Unmukt

Tag: news

  • When a Nominator Becomes the Obstacle: Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize Bid and the Munir Factor

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s quest for the Nobel Peace Prize has taken an unexpected turn. What once looked like a promising campaign, backed by multiple countries, is now facing a credibility crisis — and the reason lies with one of his own nominators.

    A Rare Wave of Support

    Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was endorsed by five countries: Pakistan, Israel, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cambodia. Each cited his role in mediating conflicts or pushing for negotiations, particularly in the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace deal and in efforts surrounding the Russia–Ukraine war. Pakistan’s endorsement was particularly strong, with its Army Chief, General Asim Munir, personally crediting Trump with helping to de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan.

    For Trump, the support seemed like a validation of his self-styled image as a global peacemaker. He often reminded audiences that his leadership had brought nuclear-armed rivals to the table and claimed credit for reducing hostilities across regions.

    The Nuclear Threat That Backfired

    But the same General Munir who once championed Trump has now become his greatest liability. Speaking in the United States, Munir issued an alarming statement: Pakistan, he warned, could “destroy half the world” with nuclear weapons if its survival were at stake.

    Such rhetoric is in direct contradiction to the values of the Nobel Peace Prize, which celebrates efforts to prevent war and build reconciliation. The Nobel Committee has reportedly taken the statement seriously. And Trump’s silence on Munir’s words has fueled speculation that he is unwilling to distance himself from the threat, lest he lose a key nominator’s backing.

    The Irony of the Obstacle

    This irony cannot be overlooked. The very figure who bolstered Trump’s claim for the Nobel Prize may now be the reason his candidacy collapses. In the eyes of the Nobel Committee, association with nuclear threats — even indirectly — risks disqualifying any candidate from consideration as a peacemaker.

    A Fragile Bid

    The Nobel decisions are expected in October. Even if Trump succeeds in advancing peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, his bid is overshadowed by Munir’s outburst. For Trump, the dream of being recognized as a global peace icon faces an obstacle he could not have predicted: the words of the man who helped nominate him.

    In the end, the episode is a reminder of how reputations in international diplomacy are fragile. One misplaced statement — even by an ally — can undo years of carefully built narratives. For Trump, the path to the Nobel Prize is no longer about his efforts alone, but about whether the world believes his cause for peace is free of the shadows of nuclear threats.

  • India–China Relations 2025: How Trump’s Tariffs Sparked an Unlikely Economic Realignment

    Six months ago, few analysts would have predicted India and China moving even slightly closer in their diplomatic and economic ties. The two Asian giants have spent decades locked in strategic rivalry — from border disputes in Ladakh to competition for influence across Asia. But in 2025, a surprising factor has nudged them toward limited cooperation: Donald Trump’s aggressive U.S. tariffs on both countries.

    The Unintended Consequence of Trump’s Tariffs

    When President Trump reintroduced steep tariffs on Chinese goods — and extended them to Indian exports — his goal was clear: pressure Beijing over trade practices and punish New Delhi for continuing business with Russia.

    However, instead of isolating them, the tariffs have created a shared economic challenge. Both India and China are now dealing with:

    • Reduced access to the lucrative U.S. market
    • Risks of economic slowdown
    • The need to secure alternative investment and trade routes

    In geopolitics, shared problems often lead to tactical cooperation, even between rivals.

    Key Developments in the India–China Thaw

    1. Resumption of Direct Flights and Visas: India has restarted tourist visas for Chinese nationals and is preparing to resume direct flights through carriers like Air India and IndiGo. This was a long-standing demand from Beijing since the COVID-19 suspension.
    2. Boost in Fertilizer Trade: China has eased restrictions on urea exports to India, vital for India’s agriculture sector. With domestic fertilizer production insufficient to meet demand, this move directly supports Indian farmers and food security.
    3. Reopening of Kailash Mansarovar Yatra: For the first time in five years, Indian pilgrims will be able to travel to Mount Kailash and Lake Mansarovar — a symbolic step in cultural diplomacy.
    4. Diplomatic Backing Against U.S. Tariffs: The Chinese ambassador to India publicly criticized Trump’s tariffs and voiced support for India’s economic sovereignty.

    Why India and China Are Finding Common Ground

    While political trust remains low, there are clear overlapping interests in 2025:

    • Economic Growth: Both want to avoid slowdown amid global uncertainty.
    • Attracting FDI: Global investors are cautious; both economies seek to secure capital inflows.
    • Energy Security: Access to affordable crude oil is crucial for both.
    • Balancing U.S. Pressure: Reducing vulnerability to unpredictable U.S. trade policy is a shared goal.

    The Limits of Cooperation

    This is not a strategic alliance — border tensions remain unresolved and military posturing continues along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). India still views China’s ties with Pakistan with suspicion, especially after Beijing’s support for Islamabad’s military capabilities.

    For India, the challenge is maintaining a careful balance: engaging China economically while strengthening security partnerships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia through forums like the Quad.

    Looking Ahead: Geopolitics in the Second Half of the Decade

    If current trends hold, 2025 could mark the start of a functional but fragile India–China economic partnership, born out of necessity rather than goodwill. Whether this tactical realignment lasts will depend on:

    • U.S. trade policy in the coming year
    • Developments on the India–China border
    • Global commodity prices and energy security concerns

    One thing is clear: in global politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies — only permanent interests.

