demand it to be a requirement, to achieve a durable peace. This stalemate still prevails in the political reflectance.
Inter-Korean Relations and Failed Diplomacy
And in history there are periods when things are optimistic. The inter-Korean summits of 2000 and 2007 were the significant achievements of reconciliation. In 2018, the series of meetings between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in rekindled hope as the two leaders crossed the DMZ holding hands and vowed to make peace and denuclearize the area. However, these gestures as symbols did not achieve tangible outcomes.
These failures are intricate in nature. Diplomacy can be seen as a way of receiving economic concessions or international legitimacy by the North and the South is more focused on humanitarian involvement. The existence of different political leaderships and national agendas has also been a contributor to lack of continuity. Also, there is no mutual trust, so, all the goodwill is therefore mistrusted. The international sanctions regime also puts a strain on the economy of the North and thus effective cooperation becomes hard.
The US and China-To do list
The Korean Peninsula is not only a bilateral problem, but a key central element in the power equation in the world arena. The US has a heavy military presence in South Korea, considering it as the way to maintain stability in the region and deterrence. China on the other hand is the country that views North Korea as its strategic protection against the influence of the West along its borders. This relationship brings about a very fine balance whereby the two superpowers are vested in conflicting interests.
The United States demands denuclearization and sanctions, and China is ready to have stability and not regime change. Beijing has been in panic that the fall of North Korea will cause a refugee crisis and even the possibility of a united Korea backed by Washington. This pull of great power makes sure that any step towards peace in the peninsula gets influenced by the wider geopolitical interests in place than local interests of Korea.
Poverty and Social Inequality
Although South Korea has emerged as a powerful economic force in the world, North Korea is also among the most secluded countries in the globe. The comparison in the economies between the glittering skyscrapers of Seoul and stagnation of Pyongyang could not be more obvious. Such an imbalance poses practical problems of reunification or even longer-term cooperation.
South Koreans have been brought up without much emotional attachment to the North. To them it can be rather an economic burden to reunite than a national dream. On the other hand, decades of brainwashing have made the South to be viewed by the North Koreans as an enemy state. Reducing this psychological and economic disparity would involve not only political compromise but a deep social change.
Programs such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex at one time represented hope, and South Korean companies were able to hire the workforce in North Korea. Nevertheless, such initiatives have been halted most of the time by political tensions. The lack of regular interaction and trust even causes economic cooperation to be a victim of politics.
Humanitarian Concerns and Human Rights
In addition to politics, the humanitarian aspect is still a characteristic feature of the Korean question. The human rights track record of North Korea is one of the worst in the world where there have been reports of political prison camps, extreme limitation to freedom and persistent food shortages. As South Korea and the world watch the country in question demand answers, Pyongyang dismisses these accusations as foreign influence.
The initiatives to enhance humanitarian situations are frequently caught in the political negotiations. Diplomatic progress is often associated with food aid and medical care, which leads to a reduction and increases in support. In the meantime, families that are separated are still suffering with their emotional reunions restricted to short state-run encounters. Many Korean aged are not having enough time to reunite with their loved ones. These are human stories that the world should not forget that peace is not just a political goal but even a human need.
The Future of Deterrence and Regional Security
The security issue in the Korean Peninsula affects the whole Asia-Pacific area. The American troops have increased the arms buildup as well as the increasing defence abilities of South Korea. To this, North Korea has stepped up its missile programme. Japan also is becoming under a greater threat and is starting to rethink their pacifist constitution. This chain reaction in the region highlights the fact that peace in Northeast Asia is a very weak thing.
A large number of specialists state that the policy of deterrence and avoiding instantaneous denuclearization could be the most objective in the short term. This strategy acknowledges the nuclear position of North Korea, and aims at deterring escalation. Nonetheless, such a policy would result in the normalisation of a nuclear armed North Korea that would jeopardise the international non-proliferation system. The issue, however, is finding a way to balance deterrence and diplomacy.
Cultural Memory and Question of Identity
Peace does not just imply the lack of war. It involves reconciliation on the identity and memory level. The Korean people have a common language, culture and history but many decades of separation have presented various versions of the narratives. The globalised young people in South Korea tend to feel detached with what is happening in the North and the North Koreans are taught to perceive the South as decadent and alien.
This emotional polarity is portrayed in films, literature and media on both sides. Although not all, many South Korean filmmakers and writers depict reunification in a way that feels nostalgic and sympathetic, some of them doubt the necessity of integration, as well. Production of culture in North Korea is another instrument of propaganda that strengthens devotion towards the regime. Breaking such barriers of mind can be among the most difficult tasks on the way to peace.
