Latest news with #pro-India
The Diplomat
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Diplomat
India's Monarchy Fantasy in Nepal Is a Strategic Mirage
The vision of a pro-India monarch is a dangerous misreading of Nepal's history, its political complexities, and the implications for India's regional interests. In recent months, pro-monarchy demonstrations have flared across Nepal, with some protesters carrying posters of Indian Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. These symbolic gestures are not incidental. They signal a growing ideological intersection between Nepal's royalist nostalgia and India's rising Hindu nationalism. For some in India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – the return of a Hindu monarchy in Nepal is being framed as both a civilizational triumph and a strategic necessity. But this vision is a dangerous misreading of Nepal's history, its political complexities, and the implications for India's regional interests. For India, the idea of a culturally aligned, Hindu-majority monarchy in Nepal appears attractive amid the growing Chinese presence in the region. Proponents argue that a Hindu king could serve as a bulwark against Beijing, foster cultural affinity, and stabilize a politically turbulent neighbor. This narrative has gained traction among Indian right-wing commentators and politicians alike, echoing similar ideological currents across the subcontinent. But this fantasy is historically flawed and strategically shortsighted. Nepal's monarchy was never the steadfast Indian ally it is now nostalgically remembered as. After King Tribhuvan's exile and return with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's support in 1950, hopes for a constitutional monarchy in Nepal were high. Yet these hopes were quickly dashed. King Mahendra's 1960 royal coup dismantled the nascent democracy, suppressed pro-India politicians, and aligned Nepal closer to China – a pattern that recurred with his son, King Gyanendra, during his 2005-08 power grab. Rather than strengthening ties with India, these monarchs often positioned themselves in opposition to Indian influence, using Hindu nationalism to consolidate internal power and assert sovereignty. Gyanendra's regime, in particular, alienated New Delhi and created fertile ground for Chinese strategic inroads. Far from a stabilizing force, Nepal's monarchy repeatedly proved to be a source of autocracy and diplomatic estrangement. The renewed royalist fervor in Nepal is often conflated with calls to re-establish a Hindu state. But not all supporters of a Hindu identity in Nepal support restoring the monarchy. The Nepali Congress, one of the country's largest democratic parties, has formally endorsed the idea of a Hindu state, while opposing monarchical rule. This distinction is crucial. While monarchy implies authoritarian rule, calls for a Hindu state are more about cultural assertion – especially amid growing anxieties over federalism, secularism, and demographic change. Still, both narratives stem from widespread public frustration with Nepal's current political system. Since the monarchy's abolition in 2008, no elected government has completed a full term. Federalism, while progressive in theory, is seen by many Nepalis as creating more inefficiency and corruption, summed up in the popular quip: 'Earlier we had one king, now we have 761.' This disillusionment is the fertile ground on which royalist and theocratic fantasies grow. The BJP-RSS establishment's embrace of Nepal's monarchists reflects more than strategic calculation; it is rooted in a shared ideological affinity for majoritarian nationalism and centralized religious authority. Figures like Yogi Adityanath – who symbolize the fusion of Hindu religiosity and political power – are seen by Nepal's royalist right as aspirational models. The imagery of Adityanath at Nepal's protests is a visual manifestation of this ideological export. Yet India's historical actions have not always helped its image in Nepal. Two unofficial blockades – one in 1989 and another in 2015 – inflicted economic hardship and deepened resentment. Meanwhile, perceptions of Indian interference in Nepal's domestic politics remain strong, further complicated by conspiracy theories (such as India's alleged role in the 2001 royal massacre) that, while baseless, are emotionally potent. These legacies have allowed China to position itself as a 'non-interfering partner' and expand its footprint through infrastructure investments, soft power, and engagement with Nepal's security apparatus. In contrast, India's growing ideological alignment with monarchy risks alienating democratic forces within Nepal and undermining its long-term influence. Restoring a monarchy in Nepal won't fix the structural issues that fuel instability: youth unemployment, rural poverty, and elite-driven governance. Over 4 million Nepalis now work abroad, and remittances equate to nearly 30 percent of GDP. Nepal's economy remains heavily dependent on India, especially for trade, electricity, and transit infrastructure. India has made quiet but substantial investments in this sector – from the 900 MW Arun-III hydropower project to completed railway links like Jaynagar–Bardibas. Cross-border electricity transmission lines and the BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal) initiative could position Nepal as a clean energy exporter in the region. These are the kinds of practical integrations that truly stabilize bilateral relations – not ideological posturing. Meanwhile, Nepal's elected communist leaders – despite occasional anti-India rhetoric – have maintained functional ties with New Delhi. Leaders like Pushpa Kamal Dahal and current Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli may wave nationalist flags, but their electoral legitimacy requires ongoing engagement with India. Even critics of federalism are not necessarily calling for a return to monarchy, but rather for reforms that make democracy deliver. Ultimately, betting on monarchy is not a foreign policy strategy – it's an ideological fantasy. If India wants to compete with China and maintain long-term influence in Nepal, it must invest in pluralism, economic cooperation, and democratic consolidation. The imagery of Yogi Adityanath in Kathmandu may excite some in Nagpur, but it alarms many in Nepal – and even more in India's diplomatic community. India's strength in South Asia has always come from its democratic model, not its imperial ambitions. Replacing that model with nostalgia for crowns and gods will only open the door further to adversaries who offer infrastructure without interference, and partnership without prescriptions.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Internet ‘disgusted' by Diljit Dosanjh for working with Pakistani actor Hania Aamir in Sardaar Ji 3: ‘Shameless person'
