India and France share a strong strategic partnership spanning defense, trade, and the Indo-Pacific region. Their collaboration in nuclear energy, space technology, and military cooperation highlights their commitment to global stability, economic growth, and technological advancement.
The digital age has reshaped communication, but it has also fueled online hate speech, state-sponsored trolling, and disinformation campaigns that undermine democracy and social cohesion. Governments manipulate narratives through digital propaganda, while social media amplifies extremism. Legal frameworks struggle to balance free speech with content regulation, as seen in Germany’s NetzDG and France’s Avia Law. Popular culture, from music to film, reflects these tensions—sometimes countering hate, other times normalizing it. Concerts, like Ariana Grande’s in Manchester, have even become targets of radical extremism. Addressing these issues requires accountability, regulation, and collective action to safeguard democratic values and global stability.
Explore India’s legislative, administrative, and military strategies in countering terrorism. This in-depth analysis covers key laws like UAPA, POTA, and TADA, intelligence measures, cross-border infiltration tactics, and technological advancements in anti-terror operations. Stay informed on India’s evolving fight against terrorism.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth and adopted by the United Nations in 2015 are essentially the blueprints for achieving or bringing about world peace, prosperity, and environmental sustainability. The specific focus of the 2030 Agenda, however, is to put such agreements into action, demanding international cooperation in several areas such as poverty and economic disparities, climate change, and governance.
While global partnerships under SDG 17 regarding mobilization of resources, requisite channels of knowledge exchange, and economic collaboration are really good, it makes use of very poor tools such as Official Development Assistance (ODA) and South-South cooperation that one can see their heads hanging low in terms of innovation and infrastructural development of poor countries. Not that they do not have the potential to take these facilities to greater heights; they have the potential, although cut down by the following factors: financial disparity, political instability, and governance inefficiency. WTO has a major role in the integration of trade policies with the SDG objectives, but this integration needs to be overhauled to meet future sustainability imperatives.
Though remarkable progress has been made in areas of poverty alleviation, education, and renewable energy, enormous challenges such as financing gaps, weak governance, and fragmented policy implementation persist. Strengthening institutional frameworks and participation and making promises stand up in the cash are all necessary for achieving the 2030 Agenda. This article, through various visions, evaluates whether or not the SDGs and its member institutions have led to effective global partnerships through institutional and financial mechanisms and policy frameworks.
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Prospects for a Two-State Solution Anmol Yadav, Nandini Singh & Divyasri S 1.Introduction By Anmol Yadav The Israel-Palestine conflict has been on-going for more than 100 years between Jews and Arabs over a piece of land between Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. Between 1882 to 1948 via the Aliyah’s movement, Jews from around the world gathered in Palestine. After World War 1, the Ottoman Empire fell, and the UK got control over Palestine which was inhabited by a Jewish minority and Arab majority. The Balfour Declaration was issued after Britain gained control with the aim of establishing a home for the Jews in Palestine. However, during that period, the Arabs were in majority in Palestine. Jews favored the idea while the Palestinians rejected it. Almost 6 million Jews lost their lives in the Holocaust which also ignited further demand of a separate Jewish state. Jews claimed Palestine to be their natural home while the Arabs too did not leave the land and claimed it with the international community supporting the Jews. In 1947, the UN voted for Palestine to be split into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem becoming an international city. That plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by the Arab side and never implemented. 2. Historical Background of the Conflict By Anmol Yadav In 1948 Britain lifted its control over the area and Jews declared the creation of Israel. Although Palestinians objected, Jews did not back out which led to an armed conflict. The neighbouring Arabs also invaded and were thrashed by the Israeli troops. This made thousands of Palestinians flee their homes. This was called Al-Nakba, or the “Catastrophe”. Israel had gained maximum control over the territory after this came to an end. Jordan then went on a war with Israel and seized control over a part of the land which was called the West Bank, and Egypt occupied Gaza. Jerusalem was divided between Israel in the West, and Jordan in the East. However, no formal peace agreement was signed, each side continued to blame each other for the tension and the region saw more wars. Israeli forces captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank, various areas of Syrian Golan Heights, Gaza and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula in the year 1967.Israel still occupies the West Bank, and although it pulled out of Gaza the UN still regards that piece of land as part of occupied territory. Israel claims the whole of Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The US is one of only a handful of countries to recognize Israel’s claim to the whole of the city. 3. TWO STATES SOLUTION