New Standings and Changing Geopolitical Winds
The past few years have given the world unprecedented dialogue and the re-assertion of confrontation. The Singapore Summit in 2018 between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump was a historic event that failed to succeed because of the differences in expectations. The years that followed were characterised by resumption of missile testing, increased rhetoric, and frozen communication.
In the meantime, international politics is still changing. This competition between the United States and China has intensified, Russia has tried to re-establish a foothold in Asia and alliances are being redeveloped. These greater currents have a direct influence on the Korean Peninsula who is still a power fulcrum in East Asia. This probability of peace is thus a combination of world stability, as opposed to regional interactions.
Pathways to Peace
To ensure real peace, it is necessary to establish a multilayered approach. First, the conversation is to be maintained despite the changes in politics. History has proved that interruption of communication only creates misunderstanding and mistrust. Second, humanitarian cooperation must be shielded out of political arguments. Even in times of tension, aid, family reunions and cultural exchanges can be a confidence-building measure.
Third, stakeholders in a region should be collaborating and not competing. All the four powers, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia have a role to play in ensuring that their strategic objectives are consistent with stability. Finally, lasting peace means that the security issues experienced by North Korea must also be tackled in a manner that promotes a slow-paced openness that does not jeopardise the existence of the regime. This could include a sanctions relief that is done in phases in exchange of verifiable constraints on nuclear activity.
The Effective Price to Division
Other than geopolitics, the partitioning of Korea is a hurt that is not able to heal. Separated families in the 1950s have become old waiting to reunite with their loved ones, who did not. People in any of these countries desire to walk freely in the DMZ, speak openly, and even be able to find common traditions. But generations too have become accustomed to being separated. The North is not a motherland but a foreign land to many of the young South Koreans.
The psychological difference between the two cultures can be more difficult to overcome than the political one over time. Peace is not, therefore, a mere signing of an agreement by the leaders but a change of hearts and minds. The dark cloud of segregation will remain until suspicion is changed to mutual understanding.
Conclusion
Will the Korean Peninsula ever experience any peace? The solution is between hope and history. Structural realities of power, ideology and mistrust can only be fully reconciled with difficulty. But history knows that even the most serious contradictions can develop. Korean people have shown that they are resilient to colonisation, war and division.
Peace cannot be achieved at a single summit or a single treaty but a long-standing process of establishing trust, alleviating fear, and humanising the other will result in peace. The solution will take bravery on part of the two Koreas, wisdom on the part of the international forces and compassion on the part of the descendants of the world. The vision of a peaceful Korean Peninsula might not appear as something close, yet, it is present in every word, every cultural bridge, every common memory which cannot be divided. The question itself keeps alive the hope of peace up to that moment.
About the Author
Shreya Dabral is pursuing her Master’s in Mass Communication from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi. She balances her academic journey with active roles in research and digital media. Her research paper on consumer repurchase behaviour in the skincare industry, published in the International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Trends (IJSRET), is a testament to her curiosity, clarity, and commitment to exploring audience-brand dynamics in a digital age.
“You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist.” — Indira Gandhi
The Pause Deal
The Israel–Hamas ceasefire agreement, part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan marks a fragile but significant pause in one of the most protracted and painful conflicts of modern times. Brokered by the United States, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, the agreement comes nearly two years after Hamas’s devastating 07 October 2023 attack on Southern Israel that left deep scars on both sides. The agreement includes the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, phased Israeli troop withdrawals from Gaza, the exchange of prisoners, and the opening of key border crossings to allow humanitarian aid. Yet beneath the cautious optimism lies an inescapable truth that this truce is less a resolution and more a temporary reprieve in a conflict that has spanned for generations.
The agreement’s immediate outcome brought relief to thousands of families. Hamas released the final twenty living Israeli hostages, held for more than seven hundred days, in exchange for Israel freeing nearly two thousand Palestinians, including 250 serving long sentences. Aid convoys began trickling into the battered Gaza Strip, and limited Israeli withdrawals raised hopes that civilians might finally rebuild their shattered lives. But even as negotiators heralded a “new beginning,” few believed it marked an end to decades of bloodshed rooted in history, displacement, and mistrust.