A section of the internet is 'disgusted' by singer-actor Diljit Dosanjh after the trailer of Sardaar Ji 3 featured Pakistani actor Hania Aamir amid tensions between India and Pakistan. Taking to Reddit, a person shared a post titled, 'Guts.' (Also Read | Sardaar Ji 3 trailer: Pak actor Hania Aamir joins Diljit Dosanjh in film set for overseas release; fans react. Watch) Diljit Dosanjh and Pakistani actor Hania Aamir in a still from Sardaar Ji 3 trailer. A person wrote, "Never spoke a word during the war…now we know why…I liked him, but the opinion is now changing highly." "Honestly, I don't think Diljit holds any affinity and love towards India, so I really don't expect him to be pro-India, but I hope now at least the border makers will remove him from a film based on the life of our army," read a comment. "You can't expect anything better from Diljit. He has always been very clear about his ideologies," commented a Reddit user. "Never liked him, never will. Disgusted by him," wrote another person. "So all the allegations against him being a separatist are kind of true, I feel. What a shameless person he is," read another comment. A comment read, 'Not a Bollywood film so likely won't face much scrutiny.' A person wrote, 'Well they weren't gonna cut someone out who had clearly such a big part.' About India-Pakistan tensions On April 22, a terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people. In response, the Indian Army launched Operation Sindoor—a targeted military action against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan—on May 7. After days of rising tensions, both nations agreed to cease all firing and military operations. Last year, Hania had attended Diljit's show at the O2 Arena in London. He had even invited her on stage and interacted with her. About Sardaarji 3 In the film, Hania and Diljit's characters are ghost hunters tasked with removing a spirit from a UK mansion. Sharing the video on Instagram, Diljit captioned it, "Sardaar Ji 3 Releasing 27th June OVERSEAS Only. FADH LAO BHOOND DIAN LATTAN." The film also stars Manav Vij, Gulshan Grover, Jasmin Bajwa, Sapna Pabbi and others in prominent roles. Directed by Amar Hundal, the film is slated to hit the screens only overseas on June 27.
Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Javed Akhtar compares religion to alcohol, says both are fine but only in moderation: ‘Two pegs are never enough'
Writer-lyricist Javed Akhtar, a noted atheist who often speaks against organised religion, addressed the topic once again in a recent interview. Comparing religion to alcohol, he said that both are fine as long as they're consumed in moderation, but they are rarely consumed responsibly. Appearing on Aaj Tak Radio, Javed said that two pegs of whiskey in a day are actually beneficial; the trouble arises only because people aren't able to stop at just two pegs. Javed has been sober for many decades, and has spoken often about the regret he feels about having wasted several years of his life to alcohol. He said, 'Alcohol and religion have a lot in common. The Americans did a survey once, about who lives longer; the person who doesn't drink or the person who drinks an entire bottle every day. It was discovered that neither is advisable. Those who live the longest are the ones who strictly have two pegs before their dinner. Medicines have alcohol, how can it be so bad? What's bad is overconsumption. If a person has two glasses of milk, it's fine. But if he has two glasses of whiskey, it's not okay. People never stop at two, do they? They don't go overboard with milk, but they go overboard with whiskey and religion. It becomes harmful. A few cancer cells will keep you slim, but they'll multiply and kill you.' Also read – 'Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan made a pro-India statement in front of Pakistani diplomats, he was a courageous man': Javed Akhtar recalls anecdote In an interaction with mid-day, he recalled the measures he took after discovering that he'd lost an appetite for whiskey. 'I got allergic to whiskey. Then, I thought that I must have only beer. However, I used to drink 18 bottles of beer in only one sitting. Fir mujhe laga ki yaar yeh kya pet phoola raha hun main apna (Why am I increasing my belly fat with beer)? So, I quit it and started drinking rum.' On Arbaaz Khan's show, he said that he'd drink for pleasure, and not because he wanted to drown his sorrows. 'Main isliye peeta tha ki main enjoy karta tha (I drank because I enjoyed it), it was a pleasure. I was not drowning any sorrow in it. Magar mujhe ek baat samajh mein aayi, common sense kehta hai ki 52-53 tak mujhe marr jana chahiye, if this is how I drink. Isse upar umar meri jani nahi chahiye with this kind of drinking (But I understood one thing, common sense dictates that with this kind of drinking I would die by 52-53).' He has been equally vocal about his dislike for all sorts of religions. Some years ago, he had an argument with the spiritual leader Sadhguru. 'Anything that is devoid of reason, rationale, evidence, witness is faith. I really wonder what is the difference between faith and stupidity, because stupidity has the same definition. I am willing to accept 'belief', but it has to have rationale,' he said.