The “two-state solution” refers to a proposed resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict that envisions the establishment of two separate and independent states, one for Israelis (Israel) and the other for Palestinians (Palestine), living side by side in peace and security. Hamas forcibly took control over the Gaza Strip in 2007. Shortly thereafter, the Israelis imposed a complete closure on Gaza’s borders. They declared Gaza to be an enemy entity. Of course, Gaza is not a state. Hamas, of course, is viewed by Israel and by much of the international community as a terrorist organization, including the United States, for their history of attacks on civilians and so forth. On June 24, the UN Secretary General António Guterres told a virtual meeting of the United Nations Security Council that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is at a “watershed moment”. The Israeli plans to annex parts of the West Bank have alarmed the Palestinians, many Israelis and the international community. Such annexation would be “a most serious violation of international law”. Under international law, annexation is forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another state. Such an act even if sanctified by Israeli law is illegal under international law and would violate the universally acknowledged principle of the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”. 4. Political and Diplomatic Efforts There have been various peace Efforts like the 1978: Camp David Accords – Israel-Egypt peace treaty, 1987-1993: First Intifada – Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories and Oslo Accords – Peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO, leading to limited Palestinian self-rule.2000s saw Second Intifada of Palestinian uprising with significant violence and Israel withdrawing from the Gaza Strip but maintaining control of its borders. Hamas won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and took control of the Gaza Strip in a violent conflict with Fatah.2008 to 2014 saw many war uprisings continuing to the dates. 5.Major Obstacles to a Two-State Solution By Nandini Singh 5.1. Territorial disputes The first proposal for separate Jewish and Arab states in the territory was made by the British Peel Commission report in 1937. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, leading to the1948 Palestine war. As a result, Israel was established on the area the UN had proposed for the Jewish state, as well as almost 60% of the area proposed for the Arab state. Israel took control of West Jerusalem, which was meant to be part of an international zone. Jordan took control of East Jerusalem and what became known as the West Bank, annexing it the following year. The territory which became the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt but never annexed. Since the 1967 Six-day War, both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip have been militarily occupied by Israel, becoming known as the Palestinian territories. 5.2. Security Concerns During the time of Oslo in the 1990s, a vast majority of Palestinians in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip clearly accepted Yasser Arafat and the PLO as their legitimate representatives. With Arafat’s death, the failure of the peace process until now, and the rise of Hamas, these problems have worsened. Hamas, despite and perhaps because of its role in perpetrating
Authors : Tanuj Samaddar, A R Sangeetha, Md. Rizwan, Ankush Kumar Within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a flagship undertaking of great significance throughout South Asia as a strategically significant regional, economic, and geopolitical undertaking. Wolf (2019) conceived the corridor between the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and the Gwadar Port in the Balochistan province of Pakistan via a sprawling network of roads, railways, energy initiatives, and special economic zones (SEZs). New Delhi sees CPEC as a significant security threat that violates India’s sovereignty, escalates border tensions, and redraws regional power disparities, even though Beijing touts it as a forerunner of economic revitalization and regional connectivity. (Pant and Joshi , 2017) Its passage through the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan territory, a region still a crucial part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and subject to territorial claim by India, is the main argument supporting India’s strategic concerns on CPEC. CPEC’s effects cover a more Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean Region, the militarization of economic corridors, and regional economic architecture realignment. Through the lenses of sovereignty, economic dependence, military tactics, and geopolitical reconfigurations, this research charts the complex security consequences of CPEC for India. This study seeks to provide a subtle view of the manifold security threats presented by CPEC and the corresponding countermeasures India uses to minimize its negative effects by combining a large amount of academic work. The sovereignty narrative surrounding the CPEC has caused intense unease among Indian policy and strategic circles. Pant and Joshi (2017) among others argue that the corridor’s crossing through Gilgit-Baltistan directly violates India’s territorial integrity, hence supporting Pakistan’s effective administrative authority over the area. Kumar (2019) adds that China’s infrastructure related spending in the area practically acknowledges Pakistan’s territorial claims, thereby worsening the legal and political deadlock over Kashmir. India’s strategic apprehensions are further accentuated by the potential encirclement effect precipitated by China’s economic corridors, collectively known as the ‘String of Pearls’ strategy (Brewster, 2018). The encirclement theory