The Great Mauritius Mirage: Modi’s Crowdsourcing Charade Exposed

Oh, what a spectacle Prime Minister Narendra Modi has conjured this time—flying halfway across the globe to Mauritius, only to stage a grand photo-op that smells suspiciously like a Bollywood set with a rented audience! Dr. Subramanian Swamy, ever the sharp-eyed skeptic, poked a hole in this glossy balloon with a single, piercing question on X: “How many Indians were flown from India to pad up the turnout?” And honestly, it’s a question that burns brighter than the Mauritian sun on Modi’s carefully curated image.

Modi, draped in his signature blue vest and radiating statesmanly charm, steps onto Mauritian soil, greeted by cheering crowds waving Indian flags like they’re extras in a patriotic propaganda flick. The images are pristine—smiling faces, fluttering tricolors, children hoisted on shoulders, all orchestrated to scream “India’s global dominance!” Are these really the heartfelt masses of the Indian diaspora, or just a well-funded busload of Modi’s loyalists shipped in from Delhi, complete with pre-printed flags and rehearsed smiles? The suspicion isn’t far-fetched when you consider Modi’s track record of turning every foreign visit into a taxpayer-funded fanfare, complete with staged adulation.

This isn’t just a warm welcome—it’s a political pageant, a desperate bid to prop up Modi’s image as the global Hindu savior, even in a tiny island nation where 70% of the population has Indian roots. But here’s the rub: if you need to fly in cheerleaders to inflate your welcome, are you really that beloved, or just that insecure? Dr. Swamy’s jab isn’t just a throwaway line—it’s a spotlight on the hollow spectacle, the kind of vanity project that would make even the most ardent Modi bhakt squirm. How much did this cost, anyway? How many crores were funneled into this Mauritian mirage while Indian farmers protest back home, and healthcare crumbles under budget cuts?

And let’s not forget the irony: Modi’s “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam” tree-planting initiative, a noble gesture on paper, feels like a PR stunt when paired with this crowd-padding controversy. Is he planting roots of friendship, or just digging for applause? The Mauritian diaspora might share cultural ties with India, but they’re not Modi’s personal fan club—unless, of course, you’ve bused them in and paid for their enthusiasm. Dr. Swamy’s question is a gut punch to Modi’s self-crafted narrative of universal adoration.

So, Mr. Modi, while you bask in the glow of your carefully choreographed welcome, the rest of us are left wondering: how many more trips will it take to prop up your image? Dr. Swamy’s tweet isn’t just a critique—it’s a wake-up call to a nation tired of paying for your global vanity tour. Time to face the music, or at least the empty seats.

The MoU Between India’s Enforcement Directorate and Mauritius’ Financial Crimes Commission: A Closer Look

On March 11-12, 2025, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Mauritius to mark its 57th National Day, a significant Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is set to be signed between India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Mauritius Financial Crimes Commission (FCC). Touted as a step to strengthen bilateral efforts against financial crimes, the MoU comes at a time when Mauritius’ reputation as a tax haven and the Adani Group’s global scrutiny cast a shadow over its intent. With Gautam Adani’s conglomerate facing allegations of financial mismanagement—amplified by the Hindenburg Research exposé in 2023 and a U.S. indictment in November 2024—the timing and implications of this agreement raise questions about whether it’s a genuine anti-crime initiative or a strategic move to shield a key Indian industrialist from international fallout.

Details of the MoU: What We Know

While the full text of the MoU remains undisclosed as of March 11, 2025, official statements and contextual clues provide insight into its framework. The agreement aims to foster cooperation between the ED, India’s premier agency for investigating money laundering and economic offenses, and the FCC, Mauritius’ recently established body (effective March 2024) tasked with tackling corruption, money laundering, and financial fraud. Key elements likely include:

Intelligence Sharing: The MoU will enable the exchange of financial data to track illicit flows, suspicious transactions, and assets tied to cross-border crimes. This is critical given Mauritius’ historical role as a conduit for 34% of India’s FDI inflows ($161 billion from 2000-2022), often linked to tax avoidance schemes.

Technical Assistance: It will facilitate training, expertise sharing (e.g., forensic accounting), and capacity building to enhance both agencies’ investigative capabilities.

Joint Investigations: The pact may allow coordinated probes into cases spanning both jurisdictions, targeting offshore entities and individuals exploiting Mauritius’ financial opacity.

Asset Recovery: With the ED’s powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the FCC’s Asset Recovery Division, the MoU could streamline efforts to seize and repatriate proceeds of crime.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri have framed this as part of a broader package of agreements during Modi’s visit, aligning with India’s Vision SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region). 

