The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Opinion/Commentary

  • Part 2 – Air India 171’s Final Transmissions point to FADEC cutting Fuel, Leading to Crash

    Part 2 – Air India 171’s Final Transmissions point to FADEC cutting Fuel, Leading to Crash

    This article (part 2 and final) and part 1, published earlier, are part of the investigative analysis by journalist Rachel Chitra on the Air India-171 crash in Ahmedabad last June.  The analysis is tentative, based on information the journalist accessed. The tentative analysis and likely conclusions are entirely those of the author and do not reflect in any way the position or views of the TPF  –  TPF Editorial Team.

     

    In the previous part 1, we discussed how core network degradation likely caused the failure of multiple components. Like “the one ring to rule them all” in The Lord of the Rings, the core network is the one system that connects some 22 flight-critical and 28 flight-non-critical systems, and yet it was flagged only “medium risk” thanks to Boeing certification for the 787.

    Now we piece together the final pieces of the jigsaw puzzle — the ACARS fault codes, core network failure, and the FADEC misinterpretation that likely triggered TCMA fuel cutoff mid-air. The moment the airplane’s digital system killed itself.

    By Rachel Chitra

    The morning, everything went dark

    On June 12, when Air India flight AI-171 started rolling at 1:37:37 PM IST and lifted off from Ahmedabad, no one had any reason to suspect anything was wrong. Mothers were settling children into their seats, flight attendants Lamnunthem Singson and Nganthoi Kongbrailatpam had secured the galley latches, and two experienced pilots, Captain Sumeet Sabharwal and First Officer Clive Kunders, guided the Boeing 787 to the runway for what should have been a routine afternoon flight to London.

    But disaster struck shortly after liftoff at 1:38:39 PM IST.

    Three seconds into takeoff at 1:38:42 IST, AI 171’s systems were screaming… “247450002 597…252490002 597…252390002 597…,” as per data from two independent sources.

    Strings of fault codes. Indicating that major systems, including flight control computers, were going down, taking dozens of subsystems and a bunch of sensors in their wake.

    Systems failing faster than pilots could run a checklist

    Three seconds into takeoff, when the pilots were trying to make sense of what was happening, the “Master caution” light would’ve flashed in their faces; directly in front of them on the glareshield panel.

    On the flight, warning display or EICAS (engine indicating and crew alerting system) amber messages should’ve started queuing faster than any human eye could read.

    Messages like “ELEC SYS,” “BUS ISLN,” “GEN OFF BUS”, “RAT DEPLOYED”, “SPOILERS”, “STAB TRIM,”…and then the loss of flight critical data….“AIR DATA SYS”  “ALT DISAGREE,” “MACH DISAGREE,” “CAS DISAGREE,” “CABIN ALT AUTO,” “PACK,” “ZONE TEMP” “DATA COM” “BAT DISCH.”

    But they likely didn’t. Because the plane’s fault reporting system itself had faulted.

    A stroke mid-sky: the cockpit blackout

    Then whole sections of the cockpit display would have frozen on their last readings as the computing and power backbone feeding EICAS collapsed — a sudden, system-wide blackout, like a stroke cutting off blood flow in the brain.

    Cockpit lights would’ve flickered.

    And EICAS’s prophecy would’ve turned true in two seconds when the pilots heard a sickening sound…. the sound of the left engine spooling down; and before the plane could yaw with the asymmetric thrust…the right engine winding down as well. And in the eerie silence filling the cockpit, they wouldn’t have been able to hear the loud, rackety sound of the Ram Air Turbine (RAM) spinning in the air.

    Computers Rebooted, Went to Ground Mode in the Sky

    But the RAM, the only working generator at that point on the plane, housed roughly 23 metres away from the cockpit in the 56.7 metre long body of the 787-8, would need a few more seconds to start generating hydraulic power and even more time to supply electrical power to feed critical flight instruments.

    Capt Sumeet and First Officer Clive wouldn’t have known, but the Flight Control Computers (FCC) likely had gone into reboot.

    And while rebooting, the logic deep inside the computers would have silently flipped to its fail-safe “ground mode,” before it started up, analysed and flipped back to “air mode.”

    Yet in the face of the most bizarre and unprecedented of circumstances.

    Two men still did their duty.

    Captain Sumeet. The man who took over the aircraft. Started APU. Attempted relight.

    And First Officer Clive, who ably assisted him, who ran checklists. Called ATC, who declared “Mayday.”

    Engines Dead at 625 Feet — Pilots Still Fought to Bring the Jet Back

    At that point, dual engine failure at a height of only 625 feet above sea level (minus Ahmedabad airport elevation of 190 feet) leaves a very narrow margin for relit attempts to have worked, even if they could have.

    But both pilots did try, even as the brutal reality of their situation must have hit them like a speeding truck.

    The AAIB report says the auxiliary power unit (APU) inlet door had started opening 17 seconds (1:38:54 IST) before the crash. And if it was opening, it could’ve only been the action of the pilots; only they would’ve switched on the auxiliary power, said flight engineers across airlines. Reason being the plane’s auto start logic would’ve been inhibited given the electric arc and the nature of some of the faults underway, which we discussed in part 1 of the investigation.

    If the hand on APU start was pilot’s — Suicide theory falls flat on its face

    And it’s not just flight engineers, even pilots say the same. “If they were faced with blank screens….at that point more than a memory item from a checklist, the immediate concern of the pilots would’ve been to get the plane’s power back on, and they’d have certainly turned on the APU,” says Sam Thomas, president, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

    Even though AAIB in its preliminary report seems to hint it was the system that triggered the APU with this line: “The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 1:38:54 IST, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic.”

    “But then if it turns out it was manual action; that the pilots were doing their best to save the plane, it doesn’t fit the whole pilot suicide theory, does it?” asks an Air India pilot.

    And here lies the crux of AI 171, where billions are at stake. If you could blame the pilots and not the plane; then more than 1,100 Dreamliners could continue to fly across the globe.

    When AI 171 spent more time on the runway than in air

    At 1:19:12 PM IST, AAIB reports that Air Traffic Control (ATC) queried if AI 171 required the full length of the runway. Pilot monitoring Captain Sumeet likely told ATC they needed the full length of Runway 23. Standard for a heavy, long-haul Dreamliner on a hot day.

    Sometime in that crucial minute between runway roll, takeoff and flight, at 1.38 PM IST, an ACARS code (163600003) shows that there seems to have been a problem with the left and right thrust reversers and their locking sensors, which are the devices that tell the jet’s engine computer FADEC whether the engine’s rear doors are properly sealed for forward thrust.

    AI 171’s 62-second roll: when the engine chose safety over speed

    If the thrust reverser doors aren’t fully sealed, hot exhaust air could leak forward into the engine’s intake, disrupting smooth airflow and causing the engine to lose power or stall. So, to ward against that, FADEC will limit thrust.

    Possibly a reason why AI 171 spent more time on the runway than in air. “It took 62 seconds on the runway. A clean takeoff roll should take only 40-42 seconds,” says Capt Amit Singh, the petitioner in the Air India case in the Supreme Court, and a commercial airline pilot.

    The difference isn’t trivial: it points to an airplane struggling to reach take-off speed.

    Acceleration on ground vs in air

    And this becomes clearer when one looks at the acceleration data. Aviation Herald editor and electronics engineer Simon Hradecky said, “The AAIB report states that between 08:08:35-42 UTC (1:38:35-42 PM IST) the aircraft accelerated from 155 to 180 knots IAS. That’s an acceleration of almost 4 knots a second in air versus acceleration of 2.6 knots a second on the ground.”

    Normally, as the plane’s nose begins rising at about 3° per second, lift increases, drag rises sharply, and the aircraft naturally stops accelerating the way it did on the runway. But AI 171 did the opposite. It shot up. Hradecky adds, “the aircraft will still accelerate at takeoff…however, at a much slower pace…in about the range of acceleration on the ground. Certainly not at nearly 4 knots a second.”

    Explaining further, he says, once the aircraft begins rotating at about 3° per second, induced drag should rise quickly, even while the aircraft is still on the ground. As the nose comes up and the lift vector tilts further backwards, that induced drag begins to grow and can exceed the drag the tyres were producing. At the same time, as the wings generate more lift, weight is progressively removed from the tyres, so tyre drag falls away until it becomes zero at unstick. But this reduction in tyre drag is replaced by increasing induced drag as lift builds.

    He adds that there is another reason acceleration should slow after liftoff. As the aircraft accelerates vertically into the climb, it needs more lift than just enough to balance its weight. A G-load of +1G would merely hold vertical speed constant; to increase climb rate, the aircraft needs more than that. But as lift increases, induced drag rises too, further limiting acceleration until the aircraft settles into a stable climb.

    So while an aircraft does continue to accelerate after becoming airborne, Hradecky says that under normal conditions, this is usually only at around one knot per second, so long as the pitch remains reasonably below the climb angle and the aircraft is still rotating at about 3 degrees per second. Only once the aircraft reaches that climb angle does airspeed stop increasing, with thrust and drag coming into balance.

    That is why, Hradecky says, an acceleration of 4 knots per second once airborne, especially sustained over seven seconds from 155 to 180 knots IAS, is unrealistic in normal operations. In his view, it indicates that almost immediately after liftoff, the crew were already dealing with an abnormal situation, and the pitch did not increase as per SOP; instead, the pitch angle was unusually low. This, he says, is also supported by the CCTV video, which appears to show a small pitch-down within a second after becoming airborne, after which the pitch does not increase again. Without being able to measure the pitch angle precisely from the CCTV footage, and with no such data published in the preliminary report, Hradecky estimates the aircraft may have been at around 9 degrees of pitch rather than the roughly 15 degrees that would be more normal.

    The aircraft accelerating faster after getting airborne than it did across the length of the runway is a telltale fingerprint of something holding the jet back; something like maybe the reversers (ACARS code 163600003), say, pilots and engineers. The AAIB report mentions the physical position of the reverser levers, “that they were bent but in the stowed position.” But AAIB doesn’t mention its digital position recorded in the black box or enhanced airborne flight recorders (EAFR).

    Seconds after liftoff, AI 171’s power grid collapse

    The aircraft lifted off at 1:38:39 PM IST, as per AAIB. With multiple electrical faults already unfolding, power transients were almost inevitable.

    Reverse-engineering the fault sequence, engineers say it’s likely the trigger for RAT deployment happened one second after liftoff at 1:38:40 PM IST. And RAT deployed two seconds later at 1:38:42 PM IST.

    In part 1, we discussed how a high-voltage inverter could’ve arced and struck the forward and aft avionics bays (ACARS codes 247450002, 252490002, 252390002, 247460002). Now, this would likely have resulted in a power loss and a reboot of all three flight control computers (FCCs) by 1:38:43 PM IST, four seconds into takeoff. And the possibility of all three flight control computers rebooting mid-air, the FAA warned about as early as 2016, as per a Seattle Times report. To ward off against the eventuality, the FAA recommends a 21-day power cycle. Air India did not respond to whether such a 21-day power cycle was performed by the airline’s maintenance staff or the maintenance arm, Air India Engineering Services Ltd (AIESL).

