Pradeep Mahaur

A Global Geopolitical Tremor and Global Conspiracy “I condemn this attack on Israel in the strongest possible terms. Every Indian stands aligned with the people of Israel in this moment of shared grief and defiance.” When Violence Pierces Diplomacy On Wednesday night, two Israeli diplomats were shot dead outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., shaking the world’s confidence in the sanctity of diplomatic soil. The victims — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim — were gunned down at close range in a brutal act that U.S. investigators are treating as a targeted, hate-driven antisemitic attack. The alleged perpetrator, Elias Rodriguez, a 32-year-old from Chicago, was arrested at the scene. In viral videos, Rodriguez can be heard shouting “Free, free Palestine,” intensifying suspicions of ideological motivation. But is this a simple hate crime — or is the violence masking something far deeper? A Capital Crime That Rattles Global Stability Israeli Pr...

This may sound alarming, but it’s not alarmist. It’s not a theory. It’s a close, critical observation of what’s unfolding in Asia today. For over a century, one geopolitical principle has shaped global strategy: “Who controls Eurasia, controls the world.” This idea, grounded in two powerful theories—the Heartland Theory and the Rimland Theory—has influenced the thinking of empires and superpowers alike. The Strategic Lens of Geopolitics In 1904, British geographer Halford Mackinder introduced the Heartland Theory, which claimed that the vast, resource-rich central region of Eurasia—the “Heartland”—was the key to global dominance. If any power could dominate this landmass, it would command the “World Island” (Eurasia and Africa) and eventually, the world. Later, American strategist Nicholas Spykman proposed the Rimland Theory, arguing that the coastal regions around Eurasia—the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia—were actually more crucial. The idea was that controlling th...

  Strategic Autonomy and the Indo-Pacific India and the United States have strengthened their strategic relationship in recent years, particularly through platforms like the QUAD. While QUAD is officially a non-military alliance focused on shared values and cooperation in areas like maritime security and supply chain resilience, its regular military exercises signal an underlying intention to build security coordination in the Indo-Pacific. This alignment is largely driven by a shared concern over China’s increasing assertiveness in the region. However, even as their interests converge, India has made it clear: it will not act as a junior partner to the U.S. in a larger geopolitical confrontation with China. India believes in strategic autonomy—it will partner with like-minded nations but not at the cost of its long-term interests. India’s Two-Front Challenge: China and Pakistan China poses a strategic challenge to India, not just because of historical border disput...

  Understanding India’s calm confidence in the face of China’s J-35A jet deal with Pakistan Some sections of Indian media are abuzz with concern over the recent developments between China and Pakistan—particularly the reported delivery of 30 to 40 J-35A fifth-generation stealth fighter jets to the Pakistan Air Force. China is said to be fast-tracking this delivery as a “reward” for Pakistan’s perceived role in the recent India-Pakistan conflict. With Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif currently in China and top diplomatic sources confirming the agreement, these stealt...

How exaggerated reporting weakens national perception and empowers enemy narratives India recently pulled off a remarkable military achievement. In response to serious provocation, the Indian Armed Forces acted swiftly, decisively, and with clear tactical superiority. Our air dominance was visible, our missile strikes precise, and our response firm. By all standards, it was a clear military victory for India. But while our soldiers won the battle on the ground, India lost the battle of perception—a different kind of war, fought not with weapons but with headlines, hashtags, and international narratives.   TRP vs Truth: The Indian Media’s Dilemma Today, Indian media stands at a critical juncture. On one hand, it has the responsibility to present truth, facts, and balanced journalism. On the other, it faces the constant temptation of TRP (Television Rating Points), which rewards drama over depth, and speed over accuracy. Whether it was about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s...

India’s deepening ties with Iran, balancing act between Israel and Palestine, and independent stance on Russia and China are reshaping global power dynamics, much to America’s discomfort. The recent long-term agreement between India, Iran, and Afghanistan over the operation of Chabahar Port has reignited concerns within U.S. diplomatic circles. Chabahar's strategic location along the coast of southeastern Iran is not merely a matter of trade and logistics; it has profound implications for regional security, access to Central Asia, and the broader global power struggle involving the United States, China, and Russia. The Strategic Value of Chabahar Chabahar is India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing its hostile neighbor, Pakistan. It offers India access to landlocked Afghanistan and deeper markets in Eurasia, positioning New Delhi as a key player in regional connectivity. It also counters China's ambitions under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPE...

Born of political deceit, not religious unity, Pakistan continues to colonize the Baloch people. It's time India and the UN acknowledge this historical wrong.  Pakistan is often portrayed as a country created to protect the interests of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent. However, a closer look at history reveals a different story. Pakistan was not the result of a natural division between Hindus and Muslims but a political project engineered by Punjabi Muslims who desired a separate nation where they could dominate. The idea that Pakistan was meant for all Muslims was a well-crafted propaganda campaign. The Two-Nation Theory, which claimed that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist, was fed to the British colonial rulers by elite Punjabi Muslims  and conveniently accepted. At the time, many Muslims in India were recent converts with deep cultural roots in the land they shared with Hindus. Yet, they were convinced to support the partition under the illusion of religious solidari...

  When U.S. President Donald Trump declared a “historic trade win” after securing a temporary ceasefire in the escalating trade war with China, it was hailed as a diplomatic triumph. But beneath the surface, the deal was more smoke than fire. It was, in reality, a 90-day timeout — not a resolution — emerging from Geneva talks between U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng. The agreement rolled back tariffs by 115 percentage points, but it left nearly every underlying issue untouched. A Temporary Pause in a Much Bigger War At first glance, the truce looked like progress. But in truth, it marked the end of just the first skirmish in a deeper and wider confrontation — a modern-day Cold War rooted in trade, technology, military influence, and global dominance. The original aim of the U.S. trade offensive was to correct America’s widening trade imbalance with China. Yet, over time, that purpose was diluted. China did not concede any of its structu...