B. S. DARA | Updates

#Opinion | How the U.S.–Israel Conflict with Iran Became a Gulf Crisis | 31 March 2026

B. S. DARA — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:27:26 -0400

A strategic analysis of how the U.S.–Israel conflict with Iran has evolved into a Gulf-wide crisis, exposing GCC states to direct risk and reshaping regional and global dynamics.

]]>

#Opinion | The IRGC Doctrine: How Iran Built a War Machine Without a Conventional Army | Daily Excelsior | 27 March 2026

B. S. DARA — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 07:24:47 -0400

An analytical exploration of Iran’s asymmetric military doctrine and the rise of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, examining how decentralised “mosaic defence” and proxy networks have enabled Tehran to offset conventional military disadvantages and sustain long-term conflict strategies.

Refer to this link to read the full article:

https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/the-irgc-doctrine-how-iran-built-a-war-machine-without-a-conventional-army/#google_vignette

#IRGC

#Iran

#war doctrine

#geopolitics

]]>

#Opinion | Iran’s Real Leverage in Strait of Hormuz | 15 Mar 2026 | Daily Excelsior | Foreign Affairs Analysis

B. S. DARA — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 07:01:07 -0400

In this article published in Daily Excelsior, B. S. Dara analyzes the geopolitical significance of the Strait of Hormuz and explains why Iran’s geographic position gives it strategic leverage over global energy flows. With about 20% of the world’s oil supply moving through this narrow corridor, any escalation in the Gulf can quickly ripple through global markets and international politics.

You can read the full article “Iran’s Real Leverage in the Strait of Hormuz,” published in Daily Excelsior, at the link below:

https://dailyexcelsior.com/irans-real-leverage-in-strait-of-hormuz/

]]>

#Opinion | The Gulf in the Crossfire | 6 March 2026

B. S. DARA — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 23:56:37 -0500

Daily Excelsior | Foreign Affairs Analysis

This column examines the escalating confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, and its implications for Gulf stability, the Strait of Hormuz, and global energy security. The analysis highlights how a localized military escalation risks evolving into a broader regional crisis affecting global markets and maritime security.

🔗 Read the article:

https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/the-gulf-in-the-crossfire/

]]>

#Opinion | The Economic Limits of Pakistan’s Arms Trade | 24 Jan 2026

B. S. DARA — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 20:27:13 -0500

Daily Excelsior | Foreign Affairs Analysis

“The Economic Limits of Pakistan’s Arms Trade,” published in the Daily Excelsior, analyzes Pakistan’s emerging defence export strategy and explains why weapons sales alone cannot resolve the country’s deeper structural economic challenges.

🔗 Read the article:

https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/the-economic-limits-of-pakistans-arms-trade/

]]>

#Opinion | India's Strategic Autonomy in 2026 | 20 Jan 2026

B. S. DARA — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 01:01:19 -0500

Daily Excelsior | Geopolitical Commentary by B. S. Dara

This column examines how India’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy is evolving under mounting global pressures from the United States, China, Russia, and regional instability in South Asia. It argues that autonomy is no longer an ideological posture but a practical necessity as India balances energy security, defence partnerships, regional diplomacy, and domestic priorities in an increasingly transactional world order.

🔗 Read the article:

https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/indias-strategic-autonomy-in-2026/

]]>

#Opinion | The Global Consequences of the Precedent Set in Venezuela | 12 Jan 2026

B. S. DARA — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 02:42:25 -0500

Daily Excelsior | Global Affairs Commentary by B. S. Dara

This column examines the geopolitical precedent created by the United States’ unilateral intervention in Venezuela and the detention of a sitting head of state. It analyzes how such actions may reshape global norms around sovereignty, international law, and power politics, potentially encouraging rival powers to challenge the rules-based international order.

🔗 Read the article:

https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/the-global-consequences-of-the-precedent-set-in-venezuela/

]]>

#Opinion | Lessons in Leadership I Learned from My Bosses | Daily Excelsior | 11 Jan 2026

B. S. DARA — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 02:13:54 -0500

A comparative reflection on leadership cultures shaped by professional experience in European multinationals and Indian corporate environments. The piece contrasts management styles rooted in structure and accountability with those driven by hierarchy and pressure, arguing that leadership behaviour is learned, replicated, and ultimately determines organisational health.

]]>

#Opinion | How Operation Sindoor Changed Pakistan’s Defence Fortunes | Daily Excelsior | 7 Jan 2026

B. S. DARA — Wed, 07 Jan 2026 10:25:30 -0500

An analysis of how a brief India–Pakistan military confrontation produced disproportionate diplomatic and defence-market outcomes. The article examines how narrative control, perception management, and geopolitical timing allowed Pakistan to extract strategic value despite unresolved economic and political fragility.

]]>

#Opinion | 70 Years Between Moscow and Washington | Daily Excelsior | 22 Dec 2025

B. S. DARA — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 05:10:30 -0500

A historical and strategic reflection on India’s enduring effort to balance relations between Russia and the United States. The piece traces how trust, memory, and reliability have shaped India’s long-term partnerships, arguing that restraint and balance—rather than alignment—remain central to India’s foreign policy resilience.