    A jet in the sky — with systems flipped to “on ground”

    So that second 1:38:43 PM IST, when all three flight control computers rebooted, nearly every flight parameter on the plane — Weight-on-Wheels, thrust reversers, flaps, spoilers, landing gear, stabiliser trim — would’ve gone to their fail-safe mode, which would be “on ground.” And a second or two later, the rebooted flight computers would’ve analysed data, realised the true position and gone back to “in air” mode.

    “Air-ground logic is based on several parameters, so not only WoW.  For example, thrust reversers and ground spoilers may only work when WoW is TRUE “on ground”, radio altitude is below a certain altitude, and wheel speed is not zero,” says Joe Jacobsen, a former aerospace engineer with Boeing and deputy director with Foundation for Aviation Safety. He adds, “The details differ for different aircraft models.”

    And now let’s see how that power loss and subsequent flight computer reboot would’ve affected each component on board. Let’s start with the landing gears.

    FO Cliver raised gear, power cut likely stopped it halfway

    If First Officer Clive had commanded gear “UP” at 1:38:42 PM IST, the gear would’ve started retracting, and then milliseconds into the command, it would’ve stopped had the plane faced a major power disruption. Given that the plane was already reporting operational errors in the hydraulic right pump (HYDIF Right) 15 minutes before takeoff at 1:23 IST. And the left hydraulic pump’s primary electrical path was R2, which would put it directly in the line of fire when the high-voltage inverter of the CMSC R2 line arced, as we discussed in part 1.

    Possible sequence of events:

    • The AAIB report notes that the landing gear lever was found in the “DOWN” position, but this refers to its physical state post-crash and post-fire. Not the blackbox or EAFR recording.
    • If three seconds into takeoff, First Officer Clive commanded the gear “UP,” EAFR will record the command.
    • And if three seconds into takeoff, there was a power disruption, EAFR will also record its after-effects. And the gear retraction stopping halfway.

    With logic flipped to ground: spoilers can deploy, reversers can arm

     At the fourth second into takeoff at 1:38:43 PM IST, if the flight control computers had rebooted its logic would’ve flipped to fail-safe mode, which is “on ground.”

    Now, if the systems think the plane is landing (“on ground”), the flat panels on the top surface of an aircraft’s wings, called the spoilers, will auto deploy. The intention is to create drag and disrupt the airflow so that the aircraft slows down safely and stays on the runway.

    In the air, spoilers are inhibited from deploying, as doing so would break the smooth airflow around the wings and cause the plane to stall. But on AI 171, spoilers likely auto-deployed because the flight computers rebooted and, for a second, went into “ground” mode.

    The Reverser–Spoiler Double Blow

    Remember the thrust reverser faults (1636000030) we discussed earlier that could have resulted in FADEC limiting thrust on the runway? Well, if the flight computers go from “in air” to “on ground,” then thrust reversers would go from “stowed” to “idle reverse.” At takeoff, engines direct airflow backwards to propel the aircraft forward. But if the thrust reversers were in “idle reverse”, they would redirect airflow in the opposite direction, providing a gentle braking effect, like when the plane needs to land and slow down on the runway.

    If both the spoilers and thrust reversers were deployed mid-air, even briefly, the aircraft would have faced an immediate loss of lift and forward thrust — a double blow that could stall the jet within seconds of take-off.

    The AAIB report says, “The reverser levers were bent but were in the ‘stowed’ position.” Engineers say this must be taken as proof of pilot integrity as their intentions, at least — going by AAIB’s photographs and words — were clearly for the reversers to stay “stowed.” They also note that the AAIB reports refer to the physical position of the reverser levers, not their digital position, as captured by the black box or EAFR.

     AAIB quotes EAFR—just not for the “on ground”-logic-systems

    Engineers say it must be noted that when the data supports a neutral interpretation, like with flap angle, airspeed, AAIB quotes the black box or EAFR. When the data would clarify whether the aircraft entered ground-mode before impact—nose pitch, landing gear, reverser levers, TO/GA, autothrottle—the report relies on describing their physical positions post-crash. “The digital capture for the very systems that determine ‘air’ versus ‘ground,’ for whether there was a stall, for whether the fly-by-wire automated jet went into manual mode — are all conspicuously absent,” says an engineer.

    The AAIB report also omits many crucial timestamps, such as when the first fuel cut-off occurred, when the relight attempts began, and when the engine fan speed reached idle. Timings that crucially can shed light on the behaviour of the engine computers or FADECs, more than AAIB’s words, which are vague.

    AAIB report on FADEC behaviour on AI 171

    “When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is in flight, each engine’s full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction,” says the AAIB.

    FADEC is the plane’s full authority digital engine control. But AAIB refers to it as “full authority dual engine control” on page 15 of its report. Lawyers say this mistake — saying “dual” for “digital” and other wordings — in a sentence talking about how FADEC managed a “relight and thrust recovery sequence” could give AAIB “plausible deniability” if tomorrow it came to light that FADEC’s behaviour was different on AI 171.

    In that paragraph, the report describes events such as fuel switches moving back to “RUN” and the APU inlet door opening, with precise timestamps from EAFR. And then…” it does sound as if the AAIB report is referencing how the FADEC procedure should work rather than explaining exactly what did happen on 171…underscoring the need for an independent evaluation of the actual FDR and any ACARS data to understand what was actually occurring with the automated systems,” says US attorney Michael Andrews, who is representing the families of the victims from the AI 171 crash.

    When automation can pull the plug

    So what did the engine computer FADEC really do on that plane? According to Boeing training manuals, if the plane switches to “on ground” logic in the air, the engine computers’ FADEC can initiate a fuel cutoff. If the conditions for something obtuse, called TCMA or thrust control malfunction accommodation, were met.

    What is this TCMA? And why did Boeing design it?

    Few phases of flight are as critical as takeoff, when both engines are at full power, and the aircraft is still on the ground. In this phase, there’s almost no time or room to correct an error before the plane hits the aircraft perimeter wall, nearby buildings, or other planes.

    TCMA: FADEC’s Watchdog

    To prevent accidents on the ground, Boeing and its subcontractors GE Aerospace and Safran designed TCMA — a protection circuit and software logic — for FADEC to prevent dangerous thrust.

    When it comes to the question of how much engine power to command, passengers would be surprised to learn it isn’t the pilots but FADEC that calls the shots. Engine computer FADEC continuously compares the pilot’s commanded thrust with the engine’s actual output and calculates whether the thrust is accelerating or decelerating as expected. If the system detects that the thrust is inconsistent with the commands, the FADEC interprets this as a thrust control malfunction. In that case, it automatically shuts off fuel to the engine.

    1:38:44 PM IST: Second AI 171 Likely Entered TCMA Kill Zone

    As per TCMA patent documents and Boeing literature, for a TCMA event, all of the following conditions must be true:

    • Airplane is on the ground
    • Airspeed is less than 200 knots
    • Altitude is less than 17,500 feet
    • Selected N1 (engine fan speed) is more than the TCMA threshold

    And in AI 171’s case, at 1:38:44 PM IST, four of these conditions were likely met.

    • Airplane is on the ground = Flight computers rebooted, logic went to “on ground”
    • Airspeed is less than 200 knots
    • Altitude is less than 17,500 feet = maximum altitude reached was around 435 feet, going by ADS-B transponder data minus Ahmedabad airport elevation
    • Selected engine fan speed (N1) is more than the threshold = possible given the takeoff thrust

    So how did FADEC see TCMA engine’s actual fan speed (N1) as incompatible with the commanded takeoff thrust? Why did it sense danger?

    On data recorded in the black box, AAIB says, “EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained forward (takeoff thrust) until the impact.”

    AAIB’s statement is actually proof of pilots’ integrity, say engineers, “as it shows pilots’ intention – that they kept the thrust in forward from takeoff to crash.” Engineers also say AAIB’s statement that throttles were in “forward”, along with GE documents, can point to a different story.

    Inside the Boolean Gating Trap: FADEC’s Blind Spot

    Older GE engines had a logic condition (Boolean gating) of “AND.” Meaning throttles “AND” thrust reversers have to be in “idle” for TCMA activation. But pilots found that inconvenient, as for certain ground manoeuvres during taxiing and initial rollouts, they keep the thrust levers in forward and the reverser levers in idle.

    So, for newer GEnx engines developed by GE Aerospace in partnership with Safran, the logic condition was changed from “AND” to “OR,” according to sources at GE and Air India. Meaning either throttle “OR” thrust reversers can be in “idle” for TCMA to activate if FADEC feels thrust is not proportional to airspeed.

    And on AI 171, we do know that there was both a thrust reverser fault (163600003) and flight control computers likely rebooted; and thrust reverser status could’ve gone to fail-safe mode of “idle reverse.”

    So then AI 171 had throttles in forward and thrust reversers, likely in “idle reverse”, so some TCMA conditions were met. But TCMA would also require engine speed (N1) to be disproportionate to airspeed data. So what was happening on AI 171 that caused FADEC to believe the engine thrust was dangerously high?

    Airspeed data failure on AI 171

    The whole series of ACARS codes accessed and sent to Boeing was topped off with “EM12R0.” EM12R0 indicates a disagreement in airspeed data. Now, on an average day with 1,100 Dreamliners in the sky, nearly 80-100 Dreamliners can fly with this code with no harm, as it just indicates one of the channels for air speed calculation disagreed with another. But on AI 171, it could’ve proved disastrous given some of the other failures underway.

    EM12R0 indicates engine monitoring (EM) on channel 12; i.e., the total air temperature (TAT) probe fell to zero (R=0), meaning its inputs were no longer considered valid. This brings us then to the question of whether FADEC got calibrated airspeed (CAS) on AI 171? Was a failure to get CAS the reason for the whole series of failures, topped off by “EM12R0”?

    True airspeed: Lion Air 610 crash investigation vs AAIB report

    In crash investigations such as Air France 447 and Lion Air 610, authorities published the IAS (indicated airspeed), CAS (calibrated airspeed), and TAS (true airspeed). In contrast, the AAIB report in every reference to airspeed only mentions IAS: “take-off decision speed V1 153 kts IAS…maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS.”

    Now, one mystery in AAIB’s discussion of indicated airspeed (IAS) is: what was the engine computer FADEC getting? Because FADEC does not accept a raw value like IAS. It only accepts calculated values like CAS and Mach, which represent the aircraft’s speed relative to sound. While IAS requires only pitot tubes to be operational, calculated values like CAS and Mach require additional components, such as the total air temperature probe (TAT), to be operational as well.

    Now, before roll, the engine computer FADEC needs valid feeds, including calibrated airspeed (CAS), to set thrust. So at 1:37:35 PM IST — two seconds before roll — FADEC has to have a valid CAS from the flight computers via the core network for it to set thrust.