  • The “Vote Chori” Lie: How Rahul Gandhi’s Dangerous Narrative Mirrors Bangladesh’s Playbook

    When Arun Jaitley once described Rahul Gandhi as “a repeat liar, a silent apologist in court, and a loud threat to democracy”, many thought it was just political rhetoric. But the latest falsehood being peddled by the Congress leader, the so-called “Vote Chori” narrative, reveals just how dangerous this political gamble really is.

    The Manufactured Crisis

    In recent weeks, Rahul Gandhi has amplified allegations that India’s 2024 general elections were manipulated, with voter rolls inflated by unverified names. The claim is rooted in a so-called “report” circulated by an NGO linked to senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, a self-proclaimed Marxist voice whose history is filled with legal activism aimed at discrediting elected governments.

    This NGO’s agenda aligns with a disturbing pattern targeting India’s political credibility on the global stage while emboldening foreign interests, particularly the United States, to question India’s democratic framework.

    The Bangladesh Parallel

    Observers of South Asian politics will recall the events in Bangladesh earlier this decade. Opposition forces, unable to mount a strong electoral challenge, created a narrative that the ruling government was “blocking free elections” and “silencing dissent.” This claim — heavily amplified by international NGOs and Western media — resulted in months of unrest, economic instability, and eventual diplomatic isolation.

    The tragic irony? While they claimed to be “saving democracy,” the opposition’s tactics effectively paralyzed the democratic process. In some cases, violence replaced ballots, and foreign meddling became normalized.

    Today, Rahul Gandhi’s “vote chori” rhetoric dangerously echoes the same destabilization strategy.

    Foreign Hand, Familiar Faces

    Prashant Bhushan’s NGO is no stranger to controversial activism. Over the years, its funding sources and advocacy align with Marxist intellectual circles and certain Western think tanks. The formula is consistent:

    • Stage 1: Question the legitimacy of elections without hard evidence.
    • Stage 2: Seek international “solidarity” and coverage to pressure the government.
    • Stage 3: Push for systemic changes that weaken the state’s ability to act independently of Western influence.

    Rahul Gandhi’s willingness to become the political amplifier of such tactics is alarming, especially when India is experiencing record GDP growth, a stronger global presence, and a more assertive foreign policy.

    The Real Threat

    Critics argue that Rahul Gandhi is less interested in winning elections through people’s mandate and more interested in delegitimizing them to create chaos. This narrative directly benefits:

    • Foreign powers seeking to weaken India’s global standing.
    • Economic competitors who fear India’s rise as a manufacturing and geopolitical hub.
    • Marxist lobbies inside and outside the country who oppose India’s market-driven growth model.

    From Bangladesh to Bharat

    The comparison is chilling. In Bangladesh, this narrative eroded public trust, empowered extremist elements, and paved the way for deeper foreign interference.
    If Rahul Gandhi and his allies succeed in normalizing this rhetoric in India, the consequences could be far-reaching:

    • Investor confidence could plummet.
    • Social divisions could deepen.
    • India’s image as the world’s largest democracy could be tarnished.

    Conclusion: Democracy Is Not a Toy

    India’s democratic framework is strong, but it is not immune to coordinated attacks from within. Political disagreements are healthy, but weaponising falsehoods to undermine electoral legitimacy is a direct assault on the very foundation of the republic.

    As Arun Jaitley warned, Rahul Gandhi’s blend of courtroom meekness and public recklessness is not harmless political theatre. It is a dangerous game that India cannot afford to ignore.

  • India’s Defence Exports Hit ₹23,622 Crore in 2024–25: A Quiet Revolution in Strategic Self-Reliance

    By Unmukts Editorial Team
    Published: July 30, 2025

    When Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently announced that India’s defence exports for 2024–25 touched a historic high of ₹23,622 crore, many nodded in agreement—but few grasped the full magnitude of what this number represents.

    This is not just a figure.
    It’s a 34-fold leap from 2013–14 levels, when exports stood at a mere ₹686 crore.
    It is also a testament to India’s silent transformation from a buyer to a builder—from importing submarines and jets to exporting cutting-edge defence technologies to nearly 80 countries.

    The Numbers That Tell a Story

    YearExport Value (₹ Crore)Growth from 2013–14
    2013–14686Base year
    2023–2421,08331x
    2024–2523,62234x

    This staggering increase of over 3,362% in just over a decade would be unthinkable without focused reforms and an attitudinal shift in how India perceives its defence sector—not as a cost centre, but as a core driver of self-reliance, innovation, and diplomacy.

    From “Buyer” to “Exporter”: What Changed?

    1. Policy Shifts and Strategic Vision

    Two major national missions have underpinned this growth:

    • Make in India: Launched in 2014, this initiative opened up India’s defence sector to private players and foreign investments.
    • Atmanirbhar Bharat: Championed after 2020, it redefined India’s military-industrial goals with self-reliance as a central pillar.

    The defence production ecosystem has since been backed by simplified export procedures, incentives for manufacturers, and an expanded Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) that prioritizes domestic sourcing.

