India faces a Russia dilemma
If passed, India's diplomacy will be put to a stress test once again. It is likely to also trigger a debate around the strategic utility of India's relationship with Russia. Even if the bill fails to sail through, Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India in the coming months will probably set off similar discussions.
Practitioners and strategic analysts are divided on the issue. Russophiles have argued that the India-Russia relationship is rooted in history and has stood the test of time. The genesis of this thought lies in India's experiences with the Soviet Union during the Cold War years, with the India-Pakistan war of 1971 being the watershed moment in the friendship. That event created substantial affinity towards the Soviet Union (later Russia) among the Indian public and political elite, while concurrently generating deep antipathy and cynicism towards the US-led West.
The Soviet Union also supported India through the sale of arms at a time when the West (primarily the US and the UK) would openly arm Pakistan with sophisticated and advanced weapons while turning down India's requests. Further, they argue the Soviet Union was India's sole trusted partner with a veto in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), particularly when the West raked up issues pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir. As per this school of thought, the experience of history demonstrates Russia's reliability and creates an obligation for India to support it. Russia, for them, stood with India when the latter found itself isolated by the West for most of the Cold War period.
This school also contends that India and Russia are natural partners as their core interests do not conflict. Thus, they argue that the Moscow-Delhi relationship transcends any upheavals in the global order and is critical to maintaining India's strategic autonomy. Finally, any effort towards distancing from Russia would further push it into China's orbit of influence. Per them, an isolated Russia that is more dependent on China presents a significant challenge for India.
Lately, a second strand of thought (Russoskeptics) has argued for strategic pragmatism when it comes to India's relations with Russia. It calls for a more pragmatic approach to modern-day Russia, notwithstanding the traditional and historical relationship with the Soviet Union. They endeavour to absolve India of any moral obligation by alluding to the latter's historically ambiguous and even contrary position on matters related to Indian interests vis-à-vis China.
Moreover, they highlight, and rightly so, that in the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow is an aggressor that has violated Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty in a blatant disregard for international law. And thus, Russia does not deserve India's moral support in its unjust war.
In addition, they point to the deepening strategic partnership between Russia and China as threatening India's security interests. This school also views Russia as a declining power that can do very little to augment India's comprehensive national power. On the contrary, Russia's expansionist tendencies have an adverse impact on India's relationship with the US at a time when its interests align far more closely with the West, owing to the changing geopolitical realities. This has significantly altered the cost-benefit matrix for India when it comes to its relationship with Russia.
Morals and ethics aside, there are legitimate strategic reasons, grounded in realism, to argue for either side.
The Russoskeptics point out that India's diplomatic capital is not infinite. And thus, it would not be prudent to spend it all to salvage the relationship with Russia, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, Russia continues to be the primary adversary of the US. And there is a possibility that proximity to Moscow may impede cooperation between New Delhi and Washington. Secondly, Russia may no longer be trusted as India's biggest defence and energy partner, given its massive dependence on China, economically, militarily and diplomatically.
Notwithstanding the pragmatism and realism displayed by the Russoskeptics, they must answer two critical questions: Will making an enemy out of Russia and pushing it into a possible China-Pak-Russia nexus serve India's security interests in Asia? And would New Delhi be comfortable with the idea of Moscow selling its premium weapons to Pakistan? Moscow is already flirting with Rawalpindi and testing the waters to see if Pakistan could be its new prominent military partner.
Further, while the Sino-Russian relationship stands firm, we are yet to see it adversely impact India-Russia ties in any significant way. This perhaps suggests that either the Russia-China relationship is not deep enough, or India-China relations have not strained to a point yet for Beijing to resort to coercion through Moscow.
Thus, India cannot afford to downgrade its relations with Russia yet, and it must persist with its balancing act. This would require four actions on India's part. First, conveying to their American counterparts that China should continue to remain the preeminent source of their strategic convergence. Second, while diversifying arms imports from Russia makes strategic sense, it would be imprudent to seek diversification beyond a certain limit, which makes Moscow a little insecure. India needs to find that acceptable ratio.
Third, India would need to engage China to ensure that the bilateral relations do not stoop to a point that Beijing feels the need to capitalise on Russia's dependence. Lastly, India must urge Russia not to close the door on themselves. If it wants to avoid slipping into China's sphere of influence and wants India to be on its side as a friendly centre of power, it has to allow India some space to work with. A good start for Moscow would be revisiting its Eurasia policy.