    At this point, the system is not dependent on the TAT probes, but on an inlet cabin temperature probe. This is because the external TAT probe is an aspirated probe, meaning it needs airflow – the plane doesn’t start using it till it crosses 50 knots.

    Frozen Airspeed: FADEC voting logic, the pathway to TCMA Activation

    At about 1:37:56 UTC, the aircraft crossed 50 knots. And that’s when AI 171 must have switched to using its external TAT probe.

    FADEC in normal mode will not accept a single feed for airspeed data, in case it’s false or invalid. FADEC will use voting logic for airspeed data. It will vote on multiple feeds and accept only if two or more readings are consistent.

    FADEC takes calibrated airspeed (CAS) data from multiple feeds (internal T12 TAT probe + FCM L + FCM R + FCM C). Only if two or more feeds are consistent will it accept their value. If not, then FADEC will latch onto “last known good value.”

    So, for calibrated airspeed (CAS), FADEC might have latched on to “last known good value” of around 176 knots at 1:38:41 PM IST, or 50 knots at 1:37:56 PM IST. With the first timestamp being, if we assume flight computers lost TAT readings only after a power disruption caused by an electric arc. And the second timestamp, if we assume flight computers lost TAT readings at the handover point on roll, when the system stopped using the cabin probe and switched to external TAT once the plane crossed 50 knots.

    Triple Redundancy on Paper—TAT A Single-Point Failure in Reality

    Now the normal assumption would be that each flight computer has its own TAT probe, so that each of the three flight computers has its own data source, i.e., three TAT probes. The 787 has three pitot tubes and two angle-of-attack sensors.

    But in reality, the 787 has mapped all its three flight computers to the same single external TAT probe. So even though the 787 looks like it has triple redundancy for airspeed data on paper. In reality, each FADEC obtains its airspeed data from its own internal TAT and the three flight computers (FCM L, FCM R, and FCM C).

    But if all three flight computers reboot at the same time or the TAT probe failed earlier, FADEC will latch onto the last known good calibrated airspeed (CAS) value, which could have been 176 knots or 50 knots. When FADEC’s own internal TAT probe (T12) showed the correct reading of the plane as it accelerated to 187–191 knots IAS at 1:38:43 PM IST, four seconds after liftoff, FADEC will assume its own probe is wrong, generating the ACARS error code “EM12R0.”

    A likely catastrophic logic error by FADEC, leading to the death of 260 people.

    The last few seconds on AI 171

    No altitude. No thrust. No starter power. Capt Sumeet would’ve sensed this reality as early as the 15-16th second into liftoff.

    As he was toggling the fuel switches back to RUN for a relight attempt, he’d have known the truth. The plane couldn’t be saved.

    But he and First Officer Kunders still did their best.

    Capt Sumeet attempted a relight. Started the APU.

    First Officer Clive communicated with ATC. Called out “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY” at 1:39:05 PM IST.

    The pilots likely never even received the “Pull up, Pull up” terrain warnings.

    Against the deafening silence of blacked-out systems, the only sounds Capt Sumeet and First Officer Clive would’ve heard were passenger screams and ATC’s responses — as the ground closed in on them.

    (Disclaimer: The AAIB has not yet released its final report on the AI-171 crash. All the technical scenarios presented here are based on preliminary information and evidence submitted to India’s Parliament and Supreme Court, and remain hypotheses. Also, the ACARS codes mentioned in the story are not a direct map to maintenance faults listed in Boeing’s Fault Isolation Manual, since maintenance faults are 7-8-digit strings. The 9-digit ACARS string is only partially recognisable to engineers as it is Boeing’s proprietary code. For this story on conditions of anonymity, we have spoken to pilots plus flight and design engineers for airlines and Boeing in India, Europe and the US; and for details on actuators, sensors, structural engineering, logic paths to IT, mechanical, electrical and electronics engineers from India who are Boeing subcontractors)

     

    Feature Image: www.livelaw.in

     

  • Jeffrey D. Sachs: Briefing of the UN Security Council on Venezuela

    Jeffrey D. Sachs: Briefing of the UN Security Council on Venezuela

    Jeffrey D. Sachs: Briefing of the UN Security Council on Venezuela
    January 5, 2026

     

    Mr. President,
    Distinguished Members of the Security Council,

    The issue before the Council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela.

    The issue is whether any Member State—by force, coercion, or economic strangulation—has the right to determine Venezuela’s political future or to exercise control over its affairs.

    This question goes directly to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

    The Council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned.

    Abandoning it would carry consequences of the gravest kind.

    Background and context

    Since 1947,United States foreign policy has repeatedly employed force, covert action, and political manipulation to bring about regime change in other countries. This is a matter of carefully documented historical record. In her book Covert Regime Change (2018), political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documents 70 attempted US regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989 alone.

    These practices did not end with the Cold War. Since 1989, major United States regime-change operations undertaken without authorization by the Security Council have included, among the most consequential: Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (from 2011), Honduras (2009), Ukraine (2014), and Venezuela (from 2002 onward).

    The methods employed are well established and well documented. They include open warfare; covert intelligence operations; instigation of unrest; support for armed groups; manipulation of mass and social media; bribery of military and civilian officials; targeted assassinations; false-flag operations; and economic warfare aimed at collapsing civilian life.

    These measures are illegal under the UN Charter, and they typically result is ongoing violence, lethal conflict, political instability, and deep suffering of the civilian population.

    The case of Venezuela

    The recent United States record with respect to Venezuela is clear.

    In April 2002, the United States knew of and approved an attempted coup against the Venezuelan government.

    In the 2010s, the United States funded civil society groups actively engaged in anti-government protests, notably in 2014. When the government cracked down on the protests, the US followed with a series of sanctions. In 2015, President Barrack Obama declared Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

    In 2017, at a dinner with Latin American leaders on the margins of the UN General Assembly, President Trump openly discussed the option of the US invading Venezuela to overthrow the government.

    During 2017 to 2020, the US imposed sweeping sanctions on the state oil company. Oil production fell by 75 percent from 2016 to 2020, and real GDP per capita (PPP) declined by 62 percent.

    The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted overwhelmingly against such unilateral coercive measures. Under international law, only the Security Council has the authority to impose such sanctions.

    On 23 January 2019, the United States unilaterally recognized Juan Guaidó as “interim president” of Venezuela and on 28 January 2019 froze approximately $7 billion of Venezuelan sovereign assets held abroad and gave Guaidó authority over certain assets.

    These actions form part of a continuous United States regime-change effort spanning more than two decades.

    Recent United States global escalation

    In the past year, the United States has carried out bombing operations in seven countries, none of which were authorized by the Security Council and none of which were undertaken in lawful self-defense under the Charter. The targeted countries include Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and now Venezuela.

    In the past month, President Trump has issued direct threats against at least six UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and of course Venezuela. These threats are summarized in Annex I to this statement.

    What is at stake today

    Members of the Council are not called upon to judge Nicolás Maduro.

    They are not called upon to assess whether the recent United States attack and ongoing naval quarantine of Venezuela result in freedom or in subjugation.

    Members of the Council are called upon to defend international law, and specifically the United Nations Charter.

    The realist school of international relations, articulated most brilliantly by John Mearsheimer, accurately describes the condition of international anarchy as “the tragedy of great power politics.” Realism is therefore a description of geopolitics, not a solution for peace. Its own conclusion is that international anarchy leads to tragedy.

    In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations was created to end the tragedy through the application of international law. Yet the world’s leading nations failed to defend international law in the 1930s, leading to renewed global war.

    The United Nations emerged from that catastrophe as humanity’s second great effort to place international law above anarchy. In the words of the Charter, the UN was created “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

    Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated. Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance.

    Measures required of the Security Council

    To fulfill its responsibilities under the Charter, the Security Council should immediately affirm the following actions:

    1. The United States shall immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela.
    2. The United States shall terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken in the absence of authorization by the Security Council.
    3. The United States shall immediately withdraw its military forces from within and along the perimeter of Venezuela, including intelligence, naval, air, and other forward-deployed assets positioned for coercive purposes.
    4. Venezuela shall adhere to the UN Charter and to the human rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    5. The Secretary-General shall immediately appoint a Special Envoy, mandated to engage relevant Venezuelan and international stakeholders and to report back to the Security Council within fourteen days with recommendations consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Security Council shall remain urgently seized of this matter.
    6. All Member States shall refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the Security Council, in strict conformity with the Charter.

    In Closing

    Mr. President, Distinguished Members,

    Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance.

    That is the choice before this Council today.

    Thank you.

     

    Courtesy: commondreams.org

  • India’s Shadow Wars: Challenges of Chronic Disputes and Insurgencies

    India’s Shadow Wars: Challenges of Chronic Disputes and Insurgencies

    Abstract

    This article contends that insurgencies in India tend to be protracted and are often hard to resolve definitively. They are characterised as “shadow wars” involving asymmetrical tactics, blurred distinctions between combatants and civilians, and an ongoing struggle for legitimacy and control. In this article, the adaptability of insurgent organisations, deep-rooted socio-political and economic disputes, and the limitations of traditional counterinsurgency methods in the Indian context are identified as key factors contributing to the persistence of these conflicts. To effectively address these issues and foster sustainable conflict resolution, it is essential to tackle their root causes and long-term impacts on India’s internal security, governance, and development.

    It is crucial to analyse the nature of India’s ongoing and persistent insurgencies, paying attention to the interplay between asymmetric warfare, socioeconomic grievances, and the effectiveness of counterinsurgency strategies.

    Key words:

    Shadow war, chronic, strategic, insurgency,

    India’s Shadow Wars: The Chronic Challenge of Internal Disputes

    Many highlight a fundamental and complex issue. India’s internal security landscape is marked by ongoing “shadow wars,” driven by several interconnected factors. In these asymmetric conflicts, the distinction between civilians and combatants blurs, creating a challenge that non-state actors often exploit by blending into local populations. At the same time, long-standing economic inequality, social injustice, and political marginalisation serve as breeding grounds for unrest, providing a continuous influx of recruits and supporters for insurgent groups. Developing effective counterinsurgency tactics demands a deep understanding of the complex interactions among these factors.

     The Connection between the Blurring of Civilian-Combatant Lines and Asymmetric Warfare

    Ongoing domestic insurgencies are characterised by the interaction of asymmetric warfare and the blurring of civilian-combatant boundaries. When confronted with the Indian state’s overwhelming conventional military strength, insurgent organisations deliberately adopt asymmetric tactics. These include targeted killings to instil terror and undermine the state’s authority, the deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to attack security personnel, and guerrilla ambushes in challenging terrain, such as the mountains of Kashmir and the Northeast or the forests of Chhattisgarh. These strategies aim to minimise direct engagement where they would be at a disadvantage while maximising their impact. An important aspect of this asymmetric approach is the extensive infiltration of rebels into civilian communities, which is often driven by various factors. It arises from genuine local support rooted in a sense of marginalisation and historical grievances. Strong tribal ties, for example, sometimes provide rebels with local sympathy and logistical assistance in the Northeast. In other cases, where villages are compelled to provide food, shelter, or intelligence, coercion and intimidation become essential.