    2. Opening the Gates for Private Sector Innovation

    In a sector historically dominated by Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), the role of private companies has become increasingly dominant.

    In FY 2024–25:

    • Private players contributed ₹15,233 crore (approx. 64% of total exports)
    • DPSUs accounted for ₹8,389 crore, with a robust 42.85% year-on-year growth

    Startups and MSMEs, particularly in UAVs, radar systems, and niche weapons systems, have emerged as vital contributors.

    What Is India Exporting? And To Whom?

    India’s defence exports now cover a wide spectrum:

    • Light helicopters (e.g., Dhruv)
    • Coastal surveillance systems
    • Indigenous artillery systems
    • Ammunition, explosives, night vision equipment
    • Naval platforms, radars, communication systems

    These products are being sold to countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even Europe—marking India’s growing credibility as a defence manufacturing hub.

    Beyond Exports: The Rise of Strategic Autonomy

    This export surge isn’t just about rupees and crores—it’s about a strategic shift. Defence exports amplify India’s soft power, strengthen bilateral ties, and position India as a responsible regional security provider.

    As India sets its next target of ₹50,000 crore in exports by 2029, this becomes not just a manufacturing challenge, but a strategic statement.

    What Can We Learn from This?

    For young Indians, startups, policy thinkers, and Unmukt readers who believe in a self-reliant, confident Bharat, this success is a blueprint:

    • Ambitious national goals matter.
    • Public-private collaboration works.
    • Global markets value Indian innovation—when backed by state policy and delivery capability.

    India’s record-breaking defence exports in 2024–25 are not just numbers. They are symbols of transformation—from dependence to determination, from a buyer mindset to an exporter’s confidence.

    In the world of geopolitics, economic strength, military resilience, and diplomatic assertiveness go hand in hand.

    As Unmukt, we believe this is just the beginning. Bharat is not just aiming to be the world’s factory—it is reclaiming its rightful place as a knowledge, defence, and innovation leader.

  • Women-Led Development: The Key to India’s $35 Trillion Future – Amitabh Kant

    In a compelling and forward-looking address, Mr. Amitabh Kant, former Chairman of NITI Aayog, emphasized that India’s growth story must be written by its women. Speaking at Women Achiever Award 2025, a ceremony organized by the Aalekh Foundation, Mr. Kant called for a radical societal shift that empowers women not just as participants in development, but as leaders of it.

    “If India is to become a $35+ trillion economy by 2047, women must be at the forefront of this transformation,” he said.”

    Mr. Kant praised the progress made over the past decade, highlighting key government initiatives aimed at including women in the formal economy. Since 2015, over 550 million bank accounts have been opened, raising women’s access from 18% to over 91%. He also pointed out that the government has:

    Built 40 million homes, electrified 35 million households, and provided piped water to over 253 million households. Supplied 120 million gas connections, significantly improving the quality of life for rural women.

    Importantly, these resources were registered in women’s names, marking a deliberate shift toward women-led development.

    Mr. Kant acknowledged, however, that infrastructure and access are only part of the solution. A deeper cultural transformation is necessary — particularly among men. He noted that without men actively supporting and pushing women into leadership roles, progress would stall.

    “Indian men need to change their mindset,” he said candidly. “They must step back and let women lead.”

    In a noteworthy appeal to the Aalekh Foundation, he suggested that awards should not only go to women achievers but also to men who uplift and empower women in their lives — those who support their daughters, wives, colleagues, and peers to pursue their ambitions.

    Mr. Kant referenced a World Economic Forum report stating that gender parity may take 134 years to achieve at the current pace. He firmly rejected that timeline, stating, “None of us have 134 years. We must do it in a decade.”

    He spotlighted stories of female entrepreneurs and innovators as examples of change already underway:

    Aayushi Mishra, founder of Dona Maps, who is using cutting-edge mapping technology for social impact. Ms. Manjunath, founder of Nimai AI, who is improving breast cancer detection using artificial intelligence. Two young graduates from Lady Shri Ram College, who built a tech platform that has sold over 3 million cattle by digitizing a largely informal sector.

    Kant emphasized that India’s leap into the future — one defined by AI, machine learning, robotics, and digital transformation — cannot happen without women being digitally literate and empowered. Yet currently, only 37% of Indian women are digitally savvy compared to 53% globally.

    He stressed the need for greater digital adoption among women to unlock their full potential and drive India’s productivity and growth.

    Concluding his speech, Amitabh Kant highlighted India’s global advocacy for “women-led development” during its G20 presidency. Despite opposition from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, and China, India succeeded in establishing this term as a global developmental priority — replacing the more passive concept of gender parity.

    “India didn’t just talk about equality,” he said. “We demanded leadership — by women, for a better future.”

    With a vision rooted in inclusion, innovation, and equality, Amitabh Kant’s address was not only a roadmap for national growth but a clarion call for men and women to walk this journey together — with women leading the way.