posits that Beijing’s financial statecraft is fundamentally tied to its larger geostrategic aims, where infrastructural investments act as channels for security leverage In addition, India’s positive outreach to regional actors—namely Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asian Republics—through infrastructural ventures like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is indicative of a move to offset Pakistan’s geoeconomic centrality in CPEC. The synergizing of Indo-Pacific alliances, more specifically through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), is an adjunct mechanism to counterbalance Chinese strategic gains (Jacob, 2020). Economic and Military Aspects of CPEC Influencing India’s National Security The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has fundamentally altered the economic landscape of South Asia, with notable implications for India’s national security. Pakistan’s increasing reliance on Chinese investments has spurred significant infrastructure development along India’s western border, raising fears of strategic encirclement. The corridor linking Gwadar Port to China’s Xinjiang province enhances Pakistan’s logistical capabilities, allowing for more efficient military mobilization (Pant,2018) . Chinese involvement in vital transport and energy projects in Pakistan challenges India’s trade networks, potentially diminishing India’s influence in South Asia (Small, 2020). Furthermore, as Pakistan grapples with a growing debt burden from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, this economic imbalance has become closer aligned with Chinese policies, thereby complicating India’s geopolitical position (Rana,2021). The military implications of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) present significant security concerns for India, especially given the increasing Chinese presence at Gwadar Port. Analysts indicate that what was initially intended as a trade hub may now serve dual military functions, potentially allowing China to station naval assets in the Arabian Sea (Singh, 2019). This development raises apprehensions about a possible Chinese-Pakistani naval partnership, which could undermine India’s maritime security. Moreover, CPEC traverses Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK), a region that India claims as its own. China’s investments in infrastructure, including highways and railways in POK, bolster Pakistan’s ability to mobilize forces along the Line of Control (LoC), heightening border tensions. Furthermore, reports suggest that Chinese-funded security deployments along the CPEC route have increased militarization in border areas, raising the likelihood of potential conflict scenarios (Sharma, 2022). The expanding military and economic partnership between China and Pakistan has prompted a more assertive Pakistani approach to border disputes, resulting in a rise in ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) (Malik, 2022). This corridor enhances China’s geo-economic influence, positioning it as a key South Asian player and marginalizing India’s role in the region. The potential for a two-front war scenario—where India could face simultaneous military threats from China to the north and Pakistan to the west—has become a significant concern for India’s defense strategists. Furthermore, China’s debt-trap diplomacy in Pakistan raises alarms about long-term geopolitical realignments, posing an additional threat to India’s strategic interests. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has significantly transformed India’s national security landscape, impacting economic sovereignty and military readiness. The corridor’s path through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) has exacerbated border conflicts, and Pakistan’s increasing economic dependence on China fortifies the Sino-Pak alliance, thereby challenging India’s position in the region. From a military perspective, the potential dual-use nature of Gwadar Port, alongside infrastructure that enhances Pakistan’s military mobility, heightens the risk of cross-border skirmishes. In response to these developments, India must bolster its border security, strengthen alliances with global partners, and seek to expand alternative trade routes, such as Chabahar Port. Addressing these complex challenges necessitates a comprehensive security strategy integrating diplomatic, economic, and military measures to protect India’s strategic interests. Impact of CPEC in Indo-Pak border In such a scenario, which is likely to be created by India’s concessions to Pakistan, the Indo-Pak border dimensions along with border dynamics would substantially change. Such considerations most certainly include the geographical base of Pakistan and India as an extension of these countries to Afghanistan as it brings the vast areas of Balochistan, Sindh, and the southern provinces of Afghanistan into geographical proximity to the western borders of northern India via scanty highlands and plateaus connecting these desert-based provinces.
The global refugee crisis has intensified due to conflicts, persecution, and climate change, challenging international legal frameworks designed to protect displaced individuals. Despite the existence of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, refugees often face restrictive immigration policies, xenophobia, and inadequate living conditions in host countries. The principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of refugee protection, is frequently undermined by national security concerns and political interests. This article explores the complexities of forced migration, international human rights laws, and the challenges of global responsibility-sharing, emphasizing the need for comprehensive policy reforms and stronger international cooperation to safeguard refugee rights.
