World Views

The Most/Recent Articles

Sri Lanka: Negligence and Deception of Ex-Cop

Despite the SIS sending over 250 reports to law enforcement agencies and urgent WhatsApp messages to prompt action, these efforts were shamefully overlooked and disregarded by both officers and the media.
by A Special Correspondent

In the wake of the heinous Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka, retired Senior Deputy Inspector of Police, Ravi Seneviratne, has emerged not as a beacon of accountability but as an unapologetic dispenser of excuses and blame-shifting. His recent statements, published in a Colombo-based daily, aim to absolve himself while pointing fingers at others, particularly the State Intelligence Service (SIS) and Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). He is one of the most notorious masters of deception in the modern history of this island nation. Yet, his feeble attempts to defend himself only highlight his own culpability in this national tragedy.

Retired Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne [Image sourec: X]

Seneviratne shamelessly alleges that the SIS and DMI misled the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), suggesting that different actions could have prevented the attacks. This narrative smacks of hypocrisy and a desperate attempt to rewrite history. He conveniently sidesteps the crucial question: what did he do upon receiving advance warnings from the SIS about the impending attacks on the 19th, 20th, and 21st mornings? His silence on this matter speaks volumes.

Furthermore, his deliberate dissemination of misinformation goes beyond negligence. From disregarding vital intelligence reports to ignoring specific leads provided by the SIS, Seneviratne’s tenure during this critical period appears more like a saga of incompetence and evasion than diligence and protection.

Let’s scrutinise the damning questions that tarnish Seneviratne’s legacy:

Failure to Act on Intelligence: What actions did he take upon receiving detailed warnings about the Easter attacks from the SIS? How many warnings and WhatsApp messages did he receive, and what steps did he take in response?

This message starkly exposes the complete failure of action by individuals like SDIG Ravi Seneviratne. He acknowledged receipt with a simple ‘Thanks Nilantha’ nearly 16 hours before the heinous attack by Zaharan and his cohorts. What concrete actions did he actually take? How can anyone justify this as a severe intelligence failure when deliberate negligence by investigators is clearly visible? [Image courtesy: Social Media]

Ineptitude in Investigations: Why did his team fail to act on critical leads and recommendations, such as surveilling suspects and arresting key extremists like Zahran Hashim? Why was Jameel, a person of interest, released without a thorough investigation despite ongoing surveillance?

What follow-up action did SDIG Ravi Seneviratne take after receiving detailed report on 31 January 2019 on widespread extremism in Sri Lanka, which even categorized individuals like Jameel for their extremist behaviour? [ Image courtesy: Social Media]

This detailed profile on Zahran Hashim was sent by SIS to SDIG Ravi Seneviratne on 30 March 2019. Who failed to arrest Zahran, a key leader of the attack, despite receiving dozens of intelligence reports recommending his arrest? [ Image courtesy: Social Media]

Neglect of Duties: Why did Seneviratne and his top investigators prevent DMI officers from accessing critical sites where explosives were found? What measures did they take to investigate and neutralise these threats?

Seneviratne’s attempts to deflect blame and cast himself as a victim of circumstance are not just disingenuous but deeply disrespectful to the memory of the victims and their families. His actions—or lack thereof—were not those of a dedicated law enforcement officer but of someone who failed in their duty to protect and serve.

As the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of one of its darkest chapters, accountability must prevail over political posturing and self-preservation. Seneviratne’s legacy should serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of leadership failure in times of crisis. The pursuit of justice demands answers, not excuses.

The facts revealed that the SIS fulfilled its duty to prevent attacks, while many other responsible institutions and officers shamefully turned a blind eye. Ironically, those who evaded their professional responsibilities have now launched a media campaign to absolve themselves and shift blame onto intelligence agencies. Despite the SIS sending over 250 reports to all relevant law enforcement agencies, and issuing urgent messages through platforms like WhatsApp to prompt necessary action, these efforts were conveniently overlooked and disregarded not only by responsible officers but also in media and social discourse.

Ultimately, this injustice has disgracefully haunted those who faithfully performed their duties, even during judicial proceedings, while those who neglected their responsibilities remain unscathed.

It is time for Ravi Seneviratne and those complicit in this tragedy to face the scrutiny they have long evaded. The victims deserve nothing less than the truth.