  • The 1971 War: India’s Strategic Triumph, Missed Opportunities, and Lasting Challenges

    Today, as India reflects on its historical milestones, the 1971 India-Pakistan War remains a defining moment in the nation’s geopolitical journey. Led by Smt. Indira Gandhi, India’s decisive intervention resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, a humanitarian triumph that reshaped South Asia. However, debates persist over whether India could have secured greater strategic gains, such as annexing the Rangpur area to widen the Siliguri Corridor—transforming the “Chicken’s Neck” into a “Chicken’s Chest”—and ensuring the return of its soldiers still missing in Pakistan. This article examines the war’s outcomes, evaluates the decision to forego territorial annexation, and explores the unresolved issue of Indian POWs, assessing the long-term implications for India.

    The 1971 War and Bangladesh Liberation

    In 1971, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) faced brutal repression after the Awami League’s electoral victory was denied by West Pakistan’s military regime. The ensuing crackdown, which killed an estimated 300,000 to 3 million people, triggered a humanitarian crisis, with 10 million refugees fleeing into India, primarily West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Smt. Indira Gandhi, recognizing both the humanitarian imperative and strategic opportunity, supported the Mukti Bahini (Bangladesh liberation forces) with military training, arms, and diplomatic backing. Following months of preparation, India intervened militarily in December 1971, leading to a 13-day war that ended with Pakistan’s surrender on December 16, 1971. The war resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and the capture of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war (POWs)—one of the largest military surrenders in modern history.

    Humanitarian and Strategic Triumph

    • Refugee Crisis Resolution: The war alleviated the burden of 10 million refugees on India, with over 90% returning to Bangladesh by 1973, reducing economic and social strain.
    • Weakening Pakistan: The division of Pakistan into two nations diminished its military threat, eliminating its two-front strategy against India.
    • Global Recognition: India’s intervention earned international praise for halting a genocide, enhancing its soft power. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 ensured Soviet support, countering US and Chinese opposition.
    • Regional Influence: The 1972 India-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship initially solidified Bangladesh as a friendly neighbor, giving India a strategic buffer against Pakistan.

    The Chicken’s Neck Dilemma: Should India Have Taken Rangpur?

    The Siliguri Corridor, a narrow strip (20–40 km wide) connecting India’s mainland to its northeastern states, is a strategic vulnerability known as the “Chicken’s Neck.” Bordered by Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh, it is susceptible to being severed in a conflict, particularly by China via the Chumbi Valley, 130 km away. Some strategists argue that India, at the peak of its post-1971 influence, could have annexed the Rangpur area in northern Bangladesh to widen this corridor into a “Chicken’s Chest,” enhancing security and connectivity.

    Potential Benefits of Annexation

    • Strategic Depth: Widening the corridor would have reduced the risk of the Northeast being isolated in a conflict. In 2025, with China’s military buildup in the Chumbi Valley and border tensions (e.g., post-2020 Galwan clash), this vulnerability remains a concern. A broader corridor would have improved military logistics, crucial for addressing insurgencies like the ongoing Naga peace talks.
    • Economic Integration: Enhanced connectivity would have boosted trade and infrastructure in the Northeast, a region lagging economically. The 2025 Economic Survey notes the Northeast’s GDP growth at 5.2%, below the national average of 6.8%, partly due to connectivity bottlenecks.
    • Geopolitical Leverage: With 93,000 Pakistani POWs in custody and Bangladesh’s gratitude under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, India could have negotiated territorial adjustments as a mutual security arrangement, offering economic or diplomatic concessions in return.

    Challenges and Risks

    • Diplomatic Fallout: Annexing Rangpur would have contradicted India’s humanitarian narrative, risking its global image as a defender of self-determination. It would have violated the 1972 India-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship, potentially turning Bangladesh into a resentful neighbor.
    • International Backlash: The US and China, already hostile during the Cold War, could have rallied global opposition, isolating India. The USSR, India’s ally, might have opposed such a move as a violation of sovereignty norms.
    • Regional Instability: Annexation could have destabilized Bangladesh’s fragile post-independence government, fueling anti-India sentiment. In India’s Northeast, where separatist movements like the Mizo National Front (1966–1986) were active, it might have escalated ethnic tensions.
    • Long-Term Costs: By 2025, India-Bangladesh relations are strained over water sharing, migration, and Bangladesh’s ties with China (e.g., the $1.2 billion Padma Bridge project). Annexation in 1971 would likely have made Bangladesh a hostile neighbor, aligning it with China or Pakistan, undermining India’s regional influence.

    Verdict on Rangpur

    Indira Gandhi’s decision to forego annexing Rangpur was strategically prudent. While widening the Chicken’s Neck offered clear benefits, the diplomatic, ethical, and practical costs—international condemnation, regional instability, and long-term hostility—outweighed the gains. A hostile Bangladesh could have provided China with a foothold closer to the Siliguri Corridor, negating any strategic advantage. However, India might have explored diplomatic negotiations for a mutual security arrangement, such as joint control or transit rights, to address the corridor’s vulnerability without territorial annexation.

    The Unresolved POW Issue: A Lingering Grievance

    Despite India’s release of 93,000 Pakistani POWs by 1974 under the Shimla Agreement, the fate of Indian soldiers believed to be held in Pakistan remains unresolved. Known as the “Missing 54″—30 Army and 24 Air Force personnel—these soldiers were captured primarily on the Western Front. India claims a total of 83 personnel are missing, with some families believing they are still alive in Pakistani jails, facing harsh conditions. Pakistan has consistently denied holding them, with its latest statement in 2025 reiterating this position, though earlier contradictions fuel India’s suspicions.