]]>

#Opinion | Death Verdict in Dhaka a Diplomatic Test for New Delhi. | Daily Excelsior | 28 Nov 2025

B. S. DARA — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:06:34 -0500

An in-depth examination of Bangladesh’s political crisis following the conviction of Sheikh Hasina and its implications for India’s regional diplomacy. The article explores legal, humanitarian, and strategic considerations facing New Delhi as it navigates extradition demands, historical responsibility, and South Asian stability.

]]>

#Opinion | Review of Indo–Israel Relations in a Surging War Situation | Daily Excelsior | 17 Sep 2025

B. S. DARA — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:16:02 -0500

A measured assessment of India’s evolving relationship with Israel amid intensifying conflict in West Asia. The piece explains how defence cooperation, technology exchange, and strategic necessity drive New Delhi’s engagement, even as it seeks to preserve balance with Arab partners and uphold humanitarian concerns.

]]>

#Opinion | India and the Global Political Dynamics of South Asia | Daily Excelsior | 11 Dec 2026

B. S. DARA — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:10:48 -0500

A regional survey of South Asia’s shifting political and security landscape, from Pakistan’s internal instability to Afghanistan’s isolation and China’s expanding influence. The article argues that India’s role as a stabilising power depends on sustained diplomacy, regional engagement, and strategic patience rather than episodic intervention.

]]>

How Big a Threat is Pakistan to India Today? | Daily Excelsior | 3 Nov 2025

B. S. DARA — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:14:07 -0500

A sharp geopolitical analysis examining why Pakistan, despite deep economic weakness and political instability, continues to pose a serious security challenge to India. Tracing the divergent trajectories of India and Pakistan since 1947, this column explores how military dominance, state-sponsored terrorism, and external backing—particularly from China—have allowed a fragile state to remain strategically disruptive. The piece argues that Pakistan’s threat lies not in conventional power but in its use of proxies, nuclear leverage, and regional instability, while assessing how India’s evolving military doctrine, diplomatic standing, and economic strength have reshaped deterrence in South Asia.

]]>

#Opinion | The Ceasefire: A Strategic Retreat?

B. S. DARA — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 04:46:44 -0400

Letters from the Periphery

By: B. S. DARA

In the grey haze of May 2025, war broke out first in ticker tapes and touchscreen war rooms, then not in trenches. India rolled out Operation Sindoor and Pakistan countered with Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos. But what followed wasn’t war in the classical sense, it was theatre. Four days of aerial muscle-flexing, scattered missiles, and scrambled jets spiralled into something far more surreal: a high-definition shadow play where AI-generated dogfights looped endlessly across news cycles, and studio pundits screamed louder than any cockpit warning alarm.

The conflict was ignited by a terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militants, leading to the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and the closure of border crossings. In response, Pakistan denied involvement and vowed retaliation. Analysts have suggested that the Modi government’s decision to launch military strikes was influenced by domestic political considerations, aiming to bolster national security credentials amid growing public discontent over the Pahalgam massacre.

On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, a 23-minute missile strike targeting nine locations across Pakistan and Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. The Indian Air Force deployed Rafale jets armed with SCALP cruise missiles and Hammer bombs. While India claimed to have destroyed terrorist infrastructure, reports indicated that at least 15 civilians were killed, and 43 injured, raising questions about the operation’s precision and adherence to international humanitarian standards.

The Indian government’s portrayal of the operation as a decisive blow against terrorism was met with scepticism by international defence analysts. French military officials noted that the loss of a Rafale jet to a Chinese-made Chengdu J-10 fighter underscored vulnerabilities in India’s air capabilities. This marked the first time a Rafale had been downed in combat, challenging the narrative of technological superiority.

Pakistan’s response came on May 10 with Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos, an offensive that included drone strikes and missile attacks on Indian cities, including the capital, New Delhi. Pakistan claimed to have downed five Indian aircraft, including two Rafales, using Chinese-made JF-17 Thunder jets and PL-15 missiles. The scale of the aerial engagement, involving over 100 fighter jets, was described as one of the largest since World War II.

The conflict’s intensity and the involvement of advanced Chinese weaponry highlighted the shifting dynamics of regional power. China’s support for Pakistan not only altered the military balance but also signalled a strategic alignment that complicated India’s position. This development forced Indian defence analysts to reconsider their approach to future conflicts, emphasizing the need for technological advancements and strategic alliances.

The media played a pivotal role in shaping public perception of the conflict. AI-generated visuals and sensationalist reporting often exaggerated the scale of the battles, creating a narrative of overwhelming victories and technological prowess. However, the reality on the ground was more nuanced. Both nations suffered casualties, and the civilian toll underscored the human cost of the conflict. The rapid escalation and equally swift ceasefire raised questions about the strategic objectives and the decision-making processes behind the military actions.