     

    Furthermore, security forces find it challenging to conduct successful operations without risking civilian casualties, as operating within residential areas provides strategic cover. By operating in plain clothes and reintegrating into society following operations, insurgents often intentionally blur boundaries. This ambiguity hampers counterinsurgency efforts (Winter, 2011). The main challenge lies in accurately distinguishing between fighters and non-combatants. Indirect damage poses a significant threat to security operations, making intelligence gathering extremely difficult. Even unforeseen civilian casualties can deepen local discontent and alienation, potentially prompting more people to support the rebels. This leads to an endless cycle where harsh security measures aimed at ending the insurgency unintentionally exacerbate the problem by eroding trust and increasing local grievances. Traditional military tactics, emphasising direct conflict and large-scale operations, may fall short against foes that are deeply rooted and adaptable. A more sophisticated approach is needed—one that goes beyond military strength—requiring accurate intelligence, efforts to secure local cooperation, and tactics designed to minimise civilian harm. The persistent nature of India’s internal insurgencies mainly stems from the inability to effectively manage this complex interaction, which hampers long-term peace and stability by perpetuating cycles of violence and mistrust.

    Enduring economic, social, and political grievances as catalysts

    Long-standing sociopolitical and economic grievances significantly fuel internal insurgencies. A sense of isolation and alienation has been brought about by historical marginalisation, primarily affecting ethnic and tribal groups. Mining for resources and development projects have forced many tribal communities to flee their homelands, sometimes without appropriate compensation. This has led to hostility and the loss of traditional livelihoods. Insurgent groups exploit the narrative of the oppressed, driven by this historical injustice, to recruit new members. The inadequate political representation of certain communities further deepens these grievances. When groups believe their voices are not heard within the democratic system and that the state ignores their specific demands and concerns, feelings of helplessness may grow, and they may resort to more extreme methods for redress. For instance, a perceived lack of political agency and responsiveness by the central government often sparks calls for increased autonomy or even independence in various regions. Inequalities in development and economic status across India’s many regions are also significant. Areas affected by insurgency tend to have poor development outcomes and lag in employment, healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This uneven development fosters a sense of injustice, giving people a tangible reason to complain about ineffective or poor governance. Disadvantaged young people seeking purpose or financial stability may find insurgent groups appealing due to limited viable economic options. Security measures alone cannot resolve these complex, longstanding issues. Despite continuous counterinsurgency efforts, insurgencies may endure for decades because of the deeply rooted nature of these grievances. Addressing these underlying causes requires equitable development policies targeting underserved regions, inclusive governance that guarantees representation and participation for all communities, and a commitment to social justice that redresses historical wrongs and counters ongoing bias. Since the core causes of conflict persist, enduring peace cannot be achieved without these comprehensive, multifaceted strategies (Staniland, 2013).

    The Efficacy and Obstacles of Counterinsurgency Strategies:

    India has effectively contained violence in certain areas through its counterinsurgency methods, which often depend heavily on military and paramilitary forces. However, a solely kinetic approach has struggled to achieve lasting peace. Traditional military superiority is often insufficient due to the challenges of operating in complex terrains and among civilian populations, as well as the rebels’ asymmetric tactics. The “hearts and minds’ strategy, aimed at gaining local support through good governance and development initiatives, has yielded mixed results. These programmes are often impeded by corruption, flawed implementation, and a disconnect between policy and reality on the ground.

    Furthermore, any benefits of development efforts may be undermined by strict security measures that alienate the population. Given its importance, political discourse is often irregular and uneven. Meaningful discussions are impeded by internal divisions within insurgent organisations and by a lack of trust between the state and rebel factions. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), a legal and administrative framework designed to grant security forces operational freedom, has also faced criticism for suspected human rights abuses, further alienating local people and possibly escalating hostility. India’s ongoing insurgencies highlight the drawbacks of relying solely on fragmented or military-focused counterinsurgency tactics. A comprehensive strategy that combines security measures with genuine political participation, equitable and long-term development, and a commitment to addressing the underlying socio-political and economic grievances that sustain these conflicts is essential to achieve lasting peace (Rajagopalan, 2007).

    Conclusion:

    Addressing India’s ongoing internal conflicts requires an integrated approach that goes beyond mere security interventions. While managing existing conflicts involves effective counterinsurgency strategies, long-term stability relies on proactively addressing the root causes of unrest. This includes ensuring fair political participation, promoting social justice, and fostering inclusive economic growth. To truly heal divisions and achieve lasting peace, ending these “shadow wars” ultimately demands a comprehensive strategy that combines security efforts with broad socioeconomic and political reforms.

    References:

    Rajagopalan, R. (2007). Force and Compromise: India’s Counterinsurgency Grand Strategy. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 75-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400701264035

    Staniland, P. (2013). Insurgencies In India. In Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics (p. 11). Routledge.

    Winter, Y. (2011, September). The asymmetric war discourse and its moral economies: a critique. International Theory, 3(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971911000145

     

    Feature Image Credit: thekootneeti.in

  • Navigating Geopolitical Turbulence in a Fragmented International System

    Navigating Geopolitical Turbulence in a Fragmented International System

    The old world order is not returning; the international system is structurally transforming into a fragmented multipolar reality. In this age of disorder, flexible institutions and reformist leadership—exemplified by India—are essential to sustain global governance.

    The 56th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting took place in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, from January 19 to 23, 2026, under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.” The forum brought together global political, business, and intellectual leaders at a moment when the international order is not merely under strain but undergoing a deeper structural transformation. Discussions at Davos underscored a shared recognition that dialogue in today’s fractured global environment is not a sentimental ideal but a strategic necessity—particularly amid intensifying geopolitical competition, accelerating technological disruption, economic fragmentation, and the growing limitations of established institutional frameworks. Significantly, the conversations reflected a broader shift in global thinking, moving away from nostalgia for a stable post–Cold War order toward an urgent search for more flexible and adaptive forms of global governance capable of managing uncertainty, fragmentation, and persistent conflict.

    The contemporary international system is undergoing an unprecedented degree of geopolitical turbulence. Institutions such as the United Nations and other global governance mechanisms—established in the aftermath of the Second World War—were designed to manage conflict and promote cooperation within the structural realities of that era. Today, however, the assumptions underpinning these institutions no longer align with prevailing geopolitical conditions, rendering many of them increasingly ineffective and disconnected from contemporary realities. This growing institutional disconnect is inseparable from deeper structural changes in the global system itself. As Zack Cooper, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, notes in his Stimson Center essay “An American Strategy for a Multipolar World”, “a multipolar world is now unavoidable, with legacy powers increasingly accompanied by a number of rising powers… this is a much more complex system than the multipolar dynamic that existed in Europe after the Congress of Vienna… today’s multipolar system is highly fragmented along regional and functional lines.” This observation captures the core challenge of the present international system: it is not merely shifting in power distribution, but fundamentally transforming in structure and complexity.

    From Bipolarity to Fragmentation

    The post–Second World War order was shaped initially by Cold War bipolarity and later by a brief unipolar moment following the end of the Cold War. In contrast, the current system is marked by fragmentation, instability, and a gradual transition toward multipolarity. Historically, periods of power transition—particularly multipolar configurations—have been associated with heightened uncertainty, miscalculation, and conflict. The present environment reflects this pattern, as competing power centres and overlapping crises push the international system toward persistent volatility.

    In this volatile context, states are increasingly adopting hedging strategies to manage risks and vulnerabilities. From Europe to Asia and beyond, countries are diversifying partnerships, avoiding rigid alignments, and seeking strategic flexibility. This behaviour is neither anomalous nor irrational; rather, it is a structural response to systemic uncertainty. Such adaptive behaviour, however, is itself a symptom of deeper structural instability in the international system.

    As many scholars, most notably Kenneth Waltz, have long argued, an emerging multipolar order tends to be among the most unstable configurations in international politics, marked by heightened risks of conflict, miscalculation, and escalation. With multiple powers competing simultaneously and no clear hegemon capable of stabilising the system, the international order becomes increasingly fragile and prone to error. The contemporary system appears to be operating on this edge, shaped by overlapping crises and rival power centres.

    Compounding this instability is the rapid emergence of critical and disruptive technologies, advanced weapons platforms, cyber capabilities, and artificial intelligence. These developments further intensify volatility by lowering barriers to conflict, accelerating escalation dynamics, and complicating traditional deterrence frameworks. International experts at a 2025 conference warned that such technologies are “eroding present deterrence frameworks” and could destabilise the global security order without a global regulatory consensus. Similarly, the World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025 notes that “cybersecurity is entering an era of unprecedented complexity,” as the rapid adoption of AI without adequate safeguards creates far-reaching security risks requiring multilateral cooperation.

    While some observers attribute current turbulence primarily to political leaders such as Donald Trump, this interpretation is overly simplistic. Trump’s policies may have accelerated existing trends, but they are not the root cause. The deeper drivers lie in structural shifts within the international system and in long-term transformations within American domestic politics that have altered the foundations of US global engagement.

    Davos and the Recognition of a New World Order

    These concerns have been openly acknowledged by global leaders at the World Economic Forum. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, speaking at Davos, argued that “the old world order is not coming back,” cautioning against nostalgia-driven policymaking and warning that the global system is undergoing a rupture rather than a smooth transition. He further observed that economic interdependence has increasingly been weaponised and warned middle powers that “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Such remarks reflect a growing recognition that disorder, competition, and power asymmetries are now embedded features of the international system.

    Similarly, World Economic Forum President Børge Brende highlighted the depth of uncertainty confronting the global order, noting that “the political, geopolitical, and macroeconomic landscape is shifting under our feet.” Emphasising the limits of unilateralism and rigid frameworks, Brende stressed that “dialogue is a necessity, not a luxury,” reinforcing the idea that cooperation must persist even in an era of fragmentation. These statements underline a critical point: the challenge today is not the absence of institutions, but their inability to adapt to changing geopolitical realities.

    French President Emmanuel Macron further reinforced this diagnosis at Davos by warning of a “shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot and where the law of the strongest prevails.” His remarks underscore the erosion of the post–Second World War multilateral framework under the pressure of returning imperial ambitions, coercive diplomacy, and unilateral action. Macron’s warning reflects a broader concern that global politics is increasingly shaped by power rather than norms. At the same time, he rejected intimidation as an organising principle of international relations, stating that “we prefer respect to bullies,” and called for effective multilateralism—one that is reformed and updated rather than dismantled.