Blooded History
The story of Israel itself is inseparable from that history. Born amid the ashes of World War II, Israel emerged in 1948 from the United Nations Partition Plan that divided the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish homeland was to comprise about 56 percent of the land, while the Arabs were allocated 43 percent, with Jerusalem set aside as an international zone. Arab leaders rejected the plan, and as Britain withdrew, war erupted. By the armistice of 1949, Israel had expanded its territory to roughly 77 percent of the former mandate. The nascent state became home to Jewish immigrants from across the world, even as hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled or were displaced, an event remembered in the Arab world as the Nakba, or catastrophe.
Israel has fought repeated wars with its neighbours: the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Suez Crisis, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and the 1982 Lebanon invasion. Each conflict redrew boundaries, altered alliances, and hardened attitudes. The Six-Day War was particularly transformative, bringing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan Heights under Israeli control, conquests that still shape today’s geography and geopolitics. Over time, Israel evolved into a technologically advanced democracy and military power, yet one perpetually surrounded by hostility, living under the shadow of rockets, raids, and recurring wars.
The Present Conflict
Among its most enduring flashpoints has been Gaza, a narrow coastal enclave barely forty kilometres long and between six and twelve kilometres wide, bordered by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea. Home to about 2.1 million people, Gaza is one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Hamas, which seized control of the strip from Fatah in 2007, has since governed under a crippling Israeli Egyptian blockade. The territory’s people have endured repeated wars, economic collapse, and cycles of reconstruction and destruction.
The latest and most devastating phase began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants launched a surprise incursion into Southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. Israel’s response was swift and overwhelming. Massive airstrikes and a ground invasion followed, reducing entire neighbourhoods of Gaza to rubble. According to health authorities in Gaza, more than 70,100 Palestinians have been killed in the two-year conflict, many of them women and children. Tens of thousands more have been wounded, and nearly the entire population has been displaced. Israel’s government framed the campaign as a necessary fight for national survival, while the international community watched in horror as Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepened.
Cost of Conflict
For Hamas, the cost has been immense. Its leadership ranks were decimated through targeted Israeli airstrikes and intelligence operations. Command tunnels, rocket stockpiles, and administrative networks have been destroyed. Yet, paradoxically, the peace deal now allows Hamas to claim a form of symbolic victory. By securing the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners including prominent figures in exchange for a handful of remaining hostages, Hamas reinforces its narrative as the defender of Palestinian dignity and resistance. Historically, such exchanges have bolstered its domestic standing, allowing it to replenish its ranks by recruiting from the very communities devastated by Israeli bombardments. History suggests that despair and dispossession can easily breed radicalization. For every militant killed, new grievances are born among those who have lost homes, livelihoods, or entire families.
For Israel, the cost of the war has not only been measured in blood but also in the erosion of its security image. The October 7 attack carried out in one of the most surveilled and fortified regions exposed grave intelligence lapses. Despite its technological prowess, Israel failed to prevent the deadliest assault on Jews since the Holocaust. The ensuing war, while militarily punishing Hamas, left Israel diplomatically isolated in many quarters, accused of disproportionate use of force, and confronting a moral reckoning at home.
An Uncertain Future
The current peace agreement stands on delicate ground. Many previous peace or ceasefire deals have held only temporarily. The pattern has often been eruption of violence, ceasefire, temporary relief, reconstruction delayed, grievances unaddressed and conflict resumption. Decades of conflict, broken ceasefires, cycles of violence, displacement, and destruction have bred deep mistrust on both sides. Israel fears future attacks; Palestinians fear further incursions, occupation, punitive measures.
The human toll on both sides is staggering. Israeli families mourn their murdered or abducted loved ones; Palestinians grieve for tens of thousands of dead, maimed, and displaced. The devastation across Gaza is near total with hospitals, schools and residential blocks lying in ruins. Meanwhile many people are displaced, traumatized, impoverished. Rebuilding and relocating will take decades and billions of dollars. High death toll, especially among civilians (including many children), loss of livelihood, homes have the potential for rising radicalisation and recruitment among the young. This makes any peace fragile, as a future generation may feel vengeance or resistance is justified.
Pause or Peace
The peace deal is important and offers respite, but it does not resolve the root issues: contested land, displacement, rights, governing authority, demilitarization, refugees, Jerusalem, security. In truth, lasting peace in the Holy Land demands more than ceasefires. It requires a reckoning with history and acknowledging the trauma of both sides, upholding international law, and nurturing co-existence instead of mutual fear. The success of the deal will depend on sustained humanitarian commitment, credible reconstruction, and mechanisms to prevent renewed violence. Without addressing these fundamental requirements, any peace may be temporary. Yet, regional rivalries, ideological divisions, and global power politics continue to complicate even modest progress. In such a climate, the peace deal is best seen not as the end of conflict but as a fragile pause in a seemingly endless cycle.