The abrupt ceasefire announced by the Indian government, just days after launching Operation Sindoor, has met with criticism. Défense analysts noted that a party with the upper hand in a conflict rarely agrees to a ceasefire without achieving its objectives. This was evident in historical precedents, such as India’s decisive victory in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s leadership. The Modi government’s hasty cessation of hostilities contrasted sharply with this legacy, leading to perceptions of indecisiveness and lack of strategic foresight.

The public’s reaction further fuelled the debate. Many Indians, recalling the assertive leadership of Indira Gandhi, questioned the current government’s handling of the crisis. The rapid escalation and equally swift de-escalation were seen as indicative of a lack of preparedness and control over the situation.

The lessons learned would serve as a stark reminder that modern warfare is not won through rhetoric alone. While political narratives can galvanize public support, they cannot substitute for strategic planning, technological superiority, and military preparedness. India’s experience highlighted the need for investment in advanced defence systems, enhanced training, and the cultivation of strategic alliances to counter evolving threats.

The involvement of Chinese-made aircraft and missiles in Pakistan’s arsenal underscored the importance of staying abreast of regional military developments. India’s defence strategy must adapt to the changing landscape, focusing on technological innovation and diplomatic engagement to maintain a credible deterrent.

The brief but intense conflict between India and Pakistan has revealed the complexities of modern warfare. It has highlighted the gap between media portrayals and ground realities, the limitations of technological superiority, and the risks of political decisions driven by domestic considerations.

]]>

#Opinion | Imran Khan and a Failed State

B. S. DARA — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 05:24:21 -0500

Letters from the Periphery

By: B. S. DARA

Imran Khan’s journey from cricket legend to jailed former prime minister reflects the chronic failures of the Pakistani state. It is the story of a state that has never learned to separate power from the military, truth from propaganda, and democracy from managed elections. It is the story of Pakistan.

Today, Imran Khan, once Pakistan’s most celebrated cricketer, a global celebrity, and later the self-declared crusader against corruption, has been in detention for over two years. His legal cases span everything from corruption to espionage to rioting. He has not been allowed to meet his lawyers for more than a month. His party is fractured, his commanders are jailed or hiding, and his political future is uncertain. But to understand how Imran Khan landed in this crisis, one must first understand the nature of the state that both manufactured and destroyed him.

Before politics, he was known worldwide for cricket and for his glamorous life. His relationships with some of the most famous women of his time, British heiresses, Indian celebrities, socialites, earned him a reputation as one of the biggest playboys of the sporting world. This fame became a powerful asset when Pakistan’s military establishment began projecting him as the modern face of Pakistani politics. A “sadiq” and “amin” leader, clean, honest, and untainted, that was the narrative crafted for him.

When the 2018 elections arrived, multiple observers, including international think tanks, local analysts, and opposition parties, alleged unprecedented interference by the security establishment. Candidates were pressured, journalists were silenced, judiciary felt the heat, and results trickled in with controversial delays. Despite the noise, Imran Khan emerged victorious. He moved into the Prime Minister’s House with the support of the same powerful institution that had previously created and then dismissed many leaders before him.

Almost immediately, attention shifted to his third wife, Bushra Bibi. A spiritual guide, she arrived with stories of “tauweez,” black magic, numerology, and influence on state decisions. These stories were dismissed as gossip at first, but they grew louder when bureaucrats began quietly confirming her role in transfers, postings, and personal grievances.

Reports emerged that Imran consulted his wife on critical decisions, from the timing of meetings to the colours he would wear. Some bureaucrats claimed that flights were delayed because his wife advised him against travelling at certain hours. Videos surfaced of him wearing spiritual threads on his wrists, supposedly for protection.

In a country battling economic collapse, rising terrorism, and diplomatic isolation, this added to the perception of a government not fully in control of itself.

Imran’s early months in power saw a dramatic string of arrests targeting the Sharif family and the PML-N leadership. For his supporters, this was long-awaited accountability. For others, it was selective justice, driven by the establishment’s agenda. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) worked overtime, arresting opposition politicians, opening fresh cases, and summoning leaders repeatedly.

But while the Sharifs were dragged through courts and jails, Imran’s own allies remained untouched. This selective application of accountability further strained his relationship with the opposition and widened Pakistan’s political divide.

The turning point came in 2021. The ISI Chief, a crucial position in Pakistan’s power pyramid, was due for a routine transfer. Imran Khan, however, hesitated. The general in question, Faiz Hameed, was a close associate, widely believed to be the architect of Imran’s rise. His transfer should have been a simple administrative decision, but Imran resisted for weeks.

This sparked the first serious rupture between Imran and the military leadership. For the military, this was insubordination. For Imran, it was an existential threat. The matter escalated internally. Meetings dragged. Statements were released. Confusion spread.

Within weeks, the military withdrew its political umbrella.

The opposition sensed vulnerability and moved swiftly with a no-confidence motion. What followed was a chaotic political saga.Allegations of foreign conspiracies, midnight court sessions, constitutional breakdowns, and last-moment dramas. Eventually, Imran Khan fell. His party lost the majority. Imran refused to vacate the Prime Minister’s House for several hours, calling the entire process an “international conspiracy” backed by the U.S. and executed by Pakistan’s generals.