Global Coalition Urges Cuba’s Removal from US Terrorism List

The Joint Coordinating Committee strongly opposes extraterritorial laws affecting developing countries and urges immediate removal of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures against them.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 and China have jointly called for the immediate removal of Cuba from the unilateral list of countries purportedly sponsoring terrorism, as maintained by the US State Department.

Havana, Cuba [Photo: Florian Wehde/Unsplash]

The statement, issued on Friday, June 14, by the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations on behalf of the NAM and G-77 and China Joint Coordinating Committee, condemns Cuba’s inclusion on the US terrorism sponsor list as a pretext for imposing additional unilateral coercive measures. These measures, according to the committee, have escalated the economic, commercial, and financial blockade against the Cuban people to unprecedented levels.

The NAM and G-77 and China emphasize that the accusations against Cuba lack justification and are used to justify punitive actions that severely hinder Cuba’s economic and social development. The committee urges the US government to immediately retract Cuba’s designation from the terrorism sponsor list and to cease all unilateral coercive measures against the island nation.

The Group of 77, representing 134 member states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, which includes 121 member states and 18 observers, underscore the detrimental impact of these measures on Cuba’s ability to engage fully in international trade and development. They stress the need for compliance with 31 United Nations General Assembly resolutions that have repeatedly called for an end to the economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba.

In their declaration, the Joint Coordinating Committee reiterates a firm rejection of extraterritorial laws and regulations that affect developing countries and emphasizes the urgent necessity to eliminate all forms of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures imposed against them.

Malcolm X: From Struggle to Legacy

The Transformative Journey of a Civil Rights Icon and His Enduring Impact on African American and Global Muslim Communities

by S. Mohammed Bokreta

The late Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska. His father, a Baptist minister, was an outspoken follower of Marcus Garvey, the Black Nationalist leader in the 1920s who advocated a “Back to Africa” movement for African Americans. During Malcolm’s early years, his family had to move several times because of the Ku Klux Klansmen’s continuing threats. As a result of these threats, his home was burned in Michigan, and when Malcolm was six years old, his father was murdered.

Black activist Malcolm X on March 1, 1964.Truman Moore / The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images

In the aftermath of this tragedy, his mother became mentally ill and remained in a mental institution for about 26 years. Malcolm was sent to a foster home, and his sisters and brothers were divided among several families. Malcolm lived in various state institutions and boarding houses, and he dropped out of school at the age of 15.

Malcolm went on to live with his sister in Boston while working as a shoeshine boy, soda jerk, busboy, waiter, and railroad dining car waiter. At this crucial point, he began a life of crime that included gambling, selling drugs, burglary, and hustling. In 1946, Malcolm was sentenced to ten years for burglary. In prison, he began to shape his life, and through his family’s visits, he came to know about the Black Muslim religious movement. The Black Muslims’ official name was the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, and their spiritual leader was Elijah Mohammed, with national headquarters in Chicago.

In prison, Malcolm began to study Elijah’s teachings and to practice Islam faithfully. He also greatly enlarged his vocabulary by copying words from the dictionary, beginning with A and going through to Z. Additionally, he began to assimilate the racial teachings of his new religion—that the white man is evil, doomed by Allah to destruction, and that the best course for Black people is to separate themselves from Western white civilization in cultural, political, physical, and psychological fields.

In 1952, Malcolm was released from prison and went to Chicago to meet Elijah Mohammed. Once accepted into the movement and given the name of Malcolm X, he became assistant minister of the Detroit Mosque. The following year, he returned to Chicago to study personally under Elijah and shortly thereafter was sent to organize a mosque in Philadelphia.

In 1954, Malcolm went on to lead the mosque in Harlem and quickly became the most prominent national spokesman for Black Muslims. He was widely sought as a speaker, and his debating skills and talents against white and black opponents helped spread the movement’s message.

During this time in the United States, there was a major thrust for racial integration. However, Malcolm and the Black Muslims were calling for racial separation. He urged Black people to give up the Christian religion, reject integration, and understand that the high crime rate in Black communities was essentially due to African Americans following the decadent lifestyle of Western white society.