    Reforming Global Governance for an Age of Disorder

    Against this backdrop, the central question is how states can navigate such geopolitical turbulence. A rigid, blueprint-based institutional approach—reminiscent of Cold War–era frameworks—is no longer viable. What is required instead are flexible, adaptive institutions capable of absorbing shocks, accommodating diverse interests, and operating under conditions of persistent uncertainty. Since traditional multilateralism is increasingly strained, it is essential to recognise that disorder itself is likely to remain a defining feature of the contemporary international system.

    Any effort to design or reform institutions must therefore begin with this recognition. Fragmentation and regionalisation—particularly through minilateral and issue-based coalitions—are inevitable outcomes of a multipolar environment. However, this does not eliminate the need for global cooperation. Rather, it demands cooperation frameworks that are flexible, inclusive, and responsive to evolving geopolitical realities. Institutions must be capable of adapting to shifting power balances rather than attempting to impose outdated structures on a transformed system. In these tough times, the world requires greater cooperation and coordinated action, because the challenges we face—such as climate change, cyber threats, economic instability, and regional conflicts—are global in nature and cannot be solved through isolated national approaches.

    Another limitation in current thinking is the tendency to interpret global politics solely through the lens of US–China rivalry. While great power competition undeniably shapes the international environment, such a narrow focus underestimates the agency of middle and regional powers. Many states actively shape outcomes, norms, and institutions rather than merely reacting to great power pressures. Effective institutional design must therefore reflect this distributed agency and avoid reducing global politics to a binary rivalry.

    Equally important is the need to move beyond linear and deterministic thinking. The contemporary world is characterised by non-linear dynamics, uncertainty, and complex interactions. Predicting the future exclusively through the lens of past patterns—particularly those rooted in liberal or Cold War assumptions—is increasingly misleading. Institutional responses must be grounded in realism, flexibility, and adaptability rather than static or idealised models of order.

    Recent initiatives such as Donald Trump’s proposal for a “Board of Peace,” driven largely by personal leadership and transactional logic, illustrate the limitations of personality-centric approaches to global governance. Given their temporary nature and the likelihood of reversal under future administrations, such initiatives lack durability. Moreover, such proposals are often unrepresentative and do not reflect the realities of the international system; they are based on authoritarian-style solutions rather than broad-based legitimacy, consensus, and institutional resilience. In contrast, reforming existing institutions—particularly the United Nations—offers a more sustainable path forward. Reforms that reflect contemporary geopolitical realities would enhance the UN’s relevance without undermining its foundational principles.

    India’s Reformist Approach to Global Governance

    India’s approach to global governance is particularly instructive in this context. When India criticises the United Nations or other global institutions, its objective is not to dismantle them but to reform them. This distinguishes India from countries such as China and Russia, which often seek to replace existing structures with alternative, and frequently anti-Western, institutional arrangements. India positions itself not as an anti-Western power, but as a non-Western one—committed to liberal democracy, pluralism, and engagement with existing global frameworks. As India’s Ministry of External Affairs has emphasised, “the architecture of global governance in 2025 for the future cannot be written in ink from 1945,” highlighting the need to update institutions rather than replace them.

    This distinction is crucial. India has significantly benefited from the existing international order, and its economic transformation since the post-1991 reforms has been largely enabled by the stability, access to global markets, and investment flows that the post-World War II system provided. Consequently, India has little incentive to support a China-centric alternative. Reforming the current system, rather than replacing it, aligns with India’s long-term strategic interests. Moreover, India’s leadership and participation in forums such as the SCO and BRICS have played a stabilising role. Without India’s presence, these platforms could easily evolve into explicitly anti-Western blocs. India’s foreign policy is best understood as reformist rather than revisionist, acting as a bridge between the West and the Global South; as Chatham House notes, India seeks to “change the international order from within rather than overthrow it.” Yet many Western policymakers fail to understand India’s global vision and often categorise it alongside other revisionist powers, viewing India narrowly through a bilateral prism or primarily as a counterweight to China. This misreading overlooks India’s broader role as an independent norm-shaping power.

    In light of these dynamics, the most effective strategy for navigating contemporary geopolitical turbulence lies in reforming and revitalising existing institutions rather than constructing entirely new ones based on rigid, blueprint-style thinking. A blueprint approach assumes that we can predict the future and design institutions accordingly—an assumption that is inherently flawed because the future is always uncertain and unknowable. Institutions must therefore be designed to capture the reality of moving from the known to the unknown and to adapt continuously as new challenges emerge. They must be made flexible, resilient, and responsive to disorder rather than designed to eliminate it. Accepting instability as a structural condition—and designing mechanisms of cooperation accordingly—offers the best chance of sustaining global governance in an increasingly fragmented world.

     

    Feature Image Credit: www.byarcadia.org

  • Did Colonisation ever End?

    Did Colonisation ever End?

    Let us all unite and toil together

    To give the best we have to Africa

    The cradle of mankind and fount of culture

    Our pride and hope at break of dawn

    From the African Union anthem

    Consider this scenario, courtesy of Supreme Africa Breaking News: Since 2022, representatives of the African Union have been meeting at the organisation’s headquarters in Addis Ababa to draw up a living constitution for the continent and establish a single African government. The constitution itself will be promulgated in 2026, whereupon national lawmaking bodies will begin aligning domestic laws within the continental framework and African governments will sign that one African sovereign agreement. Between then and 2028, citizens will receive dual IDs, a unified army will be created, and countries will begin using a common digital currency—Afrigold—alongside their local ones. The third stage, harmonization, will culminate in 2035, when the newly formed African parliament will gain real powers.

    After that, Africans will be free to move around the continent to live and work where they please. They will be able to appeal to AU courts if their government violates their rights, and they will be able to vote in the elections of whichever country they happen to find themselves. Democracy will be the default system of government for all member states, even though monarchies will participate in an advisory capacity in a council of sovereigns, alongside chiefs and spiritual leaders. In the words of Mama Pan Africa, an invented muse of sorts, “This constitution respects the soil it walks on. We’re not killing traditions; we’re aligning them with the dream.”

    Alas, a dream it is indeed. Supreme Africa Breaking News is a YouTube channel of true believers. And the reality of the AU could hardly be harsher.

    The first and most obvious problem is the historical legacy of colonialism, which, by the end of the nineteenth century had divided the continent into several dozen territories under the control and administration of mostly the UK and France, but also Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and, for a time, Germany. Following World War II—which had been fought in the name of saving the world from tyranny—these states all gained what they were pleased to call independence, with their own flags, anthems, and UN seats. But what did that amount to in practice?

    In July 1960, Michel Debré, then the prime minister of France, stated to the leader of Gabon: “Independence is granted on the condition that the State, once independent, undertakes to respect the cooperation agreements signed previously. There are two systems which come into force at the same time: independence and cooperation agreements. One does not go without the other.”

    In short, as the historian Tony Chafer has put it, “decolonisation did not mark an end, but rather a restructuring of the imperial relationship.”

    The French didn’t fudge the answer. In July 1960, Michel Debré, then the prime minister of France, stated to the leader of Gabon: “Independence is granted on the condition that the State, once independent, undertakes to respect the cooperation agreements signed previously. There are two systems which come into force at the same time: independence and cooperation agreements. One does not go without the other.” In short, as the historian Tony Chafer has put it, “decolonisation did not mark an end, but rather a restructuring of the imperial relationship.” The cooperation agreements had a number of components. One was the issue of what was known as the colonial debt—which, however counterintuitive this may seem today, obliged the newly independent countries to pay for the infrastructure supposedly built by France during colonisation. There was also the obligation for them to continue using French as the national language. And there were the security pacts under which they would have to support the mother country in any future wars.

    Even more telling was the right of first refusal on the purchase of all natural resources (including those yet to be discovered) in ex-colonial territories that France reserved for itself, irrespective of whether the new countries’ governments could secure better deals elsewhere. And there was the imposition of the CFA franc on fourteen West and Central African states (including Guinea-Bissau, a former Portuguese colony) at a fixed exchange rate with the French franc (and subsequently, the euro). This setup enabled France to pay for imports in its own currency and thereby save on any currency exchanges in a world otherwise dominated by the US dollar. The French economy benefitted greatly from the ensuing trade surplus, which fed reserves to pay for the country’s debts. Some African leaders profited as well: they could more easily loot their respective treasuries, with the active encouragement of their French masters, who also guaranteed their grip on power by keeping French troops stationed near the capital cities. Those who attempted to skirt any of the requirements were quickly disposed of.

    Such was the case with Togo. In 1963, barely two years into his tenure as the country’s first president, Sylvanus Olympio was assassinated by a squad of soldiers led by Gnassingbé Eyadéma, an army sergeant and former French Foreign Legionnaire. Olympio’s crime, in the eyes of the French authorities, was to have insisted that Togo should have its own currency. Eyadéma soon handed power over to a new president, only to overthrow him four years later, in 1967. Subsequently, he morphed into a civilian president, and following growing unrest after a decade in power in that capacity, he agreed to a democratic constitution—and then easily won multiparty elections in 1993 and again in 1998, both times amid widespread allegations of electoral fraud. Term limits should have forced him to finally step down in 2002, but he had the constitution amended to abolish them, and he won elections again in 2003, and again was accused of fraud. He died in office two years later. In all of this, he was fully supported by successive French governments—much like his son Faure Gnassingbé has been since.

    Gnassingbé, who had served as a minister under his father, in 2005 promptly took over the mantle in what was effectively a military coup. Like his father, he served two terms, the new constitution’s stipulated maximum, and then, also like his father, he rewrote the constitution—this time converting the presidential system to a parliamentary one. As the new prime minister, Gnassingbé was named president of the council of ministers, with most of the previous powers of the president devolving to him. He could stay in this post until at least 2030.

    As it happens, a similar path is currently being trod by Alassane Ouattara, since 2010 the president of Côte d’Ivoire, the jewel in the Françafrique crown. Ouattara is now proposing to stand for re-election for a fourth term, arguing that term limits were reset to zero with a new constitution in 2016. As I write, protestors are being shot on the streets in both countries. President Emmanuel Macron of France recently denied that he had asked Gnassingbé to resign, despite reports to the contrary; where Ouattara is concerned, Macron had said, in 2020, “France does not have to give lessons.” France is anxious to maintain a neocolonial relationship, but Macron understands very well that it cannot be sustained, and so he hedges.

    By contrast, the best that can be said for the British during decolonisation is that they were more circumspect than the French. The new native rulers weren’t required to sign a piece of paper: They had already been co-opted into service, most glaringly in the case of Nigeria. According to the historian Olakunle Lawal, in the runup to independence in 1960, a draft paper from the British Foreign Office sought to investigate how “we can sustain our position as a world power, particularly in the economic and strategic fields, against the dangers inherent in the present upsurge of nationalism,” in order that the UK might “maintain specific British interests on which our existence as a trading country depends.” It concluded that the challenge “was to forestall nationalist demands which threaten our vital interests” by creating “a class with a vested interest in co-operation.” But then the British authorities knew with whom they were dealing.