It was the beginning of the end.

On 9 May 2023, after Imran’s brief arrest at the Islamabad High Court, nationwide riots erupted. PTI supporters attacked military buildings, torching the Corps Commander’s residence in Lahore, storming cantonments, and clashing with troops. It was unprecedented. No civilian group had dared attack military installations on this scale in Pakistan’s history.

The military responded with full force. Thousands were arrested. Women activists were jailed. Senior PTI leaders were forced, on camera, to resign. Hundreds of cases, including terrorism charges, were filed against Imran Khan.

The military vowed to “teach a lesson.”

When General Asim Munir took over as Chief of Army Staff, he brought a personal grievance. Years earlier, when he served as DG ISI, he had reportedly briefed Imran Khan about the political interference of Bushra Bibi in Punjab’s governance. Imran responded not by addressing the issue, but by removing Asim Munir from the intelligence post.

That humiliation never faded.

As COAS, Asim Munir moved quickly and decisively. Imran Khan was hit with case after case, corruption, rioting, leaking secrets, land issues, illegal marriage allegations, and more. Bushra Bibi herself was arrested. The former ISI chief who had backed Imran’s political rise was arrested and interrogated.

Then came the legislative bombshell. Asim Munir was promoted to Field Marshal, with legal impunity for life under the 24th Amendment. Pakistan’s military finally received what it had always wanted. constitutional permanence.

Pakistan today claims to be a parliamentary democracy, but it is a democracy in name only. Every major election in the last three decades has carried the shadow of military engineering. Political parties exist, but only within boundaries set by Rawalpindi. Courts function, but only as long as their decisions align with military expectations. Media speaks, but only within invisible red lines.

Imran Khan once benefited from this structure. He campaigned with military help, governed with military support, and punished opponents using military-backed institutions. But like all leaders before him, he eventually collided with the real power centre.

And like all of them, he was removed.

Today, Imran Khan is isolated in a high-security prison. For more than a month, he has been denied lawyer access and family visits. Even his party officials cannot meet him. When court hearings are scheduled, authorities cite “security threats” or “logistical issues.”

His physical and mental condition remains unknown. Meanwhile, the country is in disarray.Inflation is at historic highs, the rupee is in free fall, terrorism is resurging, and the IMF’s conditions grow tougher by the month.

Elections have produced yet another hybrid government, a PML-N and PPP coalition supported by the military. The same old cycle continues.

Pakistan today fits the classic definition of a state in failure. Institutions are collapsing.Judiciary is inconsistent and politically influenced.Military controls politics, economy, and foreign policy.Journalists are threatened or exiled.The economy survives on loans, not growth.Political leaders are character-assassinated or jailed.Civil liberties shrink year after year.

Imran Khan’s downfall is not an exceptional case. It is the inevitable outcome of a system designed to keep elected leaders in check while keeping the military beyond accountability.

He is both a product and a prisoner of that system.

Imran Khan once promised a “Naya Pakistan.” But Pakistan’s reality has remained unchanged. A nation run by unelected generals, manipulated institutions, and cyclical political engineering.

Imran Khan rose because the military needed him.He fell because the military no longer did.

His personal flaws, political missteps, and controversial influences only accelerated the process, but the system itself ensured his demise. Today, Pakistan is not just facing a leadership crisis. It is facing a structural collapse, political, economic, judicial, and institutional.

Imran Khan’s tragedy is that he believed he could control the system that created him. Pakistan’s tragedy is that it still cannot escape that very system.

Until Pakistan breaks the cycle, no leader, not Imran, not Sharif, not Bhutto, will ever truly govern. The country will continue drifting, as it has for decades, toward deeper instability and failure.

And Imran Khan, sitting in a prison cell with no access to the outside world, is now the most visible symbol of that failure.

]]>

India and Pakistan: Rise and Setbacks since partition

B. S. DARA — Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:17:41 -0500

Letters from the Periphery

By: B. S. DARA

Following the partition of British India in August 1947, two independent nations, India and Pakistan, emerged. Despite their shared historical, cultural, and geographical origins, the paths of these countries have significantly diverged over the past 77 years. This critical analysis evaluates the progress of India and Pakistan since their independence, examining the factors behind India’s relative prosperity and Pakistan’s challenges across various dimensions.

Since gaining independence together in 1947, India and Pakistan have followed distinct paths influenced by their individual circumstances. India’s strong democratic institutions, strategic economic reforms, and focus on technological and educational advancements have positioned it as a rising global force. Despite facing numerous obstacles like poverty, inequality, and regional conflicts, India’s diverse economy, emphasis on innovation, and democratic resilience have played pivotal roles in its overall advancement and international reputation.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has struggled with political instability, recurring military interventions, and a narrower economic base. While the country has made some progress in areas such as defence capabilities and strategic alliances, particularly with China, these achievements have often come at the expense of social and economic development. Pakistan’s heavy military expenditure, coupled with inconsistent economic policies and reliance on foreign aid, has hindered sustainable growth.