On December 1, 1963, Malcolm stated that he saw President John F. Kennedy’s assassination as a case of “the chickens coming home to roost.” Soon afterward, Elijah suspended Malcolm and ordered him not to speak for the movement for 90 days. As a result of this row, Malcolm publicly announced on March 8, 1964, that he was leaving the Nation of Islam and starting two new organizations: the Muslim Mosque and the Organization of Afro-American Unity.

Malcolm made several trips to Africa and Europe, but most importantly, he traveled to Mecca for Hajj in April 1964. This pilgrimage was the culminating point and the great change that enormously affected him. In a letter sent to his assistants and his wife during the conclusion of his pilgrimage to Mecca, as reported by Alex Haley in The Autobiography of Malcolm X:

“Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as practiced by the people of all colors and races here in the ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Mohammed, and all other prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.”

In the same letter, he added: “There were tens of thousands of pilgrims from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans, but we were all participating in the same rituals, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experience in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white.”

In an astonishing mind’s metamorphosis, he declared:

“America needs to understand Islam because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to, and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered ‘white,’ but the ‘white’ attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color. You may be shocked by these words coming from me, but on this pilgrimage, what I have seen and experienced has forced me to rearrange much of my thought patterns previously held and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts and accept the reality of life as new experiences and new knowledge unfold. I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary for the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.”

Thus said in such perennial and heartfelt emotions, this great faith-founder and genuine truth-seeker. Alas! The man who once said:

“I know that any moment of any day or any night could bring me death. To speculate about dying does not disturb me as it might some people, and I never have felt that I would live to become an old man.”

At the age of 39, on a Sunday afternoon, February 21, 1965, as he began to address one such meeting, Malcolm was assassinated and therefore granted the higher status of a true martyr for the cause of his faith.

Surely Malcolm was one of the most fiery and controversial people of the 20th century. Born as a Christian and passing away as a Muslim, it is only a small and modest tribute to this great man through my historic diary. It is he who said about history: “History is a people’s memory, and without a memory, man is demoted to the lower of animals.”

No wonder that he left a worldwide legacy. Malcolm’s influence on the political and social thought of African Americans, as well as of Muslims throughout the globe, has been enormous. The widespread literature about his struggle has proliferated, the monumental film by Spike Lee based on his autobiography in 1992, and the ever-growing number of internet sites about this “common heritage” are but other testimonies to the greatness of this man. True, he has died, but his spirit is still alive!

For that, Hadj Malik El Shabazz certainly belongs to the higher class of Allah’s servants who have attained the best of both worlds: “We gave him his reward in this world, and in the world to come, he shall be among the righteous.” (Holy Quran 29:27).

S. Mohammed Bokreta is a Freelance Writer and Cultural Consultant based in Algiers, Algeria. Specializing in Islamic values, political issues, historical events, and tourism topics, his work has been featured in international newspapers and magazines for over 36 years. Fluent in Arabic, French, and English, Bokreta also translates significant Islamic manuscripts. With a background as a Bank and Shipping Manager, his extensive experience and communication skills aim to educate and inspire future generations.

G7 Virtually Recognizes China as A Superpower – Do They Fear China?

China pursues its territorial ambitions through physical military confrontation and by extending unmanageable loans to weaker countries, gaining a firm control over them and dictating terms at will.

by N.S.Venkataraman

The meeting in Italy of the G7, which comprises seven of the most economically and industrially advanced countries in the world, discussed several matters including illegal migration, artificial intelligence, the Ukraine-Russia war, and others. However, the most focused discussion during the meeting was on strategies for facing the challenge from China in the spheres of commerce, trade, and economics.

Students make a "Trojan Horse" model to protest against the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Brindisi, Italy, June 13, 2024. (Xinhua/Meng Dingbo)

Focus on China:

Chinese leadership must be happy in their heart of hearts that the G7 countries have focused so much on China and their competitiveness with China, which obviously means that China has been virtually recognized as a superpower by these advanced countries.

During the meeting, the G7 members talked about China’s rapidly expanding economic clout. With what appears to be a feeling of frustration and helplessness, G7 members said that China has created unbalanced markets in areas such as electric vehicles, steel, and renewable energy. In other words, the members seem to fear that China would overtake them sooner or later, perhaps sooner than later, in economic and trade terms and in the global market.