Business Recorder
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
India's hegemonic designs
One reality which emerged out of the recent India-Pakistan conflict is that India is one among equal in the fraternity of South Asian nations. India has long positioned itself as the dominant regional power in South Asia, leveraging its demographic, economic, and military superiority. However, the recent conflict between India and Pakistan has exposed critical vulnerabilities in this hegemonic posture. This article examines the implications of the conflict on India's regional dominance, highlighting the growing parity between India and Pakistan in diplomatic and military affairs and the increasing strategic autonomy of smaller South Asian nations. It argues that the traditional notion of Indian hegemony is being challenged by an emerging more multipolar and assertive regional order India's involvement in regional organizations like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) also illustrates its ambitions to play a leadership role in South Asia. Yet, this perceived hegemony has often been met with resistance from neighboring countries. Indian leadership's role in South Asia has been underpinned by a combination of soft power, economic leverage and strategic dominance. New Delhi has frequently acted as a security guarantor, development partner, and political influencer in countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. However, these relationships have often been marked by tensions, with smaller states resisting perceived Indian overreach. Pakistan, influenced by historic parity between the two carved out countries, remained out of the orbit of India's hegemony. Countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka have increasingly asserted their sovereignty and economic independence. Bangladesh has pursued extensive economic partnerships with China and Japan and lately with Pakistan, while Nepal has defied Indian pressure on constitutional and territorial matters. Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives have oscillated between pro-India and pro-China alignments, reflecting a desire for strategic balance rather than dependence. Nevertheless, this hegemonic stance has increasingly come under scrutiny, particularly in the wake of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, which has revealed significant constraints on India's ability to unilaterally influence regional and global outcomes. India's relative military and economic superiority did not translate into strategic dominance in this conflict. The parity in tactical outcomes has dented the myth of India's invincibility in conventional military terms. Pakistan's nuclear deterrence, improved air defence, and effective diplomacy neutralized India's attempts to impose strategic costs, creating a deterrent equilibrium. The conflict illustrated that conventional superiority does not guarantee dominance in modern asymmetric and nuclear-influenced warfare. The rapid military responses on both sides underscored the limits of escalation without mutual destruction. The conflict has affirmed Pakistan's continued relevance in global diplomacy. Despite India's growing alignment with the West, especially the US, , France and Russia, these powers refrained from taking a partisan stance. Instead, international diplomacy focused on de-escalation and parity-based dialogue. This reinforces the notion that, in matters of regional security and peace, India is not the sole interlocutor, and Pakistan remains a necessary counterpart. Diplomatically, both countries engaged with major global powers to narrate their versions of the conflict. Crucially, the international community treated both states as equally responsible actors, calling for restraint and dialogue. The ceasefire agreement, reportedly influenced by external mediation from actors like the US and the United Arab Emirates, further undermined India's insistence on bilateralism and highlighted its vulnerability to international pressure. Moreover, internationally, both India and Pakistan engaged in parallel diplomatic offensives, apprising the world capitals of their narratives. Significantly, none of these powers outrightly condemned either side. Instead, global calls for restraint and dialogue placed both nations on an equal diplomatic footing. India's inability to dictate the terms of the conflict's resolution represents a broader erosion of its regional and global influence. This shift is not only due to Pakistan's strategic resilience but also because of the changing dynamics among other South Asian nations, many of whom are actively diversifying their diplomatic and economic engagements. The cumulative effect of these developments is a region that is moving away from a unipolar Indian-led order toward a more multi-polar framework. South Asian states are no longer content with passive roles in a hierarchy led by India; instead, they are engaging in multilateral diplomacy, leveraging international partnerships, and resisting hegemonic pressures. The recent India-Pakistan conflict serves as a critical inflection point in South Asia's geopolitical trajectory. It challenges the long-standing assumption of Indian hegemony and underscores the emergence of a more balanced regional order. India's strategic and diplomatic parity with Pakistan in the conflict, coupled with the assertiveness of smaller neighboring states, signals the decline of unilateral Indian dominance. Moving forward, India's future role in South Asia will depend not on its ability to dominate, but on its willingness to engage as a partner among equals. In a region characterized by rising nationalism, economic competition, and strategic realignments, hegemonic posturing may prove not only unsustainable but counter-productive. The way forward lies in fostering regional integration, resolving bilateral issues through dialogue, and embracing a pluralistic vision of South Asian solidarity. India can play a significant role in making this happen. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
CM condemns terrorist attack in Sorab
LAHORE: Chief Minister Punjab Maryam Nawaz Sharif has strongly condemned a terrorist attack in Sorab, under the banner of Fitna-ul-Hindustan. She paid tribute to the immortal sacrifices of ADC Revenue Hidayat Buledi, who was martyred in the defence of motherland, and said, 'Hidayat Buledi created an unforgettable chapter of fulfilling her duty by sacrificing her life.' She added, 'This attack by pro-India terrorists is highly detestable and intolerable.' Madam Chief Minister offered condolences and extended her heartfelt sympathies to the bereaved family. She said,' By bringing the enemies to justice, they are sending a message that the brave sons of Pakistan will never back down.'