Comparative Analysis of Key Factors

Political Stability and Governance: India’s relatively stable democratic institutions have provided a framework for consistent policy implementation and long-term planning. In contrast, Pakistan’s history of military coups and political turmoil has led to policy discontinuity and governance challenges. The dominance of the military in Pakistan’s political landscape has often sidelined civilian governance, impacting socio-economic development. Pakistan has experienced several military coups in its history with its impact been significant and far-reaching. General Ayub Khan overthrew the civilian government in 1958, General Zia-ul-Haq carried out a coup and executed Prime Minister ZA Bhutto in 1977,General Pervez Musharraf led a coup in 1999 seizing the power and ruled the country till 2008.

Economic Policies and Growth: India’s economic liberalization in the 1990s unleashed a wave of growth, particularly in the IT and services sectors. The country has successfully attracted foreign direct investment and integrated into the global economy. Pakistan’s economy has been plagued by its heavy reliance on external debt, and a lack of industrial diversification. Frequent IMF bailouts highlight persistent economic vulnerabilities. Pakistan’s economic challenges can be understood from the fact that recently, the country has been worried about the potential scenario of an economic default, but the situation has been temporarily eased by the latest agreement between Pakistan and the IMF.

Social Development and Human Capital: India’s investments in education and healthcare have yielded improvements in literacy rates, life expectancy, and gender equality. Pakistan’s social indicators lag behind, with significant issues in education, healthcare, and gender equality. Political instability and insufficient public sector investment have exacerbated these challenges.

Foreign Policy and International Relations: India’s foreign policy has been marked by strategic partnerships with major powers, including the United States, Russia, and the European Union. It has also played a crucial role in regional organizations like SAARC and BRICS and has gained prominence in international forums like the G20. Pakistan’s foreign policy has been heavily influenced by security concerns and its alliance with the United States and China.

Defence and Security : Both countries have invested heavily in defence, but with different implications. India’s focus on modernization and strategic partnerships has bolstered its defence capabilities while supporting economic growth. Pakistan’s heavy military expenditure has often come at the cost of social and economic development. The country’s security concerns, particularly with India, have dominated its defence policy. Pakistan-backed insurgents have actively turned against thestate, leading to internal security challenges.

Technological and Scientific Advancements : India’s robust tech industry and significant achievements in space exploration and pharmaceuticals highlight its advancements in technology and science. Government initiatives have further spurred innovation. India’s ISRO has emerged a world leader in space technology with its cost-effective satellite launches for clients like the United States. In 2013, India became the first Asian country to reach Mars and the fourth space agency globally to do so. In 2008 and 2019, India set its feet on Moon.

Unlike India, Pakistan has not developed any space program comparable to ISRO and the country has remained battling its social-economic issues.

Cultural Influence and Soft Power : India’s rich cultural heritage and global diaspora have given it significant soft power. Bollywood, yoga, and Indian cuisine have global appeal, enhancing India’s cultural influence. Pakistan’s cultural influence, though rich and diverse, has been more limited. Security concerns and political instability have affected its soft power, although Pakistani music and dramas have regional popularity.

Fault Lines in Pakistan

Militancy and Extremism : Pakistan’s involvement with militancy dates back to the Afghan-Soviet war, where it supported Mujahideen fighters. This policy extended into Kashmir, where Pakistan-backed insurgents have still been active.

Dominant Military : The Pakistani military has been a dominant force in the country’s politics and economy. It has ruled directly for extended periods and exerted significant influence even during civilian rule. This dominance has often sidelined democratic institutions and civilian governance.

Over-Indulgence in Militancy and Military Dominance : Pakistan’s initial support for militant groups was rooted in its strategic calculations, aiming to counter Indian influence in the region and secure its interests in Afghanistan. However, this strategy backfired, leading to internal insurgencies and international isolation.

Impact on Society : The over-indulgence in militancy has had severe social repercussions. Radicalization, sectarian violence, and terrorism have disrupted social cohesion and development. The education system has also been affected, with madrassas sometimes promoting radical ideologies.

Economic Consequences : Militancy and military dominance have diverted resources away from essential sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The economic cost of fighting internal insurgencies and maintaining a large military apparatus has been substantial.

Diplomatic Isolation : Pakistan’s association with militant groups has strained its relations with many countries and has led to economic sanctions and reduced foreign investment. Its international image has been tarnished, affecting its ability to engage globally.

In conclusion, India’s prosperity can be attributed to its democratic governance, economic policies, and strategic international relations. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s challenges stem from economic instability, governance issues, and a complex relationship with militancy and military dominance.

]]>

Pakistan’s constitutional plunge into military dominance

B. S. DARA — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 05:20:07 -0500

Letters from the Periphery

By: B. S. DARA

Pakistan has crossed a line that even many dictatorships hesitate to cross. Its recent constitutional amendment, which elevates the serving Army Chief to a Field-Marshal-like lifelong power centre, extends his tenure until 2030, and grants him sweeping legal immunity, is nothing short of a full constitutional surrender to military rule. It is not an internal political adjustment, as Islamabad would like the world to believe. It is a brazen, deliberate transformation of Pakistan into a uniform-run state where democracy survives only on paper and the constitution bends to the will of one institution. As Reuters reported, the amendment was passed with shocking ease, despite senior judges resigning in protest and warning that the constitution has been mutilated beyond recognition. Their message was stark that Pakistan’s legal order now protects the powerful from the law itself.