As Gaza struggles to rebuild from ashes and Israel grapples with its own internal divisions, both societies face a moment of choice: whether to perpetuate the logic of vengeance or to imagine a future beyond it. For now, the world watches a battered region take a tentative breath between wars uncertain whether it signals the beginning of peace or merely another calm before the next storm.
About the Author
Brigadier Anil John Alfred Pereira, SM (Retd) is Indian Army Veteran from Goa, who served the nation with distinction for 32 years.
The visit of the Taliban foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi to India, has been an opportunity for India to re-define relations with the Taliban regime, who have been in control of Afghanistan since 2021. For India it was a strategic outreach to a regime that they have yet to officially recognize. But the optics of the visit turned into something else.
It all began with the Taliban minister holding a press conference in the Afghan embassy in New Delhi where only male journalists were invited. To make matters worse, some female journalists who wanted to cover the press interaction were turned away from the embassy gates. This led to a sharp critique of the Taliban regime, who many felt were trying to impose their regressive views about women in India. While the Indian government stated that it had nothing to do with this press interaction, the optics nevertheless sparked an outrage. The image of only male journalists sitting around the table with the Taliban foreign minister saw social media break out in an angry storm. It was not only the women in Indian media who were outraged, but women from all walks of life were, rightfully, livid.
Two days after the all-male press interaction, the Taliban minister held another interaction where women journalists were also invited. People in the know indicate that it was the Indian government that intervened for this second presser. The press conference also saw the Taliban minister getting some tough questions from the women present regarding women’s education and their rights in Afghanistan. In response, Muttaqi, a UN-sanctioned leader and senior minister in the Taliban regime, claimed that education of girls and women was not “haram”, or forbidden under laws governing Islam, and has only been postponed until the next order of the country’s supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada.
Muttaqi also, during the press interaction, said that the exclusion of women from the first press conference was a “technical issue” and that their list for “selected journalists” had been curated at a short notice. However, the world has watched in dismay as the Taliban have driven women out of public life in Afghanistan and how basic rights like education are being denied to girls and women.
According to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report of 2024, “There is broad consensus that the situation in Afghanistan is the most serious women’s rights crisis in the world. The country is ranked last on the Women, Peace and Security Index and the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan has referred to ‘the unprecedented deterioration of women’s rights.’ Afghan women—and officials at the UN and elsewhere—have called it ‘gender apartheid.’ Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 75 years ago, there may never have been anything like it—except once, from 1996 to 2001 when the Taliban previously controlled Afghanistan.”
It is significant here to point out that the second press interaction was a much-needed course correction. Since the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan, women have been totally excluded from the public sphere. In fact, Afghanistan today is the only country in the world where girls and women have been denied their basic rights, including being seen in public parks, gymnasiums, mosques, markets and salons. So, while the first presser kind of re-enforced their outlook on women, the second press interaction was a clear signal that this would not be tolerated in other countries.
For India specifically, while geopolitics would dictate closer ties with the Taliban, there should be no compromise on the basic values that India respects and follows. One of the most basic rights is then gender equality. The Indian Constitution guarantees that right to Indian women and every foreign entity ought to respect that on Indian soil.
The one lesson for all going forward is that women today, supported by many of their male colleagues, in many spheres of life are not okay with being discriminated against. Even in delicate, diplomatic situations like what one witnessed during the Taliban minister’s visit, respect for a woman’s dignity and rights cannot be ignored. It is a strong statement that India and its women have sent out and the message has reverberated globally. Some can argue that this is unlikely to get the Taliban to change. But that would be missing the point. Allowing anyone to ignore women in a secular, democratic society is unacceptable, is the message here. And it was heard loud and clear.
About the Author
Simran Sodhi is a Delhi-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. She holds a Masters in International Relations from the American University in Washington DC. In 2009, her book ‘Piercing the Heart- Untold Stories of 26/11’ was published. She has written for a number of leading national and international publications. She tweets at @Simransodhi9
India’s pursuit of defence self-reliance represents a transformative strategic shift that has fundamentally restructured the nation’s military-industrial ecosystem. The Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) initiative, announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 12, 2020, has accelerated this transformation, positioning India as an emerging global defence manufacturing hub with substantial indigenous capabilities and growing export competitiveness.