While members said that the G7 was not trying to harm China or thwart its economic development, the ground reality is that members fear that they would not be able to compete with China in the world market under present conditions. But, the statement that they would take actions to protect their businesses against unfair practices by China and ensure steps to level the playing field in the market makes it evident that there is an uncomfortable feeling amongst the G7 members that China has already overtaken them in the world market. Obviously, the use of these terms such as unfair practices and warnings against Chinese financial institutions reveals more a sense of panic than of confidence in their capability to compete against China in the world market.

The high level of focus on China during the G7 meeting indicates that the G7 members view the threat from China as much more serious and fundamental than the threat from Russia. Possibly, in the coming days, the obsession of G7 members with Russia will be replaced by their obsession with China.

While there is no debate anymore in the world that China has already emerged as a superpower due to its vast land area, spectacular economic and industrial growth, technological capability, and excess industrial capacity that enables China to dominate the world market by offering competitive prices and liberal credit terms, the question is how the threat from China should be viewed. This threat appears to be different for the G7 members compared to the threat felt by Asian countries.

Threat Fear in Asia:

The territorial ambitions of China have caused huge unrest and anxiety amongst Asian countries such as India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and others. China’s forced occupation of Tibet several decades back after massacring thousands of Tibetan protestors has not been forgotten by the Asian countries. China’s continued occupation of Tibet stands as a monument to its territorial ambitions. China is now claiming the Indian province of Arunachal Pradesh as its own and is confronting other countries due to its claims in the South China Sea, Senkaku Islands, and so on. There is a feeling in India today that China may at any time invade India, if India were not to be alert militarily.

Two Ways to Achieve Territorial Ambitions:

China’s territorial ambitions are pursued in two ways. One is physical and military confrontation to occupy the territory of other countries. The other is to control weaker countries by extending loans beyond their capability to repay and getting a firm and unassailable presence in these countries, which virtually means that China can dictate its terms to these countries at any time. China is already occupying Hambantota port in Sri Lanka and Gwadar port in Pakistan under the so-called lease arrangement. China’s presence in these areas appears to be permanent.

China Sitting Pretty:

While the basis for the fear of G7 members and the Asian countries against China are different, both G7 members and Asian countries seem to be of the view that China has to be confronted in one way or another, to protect their interests.

As of now, China seems to be sitting pretty with its achievements already made in occupying the territory of other countries and in penetrating the global market at the cost of G7 members.

Chinese Defence Hospital ship to visit Sri Lanka and 12 other countries

The People's Liberation Army Navy hospital ship is scheduled to embark on its 2024 mission, visiting Sri Lanka along with 12 other countries as part of its outreach and operational objectives.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy hospital ship Ark Peace will carry out Mission Harmony-2024 from mid-June, 2024 to mid-January, 2025, said a Chinese defense spokesperson on Friday.

Local students wave national flags of China and Commonwealth of Dominica to greet the first arrival of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy hospital ship Peace Ark in Roseau, Commonwealth of Dominica, Oct. 12, 2018. (Photo by Jiang Shan/Xinhua)

The ship will visit 13 countries including Seychelles, Tanzania, Madagascar, Mozambique, South Africa, Angola, the Republic of Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Benin, Mauritania, Djibouti and Sri Lanka, and provide medical service to local people, according to Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense.

It will also make port calls to France and Greece. This is the 12th overseas mission for Ark Peace since its commissioning, Zhang said.

India’s New Five-Year Trajectory

With a clear tilt towards multipolarity, it is clear that India will have to reckon, first of all, with China, as well as with its neighbors.

by Leonid Savin

In early June in India ended parliamentary elections, which lasted about two months. The votes were counted relatively quickly and it turned out that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost a significant part of the seats compared to the last elections five years ago, dropping from 303 to 240 in the parliament, which has 543 deputies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during the meditation session at the Vivekananda Rock Memorial in Kanyakumari. [ANI]

Moreover, for the first time in 15 years, Modi‘s party failed to win a majority of seats in India‘s most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, which is indicative of national elections. It should be noted that Uttar Pradesh is the center of faith of the majority of the Indian population, widely supporting Modi‘s Hindu–nationalist program, and over the past decade it has represented the nuclear electorate of the BJP. The party won only 33 seats there. And the opposition – 43.

Modi himself won his seat from the state, representing the holy Hindu city of Varanasi, by just 152,000 votes compared to almost half a million votes in 2019.