Why did Pakistan’s political class allow this? The answer reveals a broken political culture. Pakistan’s civilian leaders have historically operated not as defenders of democracy, but as temporary tenants in a house owned by the army. They bend, compromise, and negotiate not with voters but with the military establishment. Political parties in Pakistan rarely challenge the uniforms because they know the consequences.Dismissal, exile, arrest, and disappearance. Instead, they willingly trade away constitutional authority in exchange for brief, fragile years in government. They do not defend democracy, they bargain with it. This amendment did not pass despite Pakistan’s political parties, it passed because of them.

The tragedy is that Pakistan’s military dominance was not imposed overnight. It has been cultivated for decades with deliberate precision. The military inserted itself into foreign policy, internal security, national ideology, the economy, the media and the intelligence apparatus. It built business empires, manipulated elections, toppled prime ministers and silenced journalists. And now, having conquered every institution through practice, it has sought to formalise that control in the constitution itself. The term ‘failed state’ is often used carelessly, but Pakistan is dangerously close to embodying it, a nuclear-armed nation where military power thrives while civilian authority collapses.

The amendment strikes at the heart of whatever remained of Pakistan’s democratic fabric. It cripples the judiciary, which was already struggling to maintain independence. Two senior Supreme Court judges resigning the very day the amendment passed tells its own story.They believed the constitution had been assaulted so severely that the judiciary could no longer defend it. This is the deepest institutional humiliation Pakistan has inflicted upon itself in decades. When a state grants lifetime immunity to a military ruler, it announces that accountability is dead. When it extends his command over all branches of the armed forces, it announces that power is centralised in a single, unelected man. And when it legalises this arrangement, it announces that democracy is not merely weak, it is irrelevant.

India cannot afford to take this development lightly. A Pakistan governed openly by the military is not a stabilising neighbour. It is a volatile one. Every major conflict between India and Pakistan, from Kargil to terror attacks to proxy insurgencies, has roots in decisions taken not by civilians but by the Pakistani military establishment. Now that the military has formally absorbed constitutional power, the chances of policy moderation diminish even further. Pakistan’s civilian leaders, however flawed, at least carried some electoral accountability and economic considerations. The military does not. Its worldview is shaped by hostility, threat perceptions and ideological rigidity. A military that faces no internal challenge is more likely to act adventurously, especially when its domestic failures demand external distractions.

This is particularly dangerous because Pakistan is a nuclear state. The global community often assumes that nuclear command-and-control structures are insulated, professional and secure. But when political oversight disappears and absolute authority lies with one institution, protected by lifetime immunity, the margin for miscalculation narrows. A nuclear-armed Pakistan ruled entirely by the military is a geopolitical nightmare, not only for India but for the entire region. South Asia has witnessed enough cycles of escalation due to Pakistan’s security establishment, with constitutional licence now added to military dominance, those cycles could become more frequent and more dangerous.

This amendment also sends a deeply troubling message to the Global South. At a time when democracies are fighting to survive disinformation, authoritarian temptations and institutional weakening, Pakistan has chosen the opposite path. It has codified authoritarianism as national policy. It has told the developing world that civilian rule is expendable, that courts can be side-lined, that constitutions can be rewritten to protect the powerful rather than the people. No country that claims democratic credentials should remain silent about this precedent. Pakistan is damaging itself and poisoning the democratic environment of the region.

For India, this is a moment of strategic clarity. New Delhi must recognise that the Pakistan it faces today is not a divided hybrid democracy but a uniform-controlled system with no civilian counterweight. Vigilance along the borders, strengthened intelligence, and a recalibrated diplomatic posture are necessary. But equally important is India’s responsibility to uphold and project democratic stability, because the contrast between the two nations has never been sharper. Where India strengthens institutions, Pakistan dismantles them. Where India debates, Pakistan suppresses. Where India votes, Pakistan salutes.

Pakistan’s new constitutional order is a self-inflicted disaster, but its consequences will not remain confined within its borders. It has chosen military absolutism over democratic evolution, constitutional submission over constitutional strength. This decision will shape the region for years, perhaps decades. India must be alert, South Asia must be watchful, and the world must understand the gravity of what has happened. By altering its governance structure, Pakistan has announced that democracy in the country is no longer even a pretence. It is now, openly and proudly, an army with a state, not a state with an army.

]]>

Freedom without Accountability is a National Security Threat

B. S. DARA — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 04:44:54 -0400

By: B S DARA

In times of conflict, truth becomes not just a moral necessity but a national obligation. As India witnessed the developments around Military Operation Sindoor, our nation stood at the cusp of a moment that demanded unity, discretion, and deep resolve. Yet, what unfolded on our television screens, YouTube feeds, and social media timelines was not just irresponsible, it was dangerously incendiary. The Indian media, a section of YouTubers, and scores of anonymous social media handles displayed a recklessness that came perilously close to pushing us towards a tragic and avoidable war. It’s time we, as citizens of this country, ask ourselves a hard question:

What is the cost of unverified news, exaggerated narratives, and fake nationalism when national security is at stake?