    Following independence, this class proceeded to loot the Nigerian treasury to the tune of $20 trillion between 1960 and 2005, storing many of the proceeds in safe havens abroad. Nigeria still ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International. Such behaviour is a sign of these people’s contempt for the masses they lord it over—and sometimes, indeed, are allowed to lord it over by those masses themselves.

    Consider the case of Ike Ekweremadu, a former long-time senator and former deputy president of the Senate, who is serving a prison sentence in the U.K. after being convicted of an organ-trafficking plot, the first such case to be tried under the 2015 Modern Slavery Act. It turns out that he had arranged for a 21-year-old street hawker in Lagos to travel to the UK so that one of the vendor’s kidneys could be harvested to save the life of Ekweremadu’s ailing daughter. The operation would have cost Ekweremadu £80,000—small change for someone with two homes in London, three in Florida, and seven in Dubai. The intended victim, who was to receive just £7,000 for his organ, only realised what was about to be done to him when doctors informed him of the medical risks he faced and the subsequent lifelong care he would require. Ekweremadu clearly didn’t think much of the fellow’s life; after all, the man had only been selling phone accessories out of a wheelbarrow in Lagos.

    That young man has now improved his lot, having inadvertently been gifted a one-way ticket to the so-called developed world, which mercifully granted him asylum for his travails. Tellingly, however, Ekweremadu’s wife, who was convicted alongside her husband but has since been released, was enthusiastically received when she returned home to Nigeria early this year. In the words of a local community leader: “Our prayers are with the Ekweremadu family, and we hope Senator Ike will also be reunited with us soon.” No mention of their target.

    So here we are, all these decades after so-called independence, and what is the role of the African Union in all of this? Originally known as the Organization of African Unity, the body was launched in 1963 with five objectives: to promote unity and solidarity among African states; to defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence; to coordinate and intensify their efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa; to eradicate all forms of colonialism; and to promote international cooperation, with due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of these goals, the first was by far the most important. Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first head of state, spelt this out in an impassioned speech to the OAU in 1963: “Unite we must. Without necessarily sacrificing our sovereignties, big or small, we can here and now forge a political union based on defence, foreign affairs and diplomacy, and a common citizenship, an African currency, an African monetary zone, and an African central bank. We must unite in order to achieve the full liberation of our continent.”

    Yet little or no progress was made on this front. In time, the OAU became known as an old men’s club, because of elderly African leaders who were more concerned with oppressing their subjects in the artificial fiefs they had inherited than with uplifting their lot. And many of those fiefs, though many are also actual countries, are still too insignificant in the larger scheme of things: six contain fewer than one million people, four fewer than two million, and another five fewer than three million. Which is one reason the heads of state or government of the OAU issued the Sirte Declaration in 1999 calling for the establishment of the AU: they wanted to accelerate the integration of Africa so that, according to one commentator on the site of the Nasser Youth Movement, the continent could “play its rightful role in the global economy while addressing multifaceted social, economic and political problems compounded as they were by certain negative aspects of globalization.” All well and good.

    And this wish was reiterated by Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, the AU’s ambassador to the U.S. in 2016–19: “Until Africa comes together as a continent to speak with one voice as a people, nothing will change for the good of her people.” Failing that, she pointed out—obviously enough—that a plethora of small, unviable countries with “the same sovereignty as China, as India,” were deliberately designed “to see to it that they will never make it on their own—and in the event those countries do make it, they are easy to destabilise.”

    “The dismissal of Arikana Chihombori-Quao, AU ambassador to the United States, raises serious questions about the independence of the AU. For someone who spoke her mind about the detrimental effects of colonisation and the huge cost of French control in several parts of Africa, this is an act that can best be described as coming from French-controlled colonised minds.”   – Jerry John Rawlings, former President of Ghana

    Shortly after, her term was abruptly cut short without explanation. The chair of the AU at the time, Moussa Faki Mahamat, a former foreign minister of Chad, wrote her a letter that read, in part: “I have the honor to inform you that, in line with the terms and conditions of the service governing your appointment as Permanent Representative of the African Union Mission to the United States in Washington, DC, I have decided to terminate your contract in that capacity with effect from Nov. 1, 2019.” To many, this was proof of the AU’s spinelessness in the face of the West. Jerry John Rawlings, the former (and now late) president of Ghana, tweeted at the time: “The dismissal of Arikana Chihombori-Quao, AU ambassador to the United States, raises serious questions about the independence of the AU. For someone who spoke her mind about the detrimental effects of colonisation and the huge cost of French control in several parts of Africa, this is an act that can best be described as coming from French-controlled colonised minds.”

    The colonised mind was also clearly on display in the case of Ouattara’s election for an illegal third term in late 2020, when he was 78. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, the security forces perpetrated the widespread violence in opposition strongholds, in league with local thugs. Here is the account of one eyewitness in the Yopougon Kouté area of Abidjan:

    I saw a group coming into the neighbourhood in two Gbakas (minivans), blue taxis, and scooters. … They were armed with machetes, knives, and guns. I went out with what I could to defend my village. The neighbourhood youth started throwing stones, and there were so many of us that they fled. One of the government supporters couldn’t escape in time, and he was beaten to death by our young people.

    Even as the European Union—the West—expressed “deep concerns about the tensions, provocations and incitement to hatred that have prevailed and continue to persist in the country around this election,” the AU claimed that the vote had “proceeded in a generally satisfactory manner.” But that was no surprise. As one human rights activist from Mozambique said: “the African Union is an organisation that primarily represents the interests of the powerful. It is toothless and ineffective, and it repeatedly proves itself incapable of ensuring prosperity, security, and peace for all Africans.”

    In fact, the AU is not different enough from the OAU: it, too, is an old men’s club. Africa counts both some of the world’s oldest male presidents (their female counterparts are few and far between). It also counts some of the youngest demographics of any continent, and these older men jealously guard their privileges. Watch the 92-year-old Paul Biya currently planning to run in the forthcoming elections in Cameroon; he has been in power in one form or another since 1982. He isn’t even the longest-standing leader on the continent. That honour goes to the 83-year-old Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, in power since 1979. Two decades ago, the state-operated radio station declared him “the country’s god” with “all power over men and things,” adding that he was “in permanent contact with the almighty” and “can decide to kill anyone without calling him to account and without going to hell.”

    It is hardly surprising that such men would be wary of an AU that, as they see matters, is seeking to usurp their power; they are tardy in funding it. Many member states don’t bother to pay their annual contributions, which is why external sources funded two-thirds of its 2023 budget (and China built the new headquarters in Addis Ababa at its own expense). An attempt was made to rectify this anomaly in a decision adopted by the various governments at a Retreat on Financing of the Union during the 27th African Union Summit in Kigali, Rwanda, in July 2016. It directed all AU members to apply a 0.2% levy on eligible imports to finance the organisation. We are all allowed our dreams; nothing ever came of this one.

    The pity of it all is that a united Africa, whose population is expected to hit 2.5 billion by 2050—and account for one in four people in the world—stands to become the most populous continent by the end of the century: it should automatically command at least one permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and with full veto power. Addressing the annual session of the UN General Assembly in 2023, Joe Biden, then the US president, seemed to make an indirect case for Africa’s inclusion at the top: “We need to be able to break the gridlock that too often stymies progress and blocks consensus on the Council. We need more voices and more perspectives at the table.” His call was repeated in 2024 by Linda Thomas-Greenfield, his Black ambassador to the UN, who waxed lyrical about being Uncle Sam’s emissary in her mother continent. Having “travelled extensively across Africa,” she said, she knew “firsthand the diversity and the talent, the depth and breadth of experience.” And so the US government would support granting the continent two permanent seats on the Security Council—but without veto power, otherwise the council would become “dysfunctional.” Chihombori-Quao rightly said that the proposal “is an insult, not only to the African leaders, but it is an insult to 1.4 billion people.” What else is new?

    This article was published earlier on www.theideasletter.org and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivatives license.

    Feature Image Credit: The Berlin Conference of 1884-5. Source: Illustrierte Zeitung via Wikimedia Commons and  thecollector.com

     

  • Actions Speak Louder than Words

    Actions Speak Louder than Words

    The recent kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife, with Venezuela being held to ransom at gunpoint, has made clear that it is not high-minded principles, but an imperialistic mindset and the grubbiness of colonial greed, the hankering for resources belonging to others, that has always been their sole motive.

     

    For years, American academics and mainstream media successfully portrayed American foreign policy as benign and dedicated to promoting freedom, democracy and human rights worldwide. Unfortunately, those involved in dealing with them intimately in the rest of the world, especially the Global South, knew better.

    Their benevolence was nothing more than a mirage. In practice, their malevolent and vindictive security and intelligence establishment used bribery and strong-arm tactics like coups, assassinations and kidnapping as their primary modus operandi to get their way. If none of those worked, then there was always the option of military intervention.

    If anything, we should be grateful to President Trump for two things. Firstly, for having swept aside the sludge of hypocrisy that the United States practised to justify its assertive foreign policy actions. For example, Operation Ajax, the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh’s democratically elected government in August 1953, was justified as a containment of communism, though he was not a communist. Similarly, Operation Iraqi Freedom, which resulted in the overthrow and execution of Saddam Hussein, was justified on the grounds that Iraq had WMDs and was supportive of Al-Qaeda. That simply turned out to be lies, known only after previous damage had been done.

    The recent kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife, with Venezuela being held to ransom at gunpoint, has made clear that it is not high-minded principles, but an imperialistic mindset and the grubbiness of colonial greed, the hankering for resources belonging to others, that has always been their sole motive. American exceptionalism, it turns out, was no different from how the strong have always behaved toward the weak, throughout history. As the Greek historian, Thucydides, put it, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”.

    Even Trump’s desire to occupy Greenland can be seen in this context. We seem to have forgotten that over 86% of Greenland’s 56000 population are Innuits, who were colonised by Denmark only in the 1700s. There has always been a strong movement for independence there, and polls as recently as 2023 have suggested over 85% of the population supports independence from Denmark. At the end of the day, this confrontation between the United States and Denmark is just about two imperialistic powers contesting territory that neither owns, to extract resources. Some may recall that we, too, have been victims of similar contestations between the English and other imperial powers as well.

    The second has been the treatment that he has meted out to his fellow Americans. They are at the receiving end of how America normally treats the world- with arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and the belief that it is above the law and can do as it pleases. Whether we openly admit it or not, there are many who believe that America has finally got its just desserts- “they who sow the wind, will reap the whirlwind” as Bible-thumping Americans would say. Whether they ever be able to get over Trumpism, even after he is gone, is debatable.