The BJP candidate also lost in the constituency representing Ayodhya, despite the fact that Modi inaugurated a controversial Hindu temple there in January this year, built on the site of the destroyed historic Babri Mosque.

Why did Modi, who has large oligarchs in his entourage, when using rather clever populist rhetoric, which also included foreign policy, give up his position this time?

Firstly, we can recall the covid times when serious restrictions were imposed in the country. Secondly, unsuccessful attempts to change the legislation on agriculture, which led to mass protests by farmers. Thirdly, and most importantly, because of the struggle in the format of alliances. If earlier the opposition parties competed with each other, this time a coalition was created called I.N.D.I.A. Because of this, the BJP faced stronger rivals in a number of states.

In this election, the Indian National Congress won 99 seats from this group; Samajwadi – 37; All India Trinamool Congress – 29; Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – 22, and smaller ones less than ten.

The BJP also has a coalition called the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The BJP took 240 seats respectively; Telugu Desam – 16; Janata Dal (United) – 12, and others also took single seats.

If you look at the electoral map of India based on the results of the elections, we will see a cross-section where the preferences of voters change dramatically from state to state and from district to district. Only the central part of the country represents an array of right–wing supporters, with small splashes of opposition. Although in the south (Tamil Nadu), West Bengal (the traditional patrimony of the left) and in the Christian states of Goa and Kerala, I.N.D.I.A. dominates.

Critics and human rights organizations have also accused Modi of intensifying rhetoric against Muslims during his election campaign in an attempt to mobilize the Hindu majority. At his rallies, he called Muslims “infiltrators” and claimed that the main opposition Indian National Congress party would redistribute national wealth in favor of Muslims if it won. But this strategy failed to attract Hindu voters to the BJP side, while at the same time strengthening minority support for the opposition.

There are other regional nuances. For example, if we take the state of Jammu and Kashmir (which is also claimed by Pakistan), BJP won there in the districts of Jammu and Udhampur, where the majority of the population are Hindus. And the BJP refused to participate in the elections in the Kashmir valley at all, anticipating a loss, supporting only its allies — the Peoples’ Conference, the Apni Party and the Democratic Progressive Azad Party. But even those showed poor results, and none of the candidates from these parties won.

The reason was that in 2019, Modi repealed article 370 of the Indian Constitution, depriving Jammu and Kashmir of autonomy. And anticipating mass protests, the government jailed political leaders and activists, shut down the Internet for several months and silenced the media, arresting and applying anti-terrorism laws against dozens of journalists.

Therefore, the general elections have become a kind of marker of the Kashmiri public sentiment after the repeal of article 370. Since the voter turnout was more than 50 percent, and supporters of secession did not call for a boycott of the elections, it can be concluded that such participation was “largely due to the desire to demonstrate to New Delhi that they do not agree with the repeal of Article 370,” and that “Kashmiris want to use the ballot box to express their anger against the Bharatiya Janata Party.”

It is also significant that the election was won by Sheikh Abdul Rashid, a former member of the Legislative Assembly of North Kashmir, known as “Engineer Rashid“ from Baramulla. He had previously openly called for separatism, and since 2019 has been in prison on a terrorism financing case. Rashid bypassed the former Chief Minister of the Territory, Omar Abdullah, who, after counting the votes, stated that “I do not believe that his victory will accelerate his release from prison, and the people of North Kashmir will not receive the representation to which they are entitled.”

Another candidate who won the election, Sarabjeet Singh Khalsa, is the son of the father of a former member of the Indira Gandhi security service. It was he who, along with an accomplice, shot her in 1984 in retaliation for the attack on the Sikh shrine.

In general, in the state of Punjab, where Sikh community live, the ideologue of the independent Sikh state, Khalistan Amritpal Singh, who is also in prison in Assam state and who has been charged in accordance with the National Security Law, also won.

All these are alarm bells for both Modi and supporters of Indian unity. Nevertheless, Narendra Modi‘s victory was recognized. After he was unanimously elected leader of the National Democratic Alliance (a coalition of right-wing parties of India), leader of the BJP in the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and head of the board of the BJP Parliamentary Party, President Droupadi Murmu invited him to take the oath of office on Sunday, June 9.