There is a very thin line between patriotism and provocation. Operation Sindoor, undertaken under utmost secrecy and precision by our armed forces, was designed with strategic clarity. However, while our soldiers operated with discipline and discretion, much of the media and online space devolved into a cacophony of speculations, doctored footage, emotional grandstanding, and blatant misinformation.

We saw prime-time anchors shout over each other with speculative analysis that lacked any verification from defence officials. We saw self-proclaimed “military analysts” on YouTube, many with no verified credentials, weaving narratives that ranged from theatrics to provocative. This is the age of ‘Likes’ over Lives, social media has become a double-edged sword. In democratic societies, it empowers the people. But when misused, it becomes a breeding ground for hysteria, misdirection, and even national sabotage.

During Operation Sindoor, several Twitter (now X) handles circulated false images of weapons, mislabelled videos of past operations, and even went as far as leaking “exclusive” inside information, none of which were verified. These weren’t small-time trolls; many of these accounts had thousands, even millions, of followers. Their content was not harmless speculation but it actively endangered lives.

When military operations are underway, timing and secrecy are strategic weapons. Leaking unverified data, even if by accident, can compromise missions, cost lives, and escalate conflicts.

When social media turns into a theatre of war fantasies, it gives the enemy an edge. In this scenario, liberty without responsibility becomes a liability.

In our constitutional democracy, there is a bigger role of the fourth estate, the Indian press has often played a heroic role in the democratic journey of this country. But this time, many mainstream media houses failed the nation. The 24/7 news cycle has created a dangerous incentive: be first, not right.

Instead of waiting for official briefings from the Ministry of Defence, reporters rushed to declare victories, deaths, injuries, and strategies, often based on WhatsApp forwards or unverifiable “sources”.

Studio discussions took on tones more suited to action films than journalism. Several channels presented simulated graphics of war, raising public anxiety and creating pressure on policymakers to act on emotion rather than strategy.

This isn’t journalism. It’s jingoism masquerading as service to the nation.

And it’s deeply dangerous.

A war was fought on borders, and notfromour couch armchairs. There is a moral chasm between those who fight and those who tweet.

While our soldiers braved enemy fire, traversed hostile terrains, and risked their lives for each inch of national security, back home, a class of opportunists turned their bravery into content fodder. These were individuals comfortably ensconced in their air-conditioned homes, reaping engagement, profit, and political capital from a war they weren’t even remotely a part of.

Some influencers baked their own bread, figuratively, by hosting “emergency livestreams,” launching Patriotism merchandise, throwing affiliate links under videos about martyrdom. Many of these videos even contained mistranslated statements from army officers, twisted into bait for emotional outrage.

This is not nationalism. This is predatory opportunism in its worst form.

Operation Sindoor has revealed to us that the real threat is our own internal irresponsibility. It is tempting to blame the enemy across the border for all the threats we face. But increasingly, the more insidious threat is the internal decay of responsibility in public discourse.

Unverified news can cause panic. Fake claims of attacks can start riots. Overstated victories can provoke retaliations. Social media warriors may see this as digital drama, but for the government, military, and citizens in border states, the consequences are real, immediate, and irreversible.

In a world where perception often precedes reality, the narrative war is just as vital as the military operation. Losing control over that narrative to unqualified loudmouths is a strategic failure we cannot afford again.

Towards a national balancing act of ‘liberty vs responsibility,’ some may argue that we live in a free country and freedom of speech must prevail.

Yes, it must, but with a caveat. Freedom does not mean freedom to endanger. Just as you cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, you cannot shout “war” on social media during a tense national security operation.

Liberty, when weaponized without accountability, can jeopardize the very fabric of the nation. One may argue that individuals, political parties, or media brands stand to gain catapulting spotlight, but at what cost?

The safety of 1.4 billion Indians is too high a price for someone’s 10-minute YouTube fame.

It is high time we as a nation draw this line.The path forward towards accountability and action.

Words have power, and so should consequences.

India urgently needs a comprehensive digital security law that defines and penalizes fake news, unauthorized disclosures, and deliberate misinformation during sensitive times. The Press Council must expand its jurisdiction to include digital-first platforms and pseudo-journalistic influencers.

Social media platforms too, must be held accountable. Algorithms that amplify outrage must be reined in during national crises. Verified handles must adhere to stricter rules when commenting on national security issues. Those found violating these protocols should face fines, takedowns, or prosecution.

Most importantly, a national campaign on digital literacy and media ethics must be initiated, not just for citizens, but for content creators, influencers, and even newsrooms. The age of viral misinformation is here. We can either drown in it or rise above with wisdom and integrity.