The writer is a research analyst with Takshashila's Indo-Pacific Studies programme
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
20 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
‘Incorrect' that India lost Rafale ‘jets' during Operation Sindoor, says defence secretary
It is incorrect to say that multiple Rafale jets of the Indian Air Force were shot down by Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, Defence Secretary RK Singh told CNBC-TV18 on Monday. Singh refused to answer a question regarding the losses the Air Force suffered during the initial phase of the four-day conflict, the news channel reported. 'You have used the term Rafales in the plural, I can assure you that is absolutely not correct,' Singh told CNBC-TV18. 'Pakistan suffered losses many times over India in both human and material terms and more than 100 terrorists.' The defence secretary also reiterated that the government had given the Indian military operational freedom during the conflict. 'No political constraints on our armed forces and they have full operational freedom in conflict,' he said. This came following a remark by Captain Shiv Kumar, India's defence attaché to Indonesia, on June 10 that the Indian Air Force had lost fighter jets to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor on May 7 because of the ' constraint given by the political leadership'. 'Suppression of enemy air defences and destruction of enemy air defences is very very important…' Kumar said. 'I may not agree…that India lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft.' He added: 'And that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or [Pakistani] air defences'. Kumar had said that the tactics were changed after the loss and 'we went for their military installations'. The defence attaché had made the comments during a seminar analysing the India-Pakistan conflict at a university in Jakarta. He made the statement in response to Pakistan's claim of having downed six aircraft, including three Rafales. The claims made by Islamabad have not been independently verified. On Sunday, the Associated Press quoted French Air Force chief General Jérôme Bellanger as saying that he had seen evidence pointing to the Indian Air Force having lost just three fighter jets: a Rafale, a Su-30MKI and a Mirage 2000. A controversy had erupted after the video of Kumar's remarks surfaced online on June 28. Following this, the Indian embassy in Jakarta had said that the Navy officer had only pointed out that India's armed forces serve under ' civilian political leadership ', unlike some neighbouring countries. 'It was also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure and the Indian response was non-escalatory,' it added. The Indian embassy also said that Kumar's remarks were 'quoted out of context' and 'the media reports are a misrepresentation of the intention and thrust of the presentation made by the speaker'. Kumar's statement had come more than a month after Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan's May 31 comments that were seen by some as an acknowledgement of the Indian Air Force having lost aircraft during the operation. Chauhan had told Bloomberg that what was important was 'not the jet being down, but why they were being down'. 'Why they were down, what mistakes were made – that are important,' Chauhan told Bloomberg. ' Numbers are not important.' He had also said that Pakistan's claims of having shot down six Indian Air Force fighter jets was 'absolutely incorrect'. Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad escalated on May 7 when the Indian military carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The strikes were in response to the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 persons on April 22. The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and eight defence personnel were killed in the shelling. India and Pakistan on May 10 reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following the four-day conflict.
India Today
23 minutes ago
- India Today
Why judiciary stares at potential first impeachment of a high court judge
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)In the complex world of Indian politics, where decisions are often made behind closed doors, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju is on a sensitive mission. He is working to gather support from leaders across party lines for what could be a landmark moment in India's judicial history—the first impeachment of a high court judge, Justice Yashwant story that began with a fire in the judge's outhouse now transcends a simple corruption scandal. It lays bare the fault lines between India's judiciary and executive, exposing tensions that have simmered since the nation's founding. Dark clouds are gathering over the capital in more ways than one, and as the monsoon session of Parliament approaches, the case raises profound questions about evidence, process and power. Who watches the watchers when the watchers themselves stand accused? And what happens when the machinery of accountability becomes a weapon in institutional warfare? THE FIRE THAT LIT A THOUSAND QUESTIONS March 14, 2025, began as an ordinary Friday for the residents of Tughlaq Crescent, Delhi's tree-lined avenue housing judges and diplomats. Justice Varma, then serving on the Delhi High Court, was away in Bhopal with his wife. His daughter Diya remained at the No. 30 official residence, a sprawling bungalow. The household staff went about their routines, the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) guards maintained their posts, and nothing suggested that this night would alter the trajectory of Indian approximately 11:35 pm, Diya heard what she later described as an explosion. Racing toward the sound with household staff, she discovered flames erupting from