    Notwithstanding this singular truth, we continue to be confused by Trump’s actions. While many see them as incoherent and a symptom of American decline, others, including some here, believe his actions in America will degrade Chinese and Russian capabilities, dampening their geopolitical ambitions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    America, for all its wealth and overwhelming military might, suffers from a human problem. An overwhelming unwillingness on the part of the average American to be treated as sacrificial lambs in support of imperialistic ambitions. After Iraq and Afghanistan, they do not see such actions as being in the national interest, but as just another initiative to fill the coffers of corporations and those who run them. If Trump, or any other American President for that matter, were to again actually put boots on the ground to implement ongoing plans, be it in Venezuela, Iran or Cuba, it would result in massive protests against the Government, especially once the body bags start rolling in, as they are bound to.

    Bullies only get their way as long as they are not challenged. The very reason for America’s hesitation, even unwillingness, to act as the World’s policeman, especially as hybrid warfare gains currency and conventional forces lose their ability to achieve total domination or success. Trump and his cronies have probably concluded that the security and prosperity of the continental United States lie in ensuring its effectiveness as a regional satrap rather than spreading itself too thin. Threats against Iran are just mere cosplay.

    This applies equally to the Chinese and the Russians, especially the latter, having been seriously debilitated by the million-plus losses that they have suffered in their seemingly unending conflict with Ukraine. The last thing President Xi would want is to find himself in Putin’s shoes, if a military assault on Taiwan were to go awry, as it very well might, given the complexities of amphibious assaults.

    For him to be able to carve out his place in history, action against India is a far more promising prospect. It would be at a much lesser cost and manageable risk, as the political establishment here, whatever be their ideologies, has little, if any, inclination or spine to confront the Chinese. This is borne out by the fact that the BJP and RSS hosted a Chinese Communist Party delegation at the very time that the Chinese Government has renewed its thrust on infrastructure development in the illegally occupied Shaksgam Valley.

    Actions always speak louder than words, and our diplomatic protests mean little when we act in the manner that we have. Incidentally, Chinese actions seriously undermine our positions in the Siachen Glacier and further complicate our already complex security environment. It is indeed time our political establishment and their oligarch friends faced reality, developed resilience and learnt to withstand some pain. Everything cannot be about profit or the chair; sometimes, national interest must take precedence.

    Feature Image Credit: bhaskarenglish.in ‘I’m Venezuela’s President, a prisoner of war’:Maduro denies all charges in US court as heavy gunfire erupts in Caracas
  • The Pakistan Paradox: Courted by Rivals, Valued Only Against India

    The Pakistan Paradox: Courted by Rivals, Valued Only Against India

    Pakistan’s presence at China’s Victory Day parade exposed a more profound truth: its value lies not in strategic brilliance but in being a pawn for both Washington and Beijing. Far from balancing, Islamabad survives as a tool in the great power game against India.

    China’s recent Victory Day parade on September 3, 2025, was more than a ceremonial display; it was a calculated act of strategic signalling to the West. By showcasing its formidable military hardware and hosting close allies such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, Beijing sought to project its emergence as a great power, much as it did during the 2008 Olympics. By bringing these leaders together, China signalled not only unity but also the contours of an emerging alternative world order that challenges Western dominance.

    The parade sent “chill waves” across Western capitals, with even Donald Trump admitting that he closely followed the event. On social media, he sardonically addressed China: “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against the United States of America.” On September 5, 2025, he further voiced his frustration, declaring that the U.S. had “lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest China,” a remark that reflected Washington’s growing unease over Beijing’s expanding influence.

    India, notably absent from China’s Victory Day parade on September 3, 2025, made its own strategic moves. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Japan on August 29–30, ahead of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin on August 31–September 1. By going to Tokyo first and then to Tianjin, Modi signalled to the West that India continues to prioritise its commitments in the Indo-Pacific, while also reminding Beijing that New Delhi remains open to engagement. During the SCO summit, Modi’s remark that India’s engagement with China “should not be seen through third-country lenses” was intended to reassure the West of India’s balancing strategy.

    Yet, amid this choreography of great powers, one country’s presence at the Victory Day parade raised eyebrows: Pakistan. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stood alongside leaders who openly challenge the Western-led order—figures the West often labels as part of an “axis of evil”—despite Pakistan being nominally allied with the United States. What was even more surprising was the silence of Washington and its partners. Had it been India’s leader at the parade, the Western outcry would have been deafening. But when Pakistan did it, no questions were asked. Why this extraordinary tolerance?

    The explanation lies not in Pakistan’s own strategic brilliance. Unlike India, Pakistan lacks genuine strategic agency or independent decision-making capacity. It has long been dependent on external patrons and remains heavily constrained by domestic crises. The narrative advanced by some strategic experts that Islamabad is engaged in a masterful balancing act between Washington and Beijing is misleading. Instead, both the U.S. and China tolerate Pakistan’s duplicity because of its enduring strategic utility against India.

    Washington knows Pakistan’s record all too well. During the War on Terror, Islamabad received over $33 billion in U.S. aid while simultaneously providing sanctuary to Taliban leaders. U.S. officials, including President Trump, repeatedly acknowledged this duplicity. In a tweet on January 1, 2018, Trump stated: ‘The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

    Similarly, Congressman Ted Poe, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, introduced a bill in 2016 calling for Pakistan to be declared a “state sponsor of terrorism,” stating that Pakistan was “not only an untrustworthy ally but has also aided and abetted the enemies of the United States”. Counterterrorism cooperation is, therefore, not the real reason Washington continues to indulge Pakistan. Nor are West Asia’s dynamics or connectivity goals the central factor, though they play a role.

    The real reason is India. Pakistan serves as a pressure valve for Washington to use whenever New Delhi strays from American strategic priorities. Similarly, for Beijing, Pakistan is an indispensable grey-zone tool against India — a reliable proxy that complicates India’s security calculus without requiring direct Chinese involvement. This explains why China continues to describe its relationship with Pakistan as ‘higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel,’ even though Beijing is fully aware that the “honey” and other lofty adjectives in this partnership are largely rhetorical, given Pakistan’s military establishment has historically maintained close ties with the Pentagon and U.S. defense agencies.

    Recent developments illustrate this pattern. Despite Islamabad striking a minerals deal in Balochistan with the U.S.—an area where China has invested heavily through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and even frequently loses its workers to terrorist attacks—Beijing has not retaliated.

    China has invested nearly $60 billion in CPEC projects, including Gwadar Port and associated infrastructure, yet continues to tolerate Pakistan’s parallel engagement with the U.S. Even though just days ago, China exited funding for certain sections of CPEC, such as the Karachi–Rohri stretch of the Main Line-1 railway, the broader corridor remains intact and firmly under Beijing’s control.

    Similarly, Washington has been remarkably quiet about the expansion of CPEC and its recent announcement to extend it into Afghanistan, despite this development directly strengthening Chinese influence in South and Central Asia, which contradicts U.S. national security strategies, including the Indo-Pacific strategy designed to counterbalance China. Imagine if India were to engage China in a similar manner; the Western backlash would be immediate and fierce.

    The silence over Pakistan reveals the underlying logic: both Washington and Beijing find it useful to maintain Islamabad as a strategic lever against India. For China, Pakistan provides military intelligence, operational support, and a constant security distraction for New Delhi, keeping India tied down on its western front. For the U.S., Pakistan is less a partner in counterterrorism than a tool to remind India of the costs of drifting too far from American preferences.

    Thus, Pakistan’s position is not the result of deft balancing or sophisticated statecraft. It is tolerated, even courted, by two rival great powers because of its instrumental value in their respective strategies against India. Far from being an Independent balancer, Pakistan remains a dependent actor whose importance derives almost entirely from the leverage it provides to others.

    For India, the lesson is clear. The tolerance extended to Pakistan by both Washington and Beijing is not about Islamabad’s capabilities or credibility — both powers know well its history of duplicity. Instead, it reflects the centrality of India in global strategy and the willingness of other powers to use Pakistan as a pawn in their broader geopolitical contest. Recognising this reality is essential for shaping New Delhi’s responses, ensuring that India continues to strengthen its autonomy and strategic weight in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

    Feature Image Credit: India Today

    Pictures in Text: www.arabnews.com, www.nationalheraldindia.com, www.deccanherald.com

  • 80 Years of Lies: The US Finally Admits it knew it didn’t Need to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    80 Years of Lies: The US Finally Admits it knew it didn’t Need to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the world is drifting as close to another nuclear confrontation as it has been in decades.

    With Israeli and American attacks on Iranian nuclear energy sites, India and Pakistan going to war in May, and escalating violence between Russia and NATO-backed forces in Ukraine, the shadow of another nuclear war looms large over daily life.

    EIGHTY YEARS OF LIES

    The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a power play, intended to strike fear into the hearts of world leaders, especially in the Soviet Union and China.

    The United States remains the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb in anger. While the dates of August 6 and August 9, 1945, are seared into the popular conscience of all Japanese people, those days hold far less salience in American society.

    When discussed at all in the U.S., this dark chapter in human history is usually presented as a necessary evil, or even a day of liberation—an event that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, prevented the need for an invasion of Japan, and ended the Second World War early. This, however, could not be further from the truth.

    American generals and war planners agreed that Japan was on the point of collapse, and had, for weeks, been attempting to negotiate a surrender. The decision, then, to incinerate hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was one taken to project American power across the world, and to stymie the rise of the Soviet Union.

    “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse,” General Henry Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1945, wrote in his 1949 memoirs.

    “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages” – Gen Hap Arnold

    Arnold was far from alone in this assessment. Indeed, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, the Navy’s highest-ranking officer during World War II, bitterly condemned the United States for its decision and compared his own country to the most savage regimes in world history.

    As he wrote in 1950:

    “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

    By 1945, Japan had been militarily and economically exhausted. Losing key allies Italy in 1943 and Germany by May 1945, and facing the immediate prospect of an all-out Soviet invasion of Japan, the country’s leaders were frantically pursuing peace negotiations. Their only real condition appeared to be that they wished to keep as a figurehead the emperor—a position that, by some accounts, dates back more than 2,600 years.

    “I am convinced,” former President Herbert Hoover wrote to his successor, Harry S. Truman, “if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan—tell them they can have their emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists—you’ll get a peace in Japan—you’ll have both wars over.”

    Many of Truman’s closest advisors told him the same thing. “I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb,” said John McCloy, Truman’s Assistant Secretary of War.

    “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “If the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” – Gen Douglas MacArthur

    Nevertheless, Truman initially took an absolutist position, refusing to hear any Japanese negotiating caveats. This stance, according to General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, actually lengthened the war. “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “If the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” Truman, however, dropped two bombs, then reversed his position on the emperor, in order to stop Japanese society from falling apart.

    At that point in the war, however, the United States was emerging as the sole global superpower and enjoyed an unprecedented position of influence. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan underscored this; it was a power play, intended to strike fear into the hearts of world leaders, especially in the Soviet Union and China.

    FIRST JAPAN, THEN THE WORLD

    “Japan was already defeated, and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[it was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.” – President Ike Eisenhower

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki drastically curbed the U.S.S.R.’s ambitions in Japan. Joseph Stalin’s forces had invaded and permanently annexed Sakhalin Island in 1945 and planned to occupy Hokkaido, Japan’s second-largest island. The move likely prevented the island nation from coming under the Soviet sphere of influence.