To be clear that we stand with our soldier, and not over them

A war is not a movie. It is not a hashtag. It is not a YouTube thumbnail. It is a brutal, unforgiving reality faced by real men and women who serve this country in silence, without applause, and often without even a grave with their name.

Let us not insult their sacrifice by turning war into an entertainment genre. Let us not cash in on national grief with promo codes. Let us not mistake loudness for loyalty.

True patriotism is quiet. It is dignified. It knows when to speak, and more importantly, when to stay silent. In the time of war, let us be the kind of citizens our soldiers can fight for with pride, not the kind they must also protect their country from.

Let us stand with our forces, with truth, and with responsibility

]]>

Nuke is not a Popgun

B. S. DARA — Wed, 27 Aug 2025 04:48:40 -0400

By: B. S. DARA

Why the Israel–Iran Conflict Has Become a Nuclear Time Bomb

The morning of August 6, 1945, began like any other, sunlit, serene, suspended in the hum of post-war fatigue. In Hiroshima, children laughed in schoolyards, bicycles clicked along narrow streets, and homemakers folded their morning linens. Then, at exactly 8:15 AM, the sky split. A single bomb, named Little Boy, detonated above the city. In 43 seconds, Hiroshima ceased to be a place and became a warning etched in radioactive ash. It didn’t just kill 70,000 people instantly. It mutilated time. Generations bore the weight of radiation in their bloodstreams, their lungs, their unborn children. The atom bomb was no longer a scientific breakthrough. It was a symbol of finality. Of death with a pulse that lingered decades.

From that moment, the term “atomic” was forever linked with terror. A force not of conquest, but of irreversible ruin.

Imagine something the size of an orange, harmless, even mundane. Now imagine that orange igniting with the heat of 30,000 tons of burning coal. That’s what a modern nuclear Bomb of the size of an orange can do.

It doesn’t just flatten buildings. It vaporizes bodies. It burns oxygen. It poisons rivers, turns the soil into cancer, and makes the sky bleed radiation. It ends the idea of environment. It ends breath.

That’s why, in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world attempted to lock this beast back in its cage. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was introduced in 1996, not merely to halt testing, but to halt temptation. The temptation of playing God. Because once a nuke is used, it doesn’t just start a war. It ends a world.

Nuclear weapons don’t distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. Between soldier and child. Between war and history. They annihilate ecosystems, collapse economies, and choke generations unborn.

Scientists have warned for decades: a limited nuclear exchange between two nations could lead to nuclear winter, a scenario where global temperatures plummet due to soot blocking sunlight, killing crops, triggering famine, and plunging humanity into extinction. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than ever before. Why? Because the weapons are still there. And worse, the restraint is vanishing.

In theory, nuclear deterrence is a shield.

In reality, it is a tightrope strung above an abyss.

It assumes leaders are rational, predictable, and unwilling to risk mutual destruction. But what happens when egos swell larger than the consequences?

The emergence of rogue nations and ideologically extreme regimes with nuclear ambitions is no longer a rumor, it’s a grim reality. States that do not fear sanctions, do not adhere to treaties, and do not value dialogue are inching closer to the bomb.

Nuclear power in the wrong hands is not deterrence. It is blackmail. With no expiry.

Today, the most combustible threat to our planet is not confined to Gaza or Tehran. It’s the chessboard forming behind them.

Iran, backed by Russia and China, sits on one end. Israel, firmly supported by the United States, on the other. Add the shadow of nuclear capability, declared or suspected, and we are no longer in the realm of regional conflict. We are dancing on the edge of a global inferno. A single misfire. One drone mistaken for a missile. One statement too sharp. That’s all it would take to trigger a chain of retaliations backed not just by pride, but by nuclear doctrine. The real war won’t be between Iran and Israel. It will be what comes after their first nuclear decision.

Where is the United Nations, the supposed guardian of peace?

In the post-WWII world, the UN was born to prevent the kind of annihilation the world had just witnessed. But today, it is a stage of impotent speeches. A hall of vetoes. A chamber of drafted resolutions that die before the ink dries.

When peacekeepers become spectators, and genocide is streamed live with muted outrage, the credibility of the UN decays. Its mission to prevent war has become a ceremonial echo. And against nuclear confrontation, echoes are not enough.

If this Iran-Israel escalation spirals out of control, it won’t just alter geography. It will erase it. A nuclear confrontation in the Middle East will not stay in the Middle East. The fallout, literal and political, will sweep across continents. Oil routes will collapse. Markets will crash. Crops will rot. Borders will burn. The global order as we know it will splinter into survival zones. There will be no victors. Only survivors, if we’re lucky. And even they will choke on radioactive dust.

This column is not a sermon. It is a scream.

A scream from history. A scream from Hiroshima’s children. A scream from the bones buried in the shadows of past mistakes.

We are not gods.

We cannot keep pretending that we can flirt with extinction and never be kissed by it. The weapons we create will outlive our morality if we let them. The world must demand de-escalation, not tomorrow, not through weak summits, but now. Before this orange sized fire passed around again.

Because the next war may last minutes. And end millennia.

Nuke is not a popgun. It is the trigger to humanity’s funeral.

]]>