    • Missed Leverage: Public sentiment on X in 2025 reflects frustration that India did not use the 93,000 Pakistani POWs as leverage to secure the return of its soldiers or other concessions, such as addressing the Chicken’s Neck vulnerability. Some argue this was a diplomatic oversight, prioritizing goodwill over strategic gains.
    • Emotional Toll: Families of the Missing 54 have waited over five decades for closure. Advocacy groups, as noted in recent articles by CAPS India, highlight the emotional toll, with daughters of these soldiers continuing their fight for justice.
    • Diplomatic Stalemate: India’s repeated demands, including the latest exchange of lists in July 2024, have yielded no progress. The recent Operation Sindoor (May 2025) and ongoing tensions with Pakistan further complicate resolution, with Pakistan’s allies like China and Turkey reducing international pressure on this issue.

    Long-Term Implications for India

    Strategic Lessons

    The 1971 war was a tactical triumph but highlighted missed strategic opportunities. While India weakened Pakistan and gained regional influence, the failure to secure its POWs or address vulnerabilities like the Chicken’s Neck underscores the need for a balanced approach in geopolitics. The Shimla Agreement prioritized short-term stability over long-term gains, a decision debated in strategic circles in 2025.

    India-Bangladesh Relations

    By 2025, India-Bangladesh relations are strained, with Bangladesh’s growing ties with China and unresolved issues like migration (e.g., the 2019 NRC in Assam identifying 1.9 million potential illegal immigrants) fueling tensions. Annexing Rangpur would likely have worsened this dynamic, potentially creating a hostile neighbor aligned with India’s adversaries.

    Geopolitical Vulnerabilities

    The Siliguri Corridor remains a strategic concern, with China’s presence in the Chumbi Valley and Bangladesh posing risks. The 2025 Economic Survey emphasizes the need for infrastructure development in the Northeast, suggesting that India must address this vulnerability through diplomatic and economic means rather than territorial adjustments.

    Conclusion

    The 1971 India-Pakistan War, under Indira Gandhi’s leadership, was a defining moment that showcased India’s military prowess and humanitarian resolve, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. However, strategic decisions made in its aftermath have left lasting challenges. Not annexing Rangpur to widen the Siliguri Corridor was likely the right choice, avoiding diplomatic fallout and regional instability, though India could have pursued non-territorial solutions to address this vulnerability. The failure to secure the return of its POWs, however, remains a significant oversight, with the “Missing 54” symbolizing a lingering grievance as of today. The war’s legacy underscores the complexities of balancing humanitarian ideals with strategic interests, a lesson India must heed as it navigates contemporary geopolitical challenges with Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh.

  • 1969 Bank Nationalization: Financial Control, Inclusion, and Governance Challenges

    As of May 15, 2025, reflecting on India’s economic history, the 1969 nationalization of 14 major commercial banks by Smt. Indira Gandhi stands as a pivotal moment. Aimed at expanding banking access to rural areas and prioritizing sectors like agriculture, the policy was heralded as a step toward social equity. However, economists debate whether it also served as a mechanism for financial control over citizens. This article examines the policy’s impact on rural India, the need for subsequent initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), and the governance challenges faced by Company Secretaries in government-owned entities navigating similar state-driven mandates.

    Objectives and Impact on Rural India

    The 1969 bank nationalization sought to democratize finance in a country where banking was largely urban-centric. In 1969, only 17% of bank branches were in rural areas, but by 1980, this number surged to over 15,000. The share of rural deposits grew from 3% in 1969 to 15% by 1985, and agricultural credit rose from 2% to 10% of total advances by 1975, per RBI data. This empowered rural farmers by reducing reliance on exploitative moneylenders and supported the Green Revolution’s agricultural boom.

    However, the policy had significant flaws. Many rural branches were unprofitable, leading to inefficiencies. Political interference skewed loan disbursal, often favoring politically connected individuals over the deserving. A lack of financial literacy left many accounts dormant, limiting the policy’s transformative potential. While it laid the foundation for financial inclusion, its implementation fell short of fully integrating rural India into the formal banking system.

    Economists’ Perspectives: A Tool for Financial Control?

    1. State Dominance Over Economic Activity

    Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, in Development as Freedom (1999), emphasizes economic freedom as a pillar of development. He argues that excessive state control over financial systems can curtail individual agency. While acknowledging nationalization’s intent to promote inclusion, Sen cautions that it enabled the state to influence citizens’ economic choices, such as directing credit to favored sectors or individuals. Historical records from the 1970s reveal instances where loans were disbursed based on political affiliations, indicating a form of financial control.

    2. Political Patronage and Bureaucratic Overreach

    Economist Jagdish Bhagwati, in India: Economic Reform and Growth (1993), critiques nationalization as part of the “license-permit raj.” He argues that it turned banks into tools of political patronage, allowing the government to control access to financial resources. In rural India, farmers often faced bureaucratic hurdles or needed political connections to secure loans, limiting their economic opportunities. Bhagwati contends this was not just about inclusion but about consolidating state power over citizens’ financial lives.