    To this day, Japan remains deeply tied to the U.S., economically, politically, and militarily. There are around 60,000 U.S. troops in Japan, spread across 120 military bases.

    Many in Truman’s administration wished to use the atom bomb against the Soviet Union as well. President Truman, however, worried that the destruction of Moscow would lead the Red Army to invade and destroy Western Europe as a response. As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the U.S.S.R. and its military in one fell swoop.

    War planners estimated this figure to be around 400. To that end, Truman ordered the immediate ramping up of production. Such a strike, we now know, would have caused a nuclear winter that would have permanently ended all organised life on Earth.

    The decision to destroy Russia was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community. It is now widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario. This part of history, however, was left out of the 2023 biopic movie.

    By 1949, the U.S.S.R. was able to produce a credible nuclear deterrent before the U.S. had produced sufficient quantities for an all-out attack, thus ending the threat and bringing the world into the era of mutually assured destruction.

    “Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated,” concluded a 1946 report from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.

    Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and future president, was of the same opinion, stating that:

    “Japan was already defeated, and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[it was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.”

    Nevertheless, both Truman and Eisenhower publicly toyed with the idea of using nuclear weapons against China to stop the rise of Communism and to defend their client regime in Taiwan. It was only the development of a Chinese warhead in 1964 that led to the end of the danger, and, ultimately, the détente era of good relations between the two powers that lasted until President Obama’s Pivot to Asia.

    Ultimately, then, the people of Japan were the collateral damage in a giant U.S. attempt to project its power worldwide. As Brigadier General Carer Clarke, head of U.S. intelligence on Japan wrote, “When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them [Japanese citizens] as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

    TIPTOEING CLOSER TO ARMAGEDDON

    The danger of nuclear weapons is far from over. Today, Israel and the United States – two nations with atomic weaponry – attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Yet their continued, hyper-aggressive actions against their foes only suggest to other countries that, unless they too possess weapons of mass destruction, they will not be safe from attack. North Korea, a country with a conventional and nuclear deterrent, faces no such air strikes from the U.S. or its allies. These actions, therefore, will likely result in more nations pursuing nuclear ambitions.

    Earlier this year, India and Pakistan (two more nuclear-armed states) came into open conflict thanks to disputes over terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir. Many influential individuals on both sides of the border were demanding their respective sides launch their nukes – a decision that could also spell the end of organised human life. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.

    Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues, with NATO forces urging President Zelensky to up the ante. Earlier this month, President Trump himself reportedly encouraged the Ukrainian leader to use his Western-made weapons to strike Moscow.

    It is precisely actions such as these that led the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move its famous Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest the world has ever been to catastrophe.

    “The war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation,” they wrote in their explanation, adding that conflicts in Asia could spiral out of control into a wider war at any point, and that nuclear powers are updating and expanding their arsenals.

    The Pentagon, too, is recruiting Elon Musk to help it build what it calls an American Iron Dome. While this move is couched in defensive language, such a system – if successful – would grant the U.S. the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response.

    Thus, as we look back at the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago, we must understand that not only were they entirely avoidable, but that we are now closer to a catastrophic nuclear confrontation than many people realise.

     

    This article was published earlier in MintPress News and is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

    Feature Image: Hiroshima, several months after the atomic bombing. Air Force photo from national archives nsarchive.gwu.edu

     

  • A P J Abdul Kalam – People’s President

    A P J Abdul Kalam – People’s President

    The country remembers President A P J Abdul Kalam, the people’s president on his 10th death anniversary. APJ Abdul Kalam captured the imagination of young people like no other president had before. He made us believe in ourselves and think the sky was never too high. He dreamed of things that never were and wondered why not? As a nation, we constantly come up short, but that did not deter Kalam. He made it his life mission to exhort the young to greatness. India’s young will miss him.
    July 27th is the death anniversary of former President APJ ABDUL KALAM. He died this day seven years ago. He died on his feet while delivering a lecture at the Indian Institute of Management, Shillong, exhorting young people to a new vision of India to the end.
    Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam had little in common with his predecessors. He did not have the educational attainments of Radhakrishnan, Zakir Hussain and Sharma, who were genuine PhDs from top-notch institutions. Kalam just had a science degree and an aeronautical engineering diploma from Madras University. He did not have the political training of Presidents like Rajendra Prasad, VV Giri and Pranab Mukherjee, whose political and constitutional understanding was tested in politically uncertain times. His entire professional lifetime was spent in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
    The DRDO has not exactly distinguished itself in any great way. The sum of its failures is far greater than its achievements. Some its failures are most notable. The Arjun main battle tank is still bumbling along. The nuclear submarine project, delivered decades too late, still faces uncertainty. The Light Combat Aircraft is just the late combat aircraft; so late that it will be obsolete when it enters service in the next decade. Even the 5.56 mm basic infantry combat weapon is a bit of a dud, requiring the frequent import of AK-47 rifles, much to the delight of Delhi’s arms agents.
    Kalam had earned a reputation as the father of India’s missile program. That might be so, but the offspring are nothing worth writing home about. Our missile program is so far behind times that even the North Koreans, a woebegone and desolate country where people still die of starvation, are ahead of us. Like the Pakistanis, even we would have been better off buying North Korean missiles like the Nodong (Pak name Ghauri), like the Pakistanis have. Many also credit Kalam as being the father of India’s nuclear weapons program. That program has, mercifully, had little to do with the DRDO and is almost entirely an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) show.
    There is much that is admirable about Kalam. He was honest to the core. He was erudite. He knew Sanskrit. He translated the Thirukural from Tamil into English. He was a nationalist with few peers. He only lived for India.
    What then was Kalam’s kamaal? Clearly, Kalam was no Werner von Braun, who designed the Nazi V-1 and V-2 rockets and then led America’s manned flight foray into space with Alan Shepard’s sub-orbital flight. He most certainly is no Kurchatkov, who pioneered the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons program. But he inspired by his sense of hope and ambition.
    Yet he is clearly among the best of the Presidents we have had, particularly in recent times. I had the pleasure of being invited by him a few times for one-on-one discussions on Bihar, a state with which he was particularly concerned. He publicly asked several times: “How can India move forward, leaving behind Bihar?” There is much that is admirable about Kalam. He was honest to the core. He was erudite. He knew Sanskrit. He translated the Thirukural from Tamil into English. He was a nationalist with few peers. He only lived for India.
    He was also a bachelor and so with no offspring like Zail Singh’s grandson, who shot pigeons in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, or R.Venkatraman’s NRI daughter, who plonked herself there to collect money for her NGO, or like Shankar Dayal Sharma’s grandson, Manu Sharma, who stands convicted of murdering Jessica Lal. The less said for Pratibha Patil, the better. Ramnath Kovind and Draupadi Murmu carry the burden of millennia of oppression and ostracism with quiet dignity, but little more.
    But for a modest man with mostly modest achievements, APJ Abdul Kalam captured the imagination of young people like no other president had before. He made us believe in ourselves and think the sky was never too high. He dreamed of things that never were and wondered why not? As a nation, we constantly come up short, but that did not deter Kalam. He made it his life mission to exhort the young to greatness. India’s young will miss him.
    Opinions expressed are the author’s own.
  • If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    The world and the UN watch helplessly as Israel executes the worst human rights crimes and genocide through killing, enforced famine, and wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, women, and children of Gaza. This is not war but an explicit slaughter no less than what the Nazis carried out in World War 2. Gaza has seen the largest number of journalists and aid workers killed in history, the largest number of children killed n history, and more bombs dropped in a small piece of land than in all of World War 2. Caitlin Johnstone raises a very pertinent question — How can a genocidal and apartheid  state be allowed to exist?

     

    Gaza’s youngest social media influencer has been killed by Israeli forces after touching tens of thousands of lives with her stories of survival in the besieged Palestinian territory. Her name was Yaqeen Hammad. She was 11 years old.

    Israeli forces fired upon starving civilians in Gaza on Tuesday when they rushed inside a facility holding aid, reportedly killing three and wounding dozens more. The facility was operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the latest US-Israeli scheme to bypass normal UN aid distribution and lure Gaza’s population into specific concentrated locations.

    A new report from the Associated Press confirms that Israeli forces have been using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza as a matter of policy. This is actually using human shields in the very real sense of deliberately forcing civilians between yourself and potential enemy fire, not in the fake sense of being somewhere near civilians as per the made-up “human shields” narrative that Israel uses to blame its daily massacres on Hamas.

    A survey of Jewish Israelis conducted by an Israeli polling firm has found that 82 percent of respondents support the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and 47 percent believe Israeli forces should kill every man, woman and child in every city they capture there.

    Haaretz reports on the poll’s findings:

    “Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek’s memory remains relevant today’.

    Haaretz.com

    These are just a few reports from the past few days, on top of all the other staggeringly evil things that Israel has been doing this whole time.

    If this is Israel, then Israel should not exist. If what we are seeing in Gaza is what it means for Israel to exist, then it shouldn’t.

    People scream bloody murder when you say this, but it shouldn’t be a controversial position. I’m not saying Jews shouldn’t exist, I’m saying a genocidal apartheid state should not exist. A state is an artificial construct of the human mind, held together by human actions. If the actions we are witnessing in Gaza are the product of the artificial construct of the Israeli state, then that artificial construct should be dismantled, and those actions should cease.

    I would say this about any other man-made construct that is doing the things Israel is doing. If some scientists built a robot that spends all day every day massacring children, then I would say the robot should be unmade. If you drew a Star of David on the robot’s head, it wouldn’t suddenly make me an evil antisemite to say that the child-murdering robot should be dismantled.

    Dismantling the apartheid state of Israel would mean granting everyone citizenship and equal rights, allowing right of return, denazifying apartheid culture, paying extensive reparations, and righting the wrongs of the past. You could still call what remains “Israel” if you wanted to, but it would be nothing like the state that presently exists under that name.

    Would this upset the feelings of some Jewish people? Yes. Would it inconvenience the lives of some Jewish people? Certainly. But that would be infinitely preferable to the daily massacres, genocidal atrocities and reckless regional warmongering we are witnessing from the state of Israel. Advocating the end of this genocidal state doesn’t make someone a monster, advocating its continuation does. The only way to believe otherwise is to take it as a given that Palestinian lives are worth less than Jewish feelings.

    Israel is currently presenting nonstop arguments for its own cessation. Every video that comes out showing Israelis acting in monstrous ways and innocent Palestinians being murdered, tortured and abused in the most horrific ways imaginable is an argument for which there is no verbal counter-argument. Every day that goes by, the genocidal apartheid state of Israel is proving to the world that it should not exist.

    Feature Image Credit:Israel using starvation as means of war to drive people out of Gaza: Head of Rights monitor  aa.com.tr

    Image in article: 11-year old Yaqeen Hammad – independent.co.uk