a locked storeroom situated near the servants' quarters, separated from the main residence by a boundary wall. Neither the CRPF personnel nor the guards stationed at the main gate initially responded, a detail that would later fuel conspiracy the Delhi Fire Services arrived, breaking open the padlocked door with the help of security personnel, they encountered a scene that defied explanation. Station officer Manoj Mehlawat's spontaneous exclamation, captured on a firefighter's phone video, gave the case its most memorable soundbite: 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai (Mahatma Gandhi is on fire)'. The reference was unmistakable: stacks of 500-rupee notes bearing Gandhi's image lay burning on the floor, some charred, others half-consumed by fire brigade's divisional officer, Suman Kumar, would later testify that he had 'never seen anything like it' in his career. Multiple witnesses, including firefighters and police personnel, described currency notes piled up to one and a half feet high. Yet what happened next, or rather, what didn't happen, would prove equally significant. The Delhi Police took no action to secure evidence. No seizure memo was prepared, no panchnama drawn up. Not a single currency note was preserved for forensic examination. By dawn, the burnt cash had vanished, reportedly removed by persons unknown while the crime scene lay unguarded. News of the midnight fire might have remained buried in routine police logs had not someone—the identity remains unknown—leaked the information to the media days later. The story exploded across news channels as the image of currency burning at a judge's residence struck at something fundamental in public Supreme Court's institutional machinery responded with uncharacteristic speed. Within days, then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, requested a preliminary report from Delhi High Court chief justice D.K. Upadhyaya, who said that 'the entire matter warrants a deeper probe'. The SC collegium, in an extraordinary meeting, proposed Varma's immediate transfer to his parent high court in Allahabad, a clear signal the judiciary was distancing itself from potential Varma's actions, or lack thereof, on his return to Delhi on March 15 would later become central to the case against him. He did not visit the burnt storeroom immediately. He filed no police complaint about what he would later claim was a conspiracy to frame him. He accepted his transfer to the Allahabad HC without protest. To his critics, this behaviour suggested guilt. To his defenders, it reflected the shock and confusion of a man blindsided by events beyond his March 22, CJI Khanna constituted a three-member committee including Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana HC), G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh HC) and Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka HC to conduct an 'inhouse inquiry'. Their 64-page report, submitted on May 3, reads like a judicial indictment. The committee found that 'cash/money was found in the storeroom' based on 'direct and electronic evidence'. More damningly, they concluded that access to this room was under the 'covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family members'. Through what they termed 'strong inferential evidence', they determined that Varma's most trusted staff, private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and domestic helpers, had removed the burnt cash in the early hours of March allegedly instructed firefighters not to mention currency in their reports. The storeroom was cleaned the next day, destroying potential evidence. When questioned, household staff claimed ignorance but the committee found these denials unconvincing when weighed against the independent testimony of fire and police significantly, the committee addressed Justice Varma's defence, or lack thereof. His claim that the storeroom was accessible to outsiders was contradicted by security personnel who testified that the area was always locked and monitored. His failure to report a conspiracy, if he truly believed one existed, struck the committee as the other side, Justice Varma's objections went beyond mere procedure. The committee, he noted, had already framed its inquiry around three presumptive questions: How does he account for the money in the room? What was its source? Who removed it? These questions, Varma argued, assumed that the money he claimed never belonged to him was his. Also, the committee's fact-finding mandate meant it operated without the safeguards of a proper judicial inquiry, no examination of witnesses on oath, no rules of evidence, no formal procedures to check the testimony's veracity. 1. Panel took stock of 55 witness testimonies, forensic examination of videos/ photos, as well as triangulation of electronic and call records to come to its findingsadvertisement2. Multiple visuals of charred currency retrieved. In one video, a fire officer is heard saying, 'Mahatma Gandhi mein aag lag rahi hai bhai,' referring to the image on the Rs 500 notes3. Varma's private secretary Rajinder Karki led clean-up after the blaze, raising concerns about deliberate tampering. Karki talked to Justice Varma at 1:23 am on March 15, the window when evidence may have been removed4. Varma's daughter Diya initially admitted knowing about the burnt cash on March 15, later attempted to retract statement5. Hard disk of CCTV camera monitoring storeroom is missing. Panel concluded that if footage supported his claims, Varma had ample time to produce it to prove his innocence6. When questioned by the CJI, Justice Varma could not account for the origin/ownership of the cash allegedly found at his premises QUESTIONS OVER THE INVESTIGATIONWhen CJI Khanna, acting on the committee's report, advised Varma to resign within 48 hours, the judge's response was unequivocal. His letter of June 6 rejecting this advice struck notes of both defiance and despair. 