    3. Surveillance and Monetary Policy

    Former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, in The Third Pillar (2019), highlights how state-controlled banking systems enable financial surveillance. Nationalization gave the government unprecedented insight into citizens’ transactions. During the 1975–77 Emergency, the state used banks to freeze accounts of political opponents, a clear instance of financial control. By 2025, with digital banking and KYC norms, this surveillance has expanded, raising concerns about privacy and financial autonomy.

    4. Counterview: Focus on Financial Inclusion

    Economist Kaushik Basu, in a 2016 lecture, argues that nationalization’s primary goal was financial inclusion, not control. He credits the policy for bringing banking to rural India, reducing dependence on informal credit. The growth in rural deposits and agricultural lending supports this view, suggesting that political interference was an implementation failure rather than the policy’s intent.

    5. Mixed Outcomes

    Arvind Panagariya, in India: The Emerging Giant (2008), offers a balanced perspective. He acknowledges that nationalization empowered rural India but also created opportunities for state control. The Emergency and later events like demonetization in 2016, where public banks were instrumental in enforcing government policy, demonstrate how nationalization provided a mechanism for financial oversight, often at the expense of citizens’ autonomy.

    The Need for Jan Dhan Yojana

    If nationalization was so impactful, why did the Modi government launch the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) in 2014? Despite the growth in rural banking post-1969, the 2011 Census revealed that only 54.4% of rural households had banking access. Many accounts remained dormant due to limited financial literacy and accessibility. PMJDY addressed these gaps by leveraging digital technology, opening over 53 crore accounts by 2025, with 67% in rural/semi-urban areas and deposits exceeding ₹2.3 lakh crore. Features like zero-balance accounts, RuPay cards, and overdraft facilities, combined with financial literacy campaigns, ensured greater usage, with over 80% of accounts active—a marked improvement over the nationalization era.

    Governance Challenges: The Role of a Company Secretary

    Similar to the dynamics of nationalization, government-owned companies often operate at the intersection of state control and public welfare. A Company Secretary in a 100% government-owned CPSE involved in land monetization faces unique challenges. They are responsible for ensuring corporate governance, legal compliance, and stakeholder coordination while navigating government mandates, such as those seen in asset monetization policies. For instance, the National Land Monetization Corporation (NLMC) can only acquire assets from CPSEs under strategic disinvestment at book value, as noted in prior correspondence. This limits flexibility, and political interference—akin to that seen in nationalized banks—can complicate compliance. A Company Secretary must balance transparency, manage board dynamics, and ensure financial accountability, often under bureaucratic pressure, mirroring the governance challenges of the nationalization era.

    Conclusion

    The 1969 bank nationalization was a landmark policy that expanded financial access in rural India, but it also served as a tool for state control, as debated by economists. While it empowered many, political interference and surveillance potential highlighted its dual nature. PMJDY built on this foundation, using modern technology to deepen inclusion. Yet, the legacy of nationalization persists in 2025, with public sector banks dominating the financial sector, raising ongoing questions about financial freedom versus state oversight. For Company Secretaries in government entities, these tensions underscore the need for robust governance to balance state objectives with public welfare, ensuring that policies serve citizens without compromising their autonomy.

  • Darwin and Indian Family Businesses: A Case Study in Survival of the Fittest

    Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest” emphasizes adaptability and resilience in changing environments, originally framed in the context of natural selection. When extended to the realm of business—particularly Indian family businesses—this theory finds a compelling real-world parallel. These enterprises, some of which have thrived for over a century, exemplify evolutionary fitness not through brute force, but through innovation, cultural rootedness, and strategic foresight.

    As of today, Indian family businesses remain a vital engine of the economy, continuing to grow in the face of global competition, technological disruption, and internal challenges. Let’s explore how they mirror Darwinian survival principles and why their longevity defies conventional business logic.

    How Indian Family Businesses Embody “Survival of the Fittest”

    1. Adaptability to Changing Environments

    India’s oldest family businesses have evolved across colonial rule, independence, liberalization, and globalization. The Tata Group, founded in 1868, began as a trading firm and expanded into steel, automobiles, and IT. Its transformation from industrial-era manufacturing to digital-era innovation (e.g., TCS) is a textbook example of Darwinian adaptation.

    In contrast, many traditional textile firms that failed to modernize during British rule were eventually wiped out—showing that inability to evolve leads to extinction, in nature and in business.

    2. Resilience Through Cultural and Social Ties

    Family businesses in India are often embedded in joint family systems, which extend to business relationships. Trust, loyalty, and informal governance allow them to endure through crises. The Murugappa Group, established in 1900, diversified into agriculture, engineering, and financial services, maintaining internal cohesion while responding to external change.

    These cultural moorings act as stabilizing mechanisms, enabling long-term survival even during political or economic turbulence.

    3. Innovation and Modernization

    Survival in modern markets demands innovation. Reliance Industries, which began as a textile trading firm in the 1960s, disrupted India’s telecom industry in 2016 with Jio. By 2025, Jio leads India’s 5G revolution and digital ecosystem, a testament to how family businesses must continually reinvent themselves to stay fit in Darwinian terms.