India’s defence self-reliance journey began with the establishment of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in 1958. However, early decades were marked by limited technological breakthroughs and continued import dependence. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute data, India remained the world’s largest arms importer between 2019-2023, accounting for 9.8 percent of global arms imports, though representing a decrease from 11 percent in the previous period.
The strategic transformation gained momentum with the Make in India initiative launched on September 25, 2014. The Defence Production and Export Promotion Policy 2020 established clear objectives: achieving turnover of US$ 25 billion in aerospace and defence goods by 2025, including US$ 5 billion in exports. The Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020 prioritized the ‘Buy Indian-Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured’ category, ensuring preferential treatment for domestic systems and creating predictable demand for Indian manufacturers.
Remarkable Production Growth and Export Success
Official Ministry of Defence data reveals unprecedented growth in defence production, reaching a record US$ 18.1 billion in Financial Year 2024-25, representing an 18.9 percent increase from the previous year’s US$ 15.2 billion. This demonstrates consistent upward trajectory, with production increasing by 91 percent since FY 2019-20 when it stood at US$ 9.5 billion.
The sectoral composition shows balanced participation between public and private sectors. Defence Public Sector Undertakings contributed approximately 77 percent of total production valued at US$ 13.9 billion, while private sector contribution reached US$ 4.2 billion, representing 23 percent of total output and marking an increase from 21 percent in FY 2023-24.
Defence exports have demonstrated even more dramatic growth, surging from US$ 83 million in FY 2013-14 to US$ 2.85 billion in FY 2024-25, representing a remarkable 34-fold increase. The Department of Defence Production issued 1,762 export authorizations in FY 2024-25, compared to 1,507 in the previous year. India now exports defence equipment to over 100 countries, with primary buyers including the United States, France, Armenia, and several Southeast Asian nations.
Indigenous Platform Achievements
Light Combat Aircraft Tejas Program: The Tejas represents India’s most significant achievement in indigenous fighter aircraft development. Developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the aircraft features indigenous content of 59.7 percent by value and 75.5 percent by line replacement units. HAL has delivered 40 Tejas aircraft to the Indian Air Force, with orders for 123 Tejas Mk1A aircraft worth US$ 6.2 billion placed in March 2021.
BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missile System: The BrahMos missile system, developed through Indo-Russian collaboration, exemplifies successful international cooperation in advanced defence technology. With Mach 2.8 speed and 800-kilometer range in recent variants, BrahMos has generated substantial export orders, including US$ 374.9 million contract with Philippines in January 2022 and US$ 100 million deal with Indonesia.
Arjun Main Battle Tank Program: The Arjun Mk1A, developed by DRDO’s Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, incorporates 72.8 percent indigenous content and features advanced fire control systems and battlefield management capabilities. The Indian Army placed orders for 124 Arjun Mk1A tanks in May 2021, valued at US$ 1.38 billion, establishing comprehensive supply chains involving over 200 Indian vendors.
Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv: The HAL Dhruv program demonstrates India’s rotorcraft capabilities, with over 380 helicopters produced for domestic and export markets, accumulating more than 340,000 flying hours. The Dhruv has been exported to Ecuador, Mauritius, Nepal, and Suriname, achieving 68 percent indigenous content and spawning derivative programs including Light Combat Helicopter and Light Utility Helicopter.
Policy Reforms and Investment Liberalization
Foreign Direct Investment liberalization has been instrumental in attracting international technology and capital. The FDI limit in defence manufacturing under automatic route increased from 49 percent to 74 percent in September 2020, while 100 percent FDI is permitted under government approval for cases involving modern technology access.
According to Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade data, 46 joint ventures and companies have received foreign investment approval in the defence sector. The Strategic Partnership model, notified in May 2017, has established frameworks for long-term partnerships between Indian companies and global original equipment manufacturers for programs including Project-75I submarines and naval utility helicopters.
Innovation Ecosystem and Technology Transfer
The Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) initiative, launched in April 2018, has emerged as a transformative platform for engaging startups and MSMEs. With budgetary support of US$ 60.2 million for 2021-22 to 2025-26, iDEX provides grants up to US$ 180,000 for prototype development. As of December 2023, iDEX had signed 300 contracts with startups, supporting development across artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, autonomous systems, and advanced materials.
The Defence Research and Development Organisation has facilitated over 4,000 technology transfers to Indian industry, covering materials, manufacturing processes, and complete systems. Recent transfers include advanced materials technologies: high-strength radome manufacturing to Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, DMR-1700 grade steel to Jindal Steel and Power Limited, and specialized steel technologies to Bhilai Steel Plant for naval shipbuilding applications.