'To accept such advice would imply my acquiescence to a process and outcome that I respectfully consider to be fundamentally unjust,' he nothing illustrates the case's irregularities more starkly than what investigators chose not to investigate. Former law minister Kapil Sibal, reviewing the case, identifies gaps that seem less like oversights and more deliberate omissions. No forensic examination determined the fire's cause. Justice Varma's claim of an explosion was dismissed without investigation. The CCTV cameras monitoring the storeroom, potentially the most crucial evidence, had mysteriously stopped working, their data irretrievably lost by the time investigators sought it. The committee noted this failure but drew no adverse inference, instead blaming Justice Varma for not preserving footage even though he had 10 days to do so and prove his Delhi Police's conduct raised even more questions. Here were law enforcement officers witnessing evidence of a serious crime, yet they took no action. When questioned later, the officers claimed that they were told by superiors that 'higher-ups are involved' and they should take no further action. This investigative paralysis extended to the committee itself. While acknowledging police conduct as 'slipshod', they declined to probe deeper, stating it was 'not part of their remit'. They made no attempt to trace where the cash originated, whether it was genuine or counterfeit, or how it came to be in the storeroom. The amount itself remained a matter of speculation; media reports suggested Rs 15 crore, but no official count was ever IMPEACHMENT PUZZLEAs Parliament prepares for Justice Varma's impeachment, the process itself has become contentious. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, impeachment follows a prescribed route: MPs submit a motion, the speaker or chairman admits it, a three-judge panel investigates, and only if found guilty does Parliament debate and vote. This statutory process includes crucial safeguards, including right to legal representation and evidence taken on minister Rijiju has suggested the government views this case as 'slightly different', hinting they might bypass the statutory inquiry since an inhouse committee has already submitted a report. This approach has alarmed constitutional experts. As Indira Jaising, who participated in India's first (unsuccessful) impeachment proceedings against an SC judge in 1991, warned, conflating the inhouse procedure with statutory requirements 'undermines Justice Varma's right to a fair procedure' and violates the law government's selective urgency becomes more apparent when contrasted with another pending impeachment. Since December 2024, 55 Rajya Sabha MPs have sought action against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad HC for alleged inflammatory communal remarks at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event. Six months later, Vice-President and RS chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar claims he's still verifying signatures. Meanwhile, Dhankhar wrote to the CJI asking him not to proceed with an inhouse inquiry against Justice Yadav, yet he now champions swift action against Justice Varma based solely on such an inquiry. THE DEEPER GAMEThe impeachment drama is also set to become a test case in the ongoing struggle between India's judiciary and the Modi government. Since the SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, declaring it unconstitutional for giving the executive too much power over judicial appointments, tensions have escalated. The government has chafed at the collegium system, where judges appoint judges, viewing it as unaccountable. Various ministers and even V-P Dhankhar have publicly criticised judicial overreach and called for greater executive oversight. The Varma case provides potent ammunition. Here's a judge with unexplained cash, and the judiciary's own investigation found him guilty. What better argument for external oversight?Yet the implications run deeper. Some experts say that by accepting an inhouse report as grounds for impeachment, by bypassing statutory safeguards, the government could set precedents that fundamentally alter judicial independence. Today's weapon against allegedly corrupt judges could become tomorrow's tool for removing inconvenient Varma himself represents a puzzling target. Colleagues describe him as brilliant, particularly in tax law. No whispers of impropriety marked his career. His judgments have reflected careful reasoning rather than ideological bias. Meanwhile, the fundamental mysteries remain unresolved. Whose money was burning that night? How did it arrive in a locked storeroom? The fire's cause stays unexplained. The judge mentioned an explosion while fire officers doubted the short-circuit theory. Yet no forensic examination occurred. The missing CCTV footage that might have shown who accessed the storeroom has also gaps matter because they transform what should be a search for truth into an exercise in presumption. The committee's logic that Varma must be guilty because he couldn't prove his innocence, inverts fundamental principles of justice. As Sibal observed, 'Under which principle of criminal law can you find somebody guilty on a presumption?'Justice Yashwant Varma will likely enter history as India's first successfully impeached judge. But his removal may prove a pyrrhic victory for those seeking judicial accountability. Also, more fundamental questions of systemic judicial corruption remain unanswered. The case underscores the urgent need for structural judicial reforms that eliminate the possibility of unaccounted cash lying hidden in a judge's A JUDGE IS IMPEACHED (Photo: Arun Kumar) In