    4. Niche Market Mastery

    Smaller family-run firms often dominate niche sectors—jewelry, spices, textiles—where heritage and expertise provide a durable edge. The Gitanjali Group globalized traditional Indian jewelry through modern branding and retail, showing how specialization is a form of adaptive fitness.

    Why They Thrive Despite Intense Competition

    1. Long-Term Vision Over Short-Term Gains

    Unlike other businesses, which chase quarterly profits, family firms often prioritize intergenerational wealth and legacy. The Aditya Birla Group, dating back to 1857, continues to invest in sustainable industries like cement, metals, and renewable energy—opting for long-term survival over short-term spikes.

    2. Trust and Reputation as Capital

    Brands like Britannia (part of the Wadia Group, founded in 1736) thrive on legacy, not just marketing. Indian consumers often trust family-run brands more due to perceived authenticity and continuity, which creates a moat against newer entrants.

    3. Policy Tailwinds

    Post-1991 liberalization opened global markets. Initiatives like Make in India and MSME incentives have empowered family businesses, especially in cities like Surat, where textile exports are dominated by generational firms. These businesses are not just surviving—they are scaling.

    4. Cultural Alignment and Succession Planning

    In India, businesses are often an extension of the family’s identity. Succession, when managed well, ensures continuity. The Godrej Group (est. 1897) has seen multiple generational transitions while investing in green products and sustainability—ensuring continued relevance.

    Challenges and Darwinian Pressures

    Despite their advantages, Indian family businesses are not immune to natural selection:

    Internal Conflicts: Feuds within the Singhania family (Raymond Group) have weakened the brand and distracted from business strategy.

    Global Disruption: Multinational tech and consumer giants pose existential threats to slower-moving firms.

    Digital Lag: Traditional mindsets sometimes resist digital transformation, risking obsolescence in a data-driven economy.

    Conclusion:

    Evolution, Not Inheritance, Ensures Survival

    Indian family businesses are not relics of the past—they are living organisms in an economic ecosystem. Their longevity proves that fitness is not about being the strongest or richest, but about being the most adaptive.

    By balancing tradition with transformation, culture with competitiveness, they remain relevant in 2025 and beyond. Darwin would likely agree: in both nature and business, those who evolve with their environment endure the test of time.

  • The Sensitivity of a Good Government: A Democratic Appraisal

    The success of any democracy hinges not just on the power it wields but on how sensitively that power is exercised. A truly good government is not only strong against external threats but also just, inclusive, responsive, and tolerant of dissent within.

    Lets evaluates government sensitivity from two perspectives: the timeless principles of Chanakya, the ancient Indian political strategist, and the expectations of a modern democratic society. This article reflect on whether India’s current government aligns with these benchmarks, especially in light of recent debates.

    1. Sensitivity to National Security

    A government’s foremost duty is to protect its citizens and territorial integrity. In this regard, the current Indian government has shown decisive action—be it in the form of surgical strikes post-Uri, the Balakot airstrike, or its firm stand during the Doklam and Galwan standoffs with China.

    • Chanakya believed in preemptive strength and strategic deterrence. The government’s proactive stance reflects this principle, treating security not as reaction but as preparation.

     Verdict: The government has shown high sensitivity and effectiveness in national security.

    2. Responsiveness to Dissent and Criticism

    Chanakya advised rulers to avoid arrogance and listen to advisors. In a modern democracy, this wisdom translates to respecting dissent, ensuring press freedom, and protecting institutional checks.

    While some actions (e.g., raids on certain media houses, NGOs, and arrests under stringent laws) have triggered criticism, it is also true that state action is justified when foreign-funded actors violate national interest, as seen in the NewsClick case with reported Chinese links.

    • The key question is: Are patriotic critics also facing suppression, or only those with dubious agendas? Sensitivity lies in distinguishing the two.

    Verdict: National security must be upheld, but sensitivity to fair criticism and transparency in action is vital to maintain democratic credibility.

    3. Inclusiveness Toward All Communities

    A sensitive government fosters harmony. Critics of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) claimed it discriminated based on religion. The government clarified that CAA targets only persecuted minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, and does not affect Indian Muslims.

    However, protests and violent reactions created confusion and unrest.

    • Chanakya emphasized just rule over all subjects, ensuring that no group feels alienated.

    Verdict: The intention of the law may be just, but the government’s communication and engagement could have been more inclusive to prevent polarisation.

    4. Institutional Independence

    A Chanakyan state requires strong and independent institutions. Modern critics raise concerns over the independence of the judiciary, Election Commission, and investigative agencies.

    Yet, it’s also true that:

    • Judges in India are appointed through a collegium system, not by the government.
    • The new law for appointing the Election Commission includes representation from opposition, which didn’t exist before.

    Still, public trust depends on the perception of independence—not just the procedure.

    Verdict: The government must strengthen transparency and public confidence in autonomous institutions.

    5. Transparency and Accountability

    A sensitive government must allow scrutiny. RTI amendments, electoral bond secrecy, and reduced media questioning have led to concerns of reduced transparency.

    The electoral bonds system aimed to curb black money in politics, but without public disclosure, it became opaque to voters.