INTRODUCTION Operation Neptune Spear was a pivotal military operation conducted by the United States on May 2, 2011, to eliminate Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Executed by the U.S. Navy SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU) under the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. Department of Defence, the raid took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was the result of years of intelligence gathering and strategic planning, culminating in a high-risk mission that ultimately led to bin Laden’s death. This paper examines the intelligence efforts, strategic execution, and geopolitical implications of Operation Neptune Spear, assessing its impact on U.S. national security and counterterrorism policies. Intelligence and Planning Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the CIA began collecting information on key individuals connected to or providing support to Bin Laden. THE FIRST CLUE Shortly after 9/11, the CIA began tracking individuals linked to bin Laden. A major early breakthrough came from a piece of luggage belonging to Mohammad Atta, the lead hijacker. The bag contained documents, hijacker instructions, and flight training manuals, confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement and bin Laden’s role. Intelligence efforts continued, with a CIA operative, Jalal, identifying bin Laden’s voice in transmissions from the Tora Bora Mountains, proving his continued influence. However, bin Laden evaded capture and resurfaced in Pakistan. (Washington Post), (CIA), (PBS). A MISTAKE Bin Laden relied on trusted couriers to maintain communication with Al-Qaeda. One, Ibrahim, made a fatal error on August 27, 2010, when he used a mobile phone in Peshawar, a city under CIA surveillance. This allowed the agency to track him to a suspicious compound in Abbottabad, which exhibited unusual security measures. The compound’s high walls, lack of digital communication, and residents’ habit of burning trash pointed to the presence of a high-value target. Surveillance identified a mysterious tall man, “The Pacer,” whose physical traits matched bin Laden’s. GREAT DISCOVERY Once the CIA identified Ibrahim’s location, they conducted further surveillance to assess the compound. The facility was situated in a highly secured area of Abbottabad, close to the Pakistan Military Academy. Several key factors indicated that the compound housed a high-value individual: Unlike other homes in the area, the compound had no telephone or internet connections, an unusual measure suggesting the need for secrecy. The residents burned their trash instead of disposing of it in the usual collection system, minimizing external exposure. A mysterious tall man, who never left the premises, was occasionally seen walking in the courtyard. Analysts referred to him as “The Pacer” due to his habitual pacing back and forth. His physical characteristics closely resembled those of bin Laden. After gathering substantial evidence, the CIA presented its findings to top U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama. While the intelligence was not 100% certain, the assessment strongly suggested that bin Laden was hiding in the Abbottabad compound. (bookshelf) Nail Into the coffin To further verify bin Laden’s presence in the compound, the CIA enlisted the help of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician. Dcotor Afridi was tasked with running a fake vaccination campaign in Abbottabad under the guise of administering hepatitis B vaccines. The objective of this covert operation was to collect DNA samples from individuals residing in the compound to confirm bin Laden’s identity. Dr. Afridi and his medical team visited the surrounding areas and attempted to gain access to the compound by offering free vaccinations. While the team was unable to directly obtain DNA from bin Laden or his immediate family, their efforts provided valuable intelligence on the residents and their movements. This reinforced the CIA’s confidence that bin Laden was indeed hiding inside the compound. (BBC) EXECUTION OF THE MISSION On the night of May 1, 2011, two stealth-modified Black Hawk helicopters carrying SEAL Team 6 with 24 officers departed from a U.S. base in Afghanistan and infiltrated Pakistani airspace undetected. Upon arrival at the compound, one of the helicopters experienced mechanical issues and crash-landed, though no personnel were injured. The SEALs quickly adjusted their strategy and proceeded with the mission. The team breached the compound and engaged in a brief firefight with bin Laden’s guards. Moving through the building, they encountered and neutralized several occupants before reaching the top floor, where Osama bin Laden was located. Bin Laden was shot and killed after resisting capture. His body was positively identified through facial recognition and DNA analysis. The SEALs collected valuable intelligence materials before exfiltrating the site. Due to the compromised helicopter, a backup aircraft was called in, and the damaged helicopter was destroyed to prevent technology from falling into foreign hands. Within 40 minutes of landing, the SEAL team successfully completed the operation and returned to Afghanistan. (Caravan) Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Hunt for Osama bin Laden Legal Considerations Under U.S. Law: In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) in 2001. This legislation empowered the President to employ “necessary and appropriate force” against entities responsible for the attacks. The Obama administration cited the AUMF as a legal basis for the operation against bin Laden. John Bellinger III, former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department asserted that the operation was a legitimate military action, stating that the assassination prohibition does not apply to killings in self-defence or during armed conflict. Under International Law: The incursion into Pakistani territory without prior consent sparked debates about sovereignty violations. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillian, emphasized the nation’s disapproval of such unilateral actions, highlighting concerns over sovereignty and adherence to international law. Conversely, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the operation as an act of national self-defence, aligning it with the U.S.’s inherent right to protect itself under international law. (Wikipedia) Scholars have also scrutinized the operation’s legality under international humanitarian law. Some argue that the absence of an active armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaeda at the time challenges the justification of bin
Cross-border terrorism poses a severe threat to India’s national security, affecting its sovereignty, economy, and social stability. The evolving nature of terrorism, from infiltration to hybrid warfare and cyberattacks, has made counterterrorism efforts more complex. India faces challenges from Pakistan-backed groups, insurgencies in the Northeast, and emerging threats like drone warfare. While diplomatic measures and international cooperation are crucial, addressing root causes such as ideological radicalization and socio-economic disparities is essential. A comprehensive approach integrating technology, security reforms, and global alliances is necessary to safeguard India’s democratic values and ensure long-term peace and stability.
India’s informal music plays a pivotal yet underrecognized role in the nation’s cultural and economic landscape. This paper highlights the potential of this sector as a tool for economic development and cultural diplomacy and provides policy recommendations with India’s neighbors and the Western nations with a large Indian diaspora population.