India, a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court can be removed through impeachment, which involves a specific process outlined in the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Here's a breakdown of the process:1) Initiation: A motion for impeachment can be initiated in either the Lok Sabha (at least 100 members must sign) or the Rajya Sabha (at least 50 members must sign). In case of Justice Varma, the motion has already been admitted in Parliament2) Investigation: The presiding officer (speaker of the Lok Sabha or chairman of Rajya Sabha) can refer the motion to a three-member committee for investigation. This committee typically includes the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. In case of Justice Varma, the Supreme Court's three-member inquiry committee has already recommended his impeachment. There is no clarity if Parliament will go by this recommendation or form a committee of its own to probe the allegations against Justice Varma3) Parliamentary Approval: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the report is presented to the respective House. For the motion to be successful, it must be passed by a special majority (two-thirds of those present and voting, and a majority of the total membership) in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The monsoon session of Parliament is likely to see debate and voting on Justice Varma's impeachment.4) Presidential Order: If both Houses pass the motion with the required majority, it is sent to the President, who then issues an order for the judge's removalSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Revised US endowment tax hits Ivy League universities, while smaller elite colleges remain unaffected
Revised US endowment tax hits Ivy League universities In a sweeping shift to how America's wealthiest universities are taxed, the US Congress has passed new legislation that sharply increases the tax burden on the endowment earnings of large private institutions, while quietly carving out exemptions for smaller but equally well-funded colleges. As part of a major tax and budget package signed by former President Donald Trump , the revised law raises the excise tax rate on endowment income to as much as 8%, up from the previous 1.4%, for the richest universities. But a late-stage amendment now spares around two dozen smaller elite colleges, some with endowments rivaling the Ivies, simply because they enroll fewer than 3,000 full-time students. This last-minute exemption has effectively redrawn the tax map of US higher education, exposing the country's most prominent research universities to higher tax liabilities while offering financial relief to a select group of liberal arts and STEM institutions. Ivy League universities face higher tax rates Under the new tax structure, institutions with endowments exceeding $2 million per student will now pay an 8% excise tax on their investment earnings. Those with endowments between $750,000 and $2 million per student will pay 4%, while those between $500,000 and $750,000 will continue at the 1.4% rate first introduced in 2017. Based on 2023 data, at least 11 institutions are expected to move into the higher tax brackets. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 1 minute and see why everyone is crazy about it Undo Princeton, Yale, and MIT are likely to face the full 8% rate, while Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth, and Vanderbilt fall into the 4% category. Another five—including Duke, Penn, and Brown—are expected to maintain the current 1.4% tax rate. Small but elite colleges secure exemption In a development that has sparked debate, colleges with fewer than 3,000 full-time, tuition-paying students will be entirely exempt from the tax, regardless of how large their endowments are. This clause, introduced during Senate negotiations, benefits institutions such as Swarthmore, Amherst, Wellesley, Caltech, and Hillsdale College. Though some of these schools have endowments worth more than half a million dollars per student, their limited enrollment shields them from the tax that now affects their larger counterparts. Grinnell College in Iowa, for instance, with just under 1,800 students and a significant endowment, is projected to save approximately $2.4 million annually under the new rules. How politics shaped the exemption Originally, the House version of the bill aimed to penalize universities viewed as politically or ideologically out of step with Republican leadership. Proposals to exclude foreign students from headcounts and exempt religious or non-federally funded institutions were blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian, citing procedural violations under the Byrd rule. The final compromise focused on enrollment numbers—a decision widely seen as a workaround to protect Hillsdale College, a conservative institution with outsized influence in Republican circles. However, the exemption also unintentionally benefited several progressive-leaning liberal arts colleges, highlighting the unpredictable consequences of last-minute legislative negotiations. Uncertain future for college endowment policy While the exemption is a relief for small colleges today, policy experts caution that these protections may not hold. With the new law expected to generate $761 million in additional tax revenue from colleges over the next decade, far below the $6.7 billion projected under the original proposal, the debate around taxing higher education endowments is far from settled. For now, the revised tax law delivers a clear message: size matters. Large, resource-rich universities will pay more, while smaller but well-endowed colleges, regardless of their ideological orientation, have successfully sidestepped the financial hit, at least for now. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