    • Chanakya warned against rulers becoming unaccountable and detached from their subjects.

    Verdict: Intent may be reform-driven, but greater openness and citizen access to political funding data are essential hallmarks of sensitivity.

    Conclusion: Is the Current Government Sensitive?

    If measured against national interest and strength, the government has been decisive and strategic. From defense modernization to diplomacy, digital outreach to welfare delivery, the state has shown competence.

    However, sensitivity also demands:

    • Respect for dissent that is within the law
    • More transparent governance
    • Active efforts to keep every citizen—irrespective of background—feeling heard

    In Chanakya’s terms, a king (or elected ruler) must uphold Dharma (just conduct), listen to truth even when unpleasant, and act with foresight.

    A sensitive government is not one that avoids using power—but one that uses it judiciously, proportionally, and accountably.

  • Is the Current Indian Government Aligned with Chanakya’s Philosophy and the Sensitivity of Good Governance?

    In the tapestry of Indian political thought, few figures loom as large as Chanakya (Kautilya), the ancient strategist and author of the Arthashastra. His philosophy of statecraft balances ruthlessness with responsibility, nationalism with ethics, and power with restraint. In today’s context, examining whether the current Indian government embodies Chanakya’s principles offers a compelling lens into the nature of governance and democratic sensitivity.

    Chanakya’s Vision of Ideal Governance

    Chanakya envisioned a ruler who:

    • Prioritized national security above all.
    • Encouraged economic self-sufficiency.
    • Practiced diplomacy with strength.
    • Valued institutional autonomy.
    • Exercised compassion and justice toward all citizens.
    • Listened to advisors and allowed dissent to prevent arrogance.

    Governance, according to Chanakya, was not merely about ruling effectively but ruling wisely and justly.

    Critical Analysis of Current Government

    1. National Security and Strategic Assertiveness

    Chanakya emphasized defending the kingdom through preparedness and strong alliances. The present government has shown:

    • Military assertiveness (e.g., Balakot strikes, Galwan response).
    • Strategic alliances like the Quad, reflecting a proactive Indo-Pacific strategy.
    • Intelligence modernization and internal security measures.

    These initiatives echo Chanakya’s realpolitik, where strength ensures sovereignty.

    2. Economic Self-Reliance

    Chanakya advised kings to develop internal economic strength to avoid foreign dependency. Today, India’s:

    • Atmanirbhar Bharat campaign.
    • Emphasis on Make in India.
    • Tech-driven reforms and startup ecosystem.
    • Focus on infrastructure and digital public goods.

    …all resonate with his call for economic autonomy.

    3. Handling of External Threats and Internal Subversion

    Chanakya proposed strict action against internal threats and foreign-backed conspiracies. The government’s action against organizations allegedly funded by adversarial nations (e.g., NewsClick) and anti-terror operations aligns with this Chanakyan principle.

    Concern should be given:

    1. Tolerance for Dissent and Democratic Institutions

    Chanakya warned against rulers ignoring criticism or becoming arrogant. Some critics argue:

    • Media freedoms and civil society space have narrowed.
    • Investigative agencies may appear to disproportionately target dissenting voices.
    • Public dissent is sometimes labeled as anti-national.

    Even if well-intentioned, this creates fear among democratic institutions, potentially stifling legitimate discourse.

    2. Institutional Autonomy and Accountability

    While India’s judiciary and Election Commission are constitutionally independent, concerns arise:

    • Over perceived executive influence.
    • Over use of investigative agencies during political cycles.

    Chanakya upheld justice as the cornerstone of governance. Visible autonomy ensures public trust.

    3. Equity and Inclusiveness

    Chanakya advocated for just treatment of all communities. While government schemes like Ujjwala, Ayushman Bharat, and Jan Dhan Yojana are inclusive by design, perceptions of alienation persist:

    • Around policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
    • During certain state-level crackdowns.

    These perceptions, even if not rooted in reality, call for sensitive outreach and clear communication to maintain national cohesion.

    4. Transparency and Electoral Reforms

    Transparency is a pillar of trust. Critics highlight:

    • Electoral bond opacity.
    • Amendments to RTI that reduce oversight.
    • Limited media questioning in formal press settings.

    Chanakya believed in clear communication and visible justice. Modern democracy demands visible transparency to uphold this ideal.

    Final Assessment: Chanakyan Governance in a Democratic Era

    The current Indian government reflects many core Chanakyan ideals:

    • Strategic foresight.
    • Economic revival.
    • National pride and internal discipline.

    But Chanakya also stressed humility, responsiveness to criticism, and visible justice. A sensitive government not only punishes the guilty but also protects the innocent from undue fear.

    In essence:

    Strong governance grounded in Chanakya’s vision is effective when paired with democratic empathy.

    India today needs both: strategic muscle and moral grace.

    Conclusion

    The current government mirrors Chanakya’s pragmatism and vision in many areas. Yet, to fully embody the spirit of sensitive and just governance, it must ensure:

    • Institutions remain visibly autonomous.
    • Criticism is heard, not crushed.
    • Justice is both done and seen to be done.

    Chanakya’s legacy lies in building a powerful yet benevolent state. A government that embodies this will not only command authority but also earn enduring respect.