After being sworn in, he has yet to undergo a mandatory confidence vote in the new convocation of the Lok Sabha (Parliament).

Meanwhile, the BJP has its own opposition to Modi. This is his colleague, Maharashtra politician and Minister of Motor Transport Nitin Gadkari, who is seen as a future alternative to Modi. Previously, he was the president of the BJP in his state, and then took the national post of party president. When everyone stood up in the central hall of parliament last week to greet Prime Minister Modi, Gadkari did not rise from his seat, which was assessed as actually an open challenge to Modi.

And now, even at the level of narratives, they have already begun to talk not about the Modi government, but about the NDA government, since the BJP could not gain a majority on its own.

The opinions of observers on the future political course of India differ.

One pro-Western columnist believes that “during Modi‘s previous term, India actually withdrew from the liberal international order. As Modi concentrated power in New Delhi and sought global recognition of Hindu nationalism, India abruptly departed from Western norms of democracy, human rights and international law. Modi‘s powerful nationalism has led him to pursue a more risky foreign policy, including attempts to persecute dissidents abroad and monitor the diaspora. The weakening of democratic institutions in India has also put New Delhi on the warpath against multilateral institutions, which Modi believes are dominated by Western norms. All this has narrowed the boundaries of contact between India and the West, despite the fact that New Delhi has increasingly begun to talk about peace in terms used by Beijing and Moscow. It is unclear how the new Modi government will approach these issues. But it would be reasonable to assume that carrying out many of these controversial policies will be more difficult now that Modi must rely on the support of allies who do not share his Hindu nationalist worldview.“

that “during Modi‘s previous term, India actually withdrew from the liberal international order. As Modi concentrated power in New Delhi and sought global recognition of Hindu nationalism, India abruptly departed from Western norms of democracy, human rights and international law. Modi‘s powerful nationalism has led him to pursue a more risky foreign policy, including attempts to persecute dissidents abroad and monitor the diaspora. The weakening of democratic institutions in India has also put New Delhi on the warpath against multilateral institutions, which Modi believes are dominated by Western norms. All this has narrowed the boundaries of contact between India and the West, despite the fact that New Delhi has increasingly begun to talk about peace in terms used by Beijing and Moscow. It is unclear how the new Modi government will approach these issues. But it would be reasonable to assume that carrying out many of these controversial policies will be more difficult now that Modi must rely on the support of allies who do not share his Hindu nationalist worldview.“

Another author from Pakistan says that “on the geopolitical front, Modi has successfully led India to the top league, if not to the top spot in the standings. The combination of decades of socio–economic development and a highly successful diaspora has helped overcome the inertia of the ordinary. Modi used this as leverage to make room for India. How he will turn this opportunity into a legacy — India is not without flaws and a history of conflict in the region, especially in Kashmir — remains to be seen. The only other possibility is that India will follow China‘s path, which is to preserve its economic benefits, free more people from poverty, strengthen economic potential and position, and postpone solving most geopolitical problems to a later date, unless it is possible to achieve geostrategic goals without the outbreak of war. Thus, India will be able to increase its strategic weight in geopolitical terms. By 2030, it will probably become the third largest economy, which can only strengthen its position in the world.“

With a clear tilt towards multipolarity, it is clear that India will have to reckon, first of all, with China, as well as with its neighbors. If we talk about relations with Russia, it is unlikely that a change in the balance in parliament and the new government will lead to a change of course. India, whoever is in charge, is interested in developing relations with Russia in many areas. Another thing is that there is a pro-American lobby, and a significant part of it is present among the military, who justify cooperation with Washington with hypothetical threats from China and Pakistan. However, the military should also recognize that now the political configuration is changing, the United States is far away, and the main forces of BRICS+, which are now shaping the future agenda, are close, and together with the participants of this association, the world order will have to be determined.

Leonid Savin is a geopolitical analyst, Chief Editor of Geopolitika.ru since 2008. Founder and Editor of Journal of Eurasian Affairs. Head of Administration, International Eurasian Movement. Former Chief Editor of Katehon. Director, Foundation for Monitoring and Forecasting Cultural-Territorial Development (FMPRKTP). Member, Military-Scientific Society of the Ministry of Defence of Russia. Author of books on geopolitics, conflicts, international relations, and political philosophy published globally.