DPSU Transformation and Performance
Defence Public Sector Undertakings have undergone significant transformation. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited achieved Maharatna status on October 13, 2024, providing enhanced financial autonomy including ability to invest up to 15 percent of net worth in projects and up to US$ 602 million in foreign ventures without government approval.
HAL’s financial performance exemplifies DPSU transformation, with annual turnover reaching US$ 3.4 billion and net profit of US$ 914 million in FY 2023-24. The company’s order book stands at US$ 8.9 billion, providing revenue visibility for 3-4 years. Bharat Electronics Limited reported turnover of US$ 2.1 billion with order book exceeding US$ 6 billion, establishing capabilities in radars, electronic warfare systems, and communication equipment.
Import Reduction and Strategic Autonomy
The implementation of positive indigenisation lists has been central to reducing import dependence. Five comprehensive lists comprising over 5,500 items have been notified, placing time-bound import embargos. The fifth list, notified in July 2024, includes 346 items with embargo timelines extending from December 2024 to December 2030.
According to Ministry of Defence data, over 12,300 defence items have been indigenised in the past three years, with DPSUs placing orders worth US$ 913 million on domestic vendors. India’s arms imports decreased by 9.3 percent between 2015-19 and 2020-24 periods according to SIPRI data, reflecting increasing domestic manufacturing capabilities.
Infrastructure Development and Industrial Corridors
The Defence Industrial Corridors in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu represent strategic manufacturing ecosystem development. The UP corridor, spanning Lucknow, Kanpur, Jhansi, Chitrakoot, Aligarh, and Agra, has attracted investment commitments exceeding US$ 2.4 billion from over 250 companies. The Tamil Nadu corridor encompasses Chennai, Hosur, Salem, Coimbatore, and Tiruchirappalli, facilitating investments worth US$ 1.8 billion and creating employment for over 35,000 people.
Plans for additional corridors in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Assam are in advanced stages, leveraging regional industrial strengths and providing enhanced geographical distribution of defence manufacturing capabilities.
Economic Impact and Future Roadmap
The defence manufacturing sector’s economic impact extends beyond direct production. According to Confederation of Indian Industry estimates, every dollar of defence production generates US$ 2.5 in economic activity through multiplier effects. The sector directly employs over 850,000 people and supports indirect employment for approximately 2.5 million people across supply chains.
The government has established ambitious targets: achieving US$ 36 billion in defence production and US$ 6 billion in defence exports by 2029. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft program, launched in October 2022, aims to develop twin-engine fighter aircraft with indigenous content exceeding 80 percent, representing India’s most ambitious aerospace initiative.
Challenges and Strategic Outlook
Despite remarkable progress, challenges remain in advanced aero-engine technology, high-end semiconductors, and specialized materials. The government has initiated specific programs including the Semiconductor Mission and aero-engine development initiatives to address technology gaps. Supply chain resilience requires continued investment in Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers through Production Linked Incentive schemes.
Human capital development remains critical, with partnerships between industry and premier educational institutions being strengthened to address specialized skill requirements. Export competitiveness requires continuous technology upgrades, cost optimization, and after-sales support capabilities through defence export promotion organizations.
Conclusion
India’s defence self-reliance transformation demonstrates remarkable success across production growth, export expansion, and indigenous capability development. The 91 percent production growth since FY 2019-20 and 34-fold export increase since FY 2013-14 validate the strategic approach. Success of flagship programs including Tejas aircraft, BrahMos missiles, and ALH Dhruv helicopters provides credible evidence of India’s design and manufacturing capabilities.
The transformation of DPSUs from assembly-focused entities to innovation-driven organizations, combined with growing private sector participation and startup ecosystem engagement, establishes a robust foundation for sustained growth. India’s progress toward becoming a global defence manufacturing hub by 2047 appears achievable based on current trajectory and institutional capabilities.
This strategic transformation extends beyond defence manufacturing to encompass technological sovereignty, economic growth, and enhanced strategic autonomy. India’s success in defence self-reliance strengthens national security while positioning the nation as a significant contributor to global defence technology development, representing one of the most significant strategic achievements in India’s post-independence history.
About the Author
Kumar Aryan is an analytical and results-oriented postgraduate from Symbiosis School of International Studies (SIU) with a Master’s in International Relations, Global Security, and International Business Strategy. He possesses a strong understanding of geopolitics and economics, expertise in research and data-driven strategy, and proven leadership in team management and is experienced in market intelligence, data analysis, and cross-cultural engagement.