Mauritius as a Tax Haven: A Long-Standing Concern

Mauritius’ reputation as a tax haven complicates the MoU’s backdrop. Since the 1990s, with the Offshore Business Activities Act, the island has attracted corporations and tycoons with its low-tax regime (15% corporate rate), minimal disclosure requirements, and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with India (revised in 2016). This made it a magnet for “round-tripping”—where Indian funds are routed offshore and reinvested to evade taxes or launder money. The Paradise Papers (2017) and subsequent exposés cemented its image as a secretive financial hub.

For Indian industrialists like Gautam Adani, Mauritius has been a linchpin. The Adani Group has leveraged Mauritius-based entities—such as Adani Global Ltd and funds like Opal Investment Pvt Ltd—for overseas operations and investments back into India. Hindenburg Research’s January 2023 report alleged that 38 Mauritius-domiciled shell companies, linked to Vinod Adani (Gautam’s brother), were used for stock manipulation and money laundering, inflating Adani stock prices by billions. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) in 2023 further claimed that funds like Emerging India Focus Funds, tied to Adani associates, traded heavily in Adani stocks, breaching India’s 75% insider ownership limit for public companies.

Adani’s Global Radar: Hindenburg and U.S. Indictment

Adani’s financial troubles escalated after Hindenburg’s 106-page report accused the group of “the largest con in corporate history,” triggering a $150 billion market value crash. It spotlighted Mauritius as a hub for opaque funds—e.g., Elara India Opportunities Fund and LTS Investment Fund—holding concentrated Adani stakes ($6.9 billion in 2021), often with unclear ownership. India’s SEBI investigated 13 such offshore entities but struggled to trace beneficial owners, citing tax haven secrecy.

The stakes rose in November 2024 when U.S. prosecutors in Brooklyn indicted Gautam Adani, his nephew Sagar, and others for a $265 million bribery scheme tied to solar contracts in India. Alleging violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claimed Adani misled U.S. investors by concealing bribes while raising $3 billion in loans and bonds. Adani Group shares plummeted 20% overnight, and a $600 million bond sale was scrapped. The SEC’s February 2025 request for India’s help under the Hague Convention to serve complaints underscores the case’s ongoing heat.

Timing: A Lifeline for Adani?

The MoU’s timing—months after the U.S. indictment and amid Adani’s battered global image—fuels suspicion. Modi’s close ties with Adani, forged in Gujarat and visible in ventures like Mundra Port, have long drawn cronyism allegations. Modi’s silence on the U.S. charges during a February 2025 U.S. visit—dismissing it as a “personal matter”—and the BJP’s muted response amplify doubts.

Critics might argue the MoU is a calculated move to:

Mitigate Fallout: By enhancing Mauritius’ financial oversight with India’s ED, it could signal reform, potentially softening international pressure on Adani-linked entities operating there.

Control Investigations: Cooperation might allow India to influence probes into Mauritius-based funds, possibly shielding Adani from deeper U.S. or global scrutiny.

Preempt Extradition Risks: Though unlikely, a stronger ED-FCC alliance could complicate U.S. extradition efforts under the India-U.S. treaty, especially if India deems the case a domestic matter.

Mauritian officials, like Financial Services Minister Mahen Seeruttun, have denied tax haven status, citing OECD and FATF compliance. Yet, the FCC’s infancy and untested track record raise doubts about its enforcement bite, especially against entrenched interests like Adani’s.

Beyond the Narrative

The establishment narrative—India and Mauritius uniting against financial crime—sounds noble but strains credulity under scrutiny. Mauritius’ economy thrives on its financial hub status; cracking down risks alienating investors like Adani, whose operations (e.g., via Adani Global Ltd) bolster its offshore ecosystem. The ED, often accused of political bias under Modi (e.g., targeting opposition figures), may prioritize optics over substance. SEBI’s stalled Adani probe—despite Supreme Court nudges—further hints at reluctance to rock the boat.

Conversely, the MoU could be a genuine step to align with FATF standards, with Adani’s woes as mere coincidence. Mauritius’ removal from the FATF grey list in 2021 supports this, as does India’s push for regional stability via SAGAR. But without public disclosure of the MoU’s terms, speculation festers. Is it a broad anti-crime pact, or a tailored shield for a tycoon whose rise mirrors Modi’s political ascent?

Transparency Needed

The MoU between the ED and FCC promises to tackle financial crimes, but its timing and Mauritius’ tax haven legacy—tied to Adani’s embattled empire—demand skepticism. As Modi and Mauritian PM Navin Ramgoolam sign this deal, the public deserves clarity. Is this a sincere effort to curb illicit finance, or a diplomatic play to save Adani from a global reckoning? Only the MoU’s full details, if released, can settle the debate. 

Stormy Start to Parliament’s Budget Session: Protests and Walkouts Mark March 10, 2025

The second part of India’s Budget Session for 2025 commenced with a tumultuous opening on March 10, 2025, as both Houses of Parliament witnessed disruptions, protests, and an Opposition walkout within hours of convening. The proceedings, set against the backdrop of a politically charged atmosphere, underscored deep divisions between the ruling coalition and the Opposition over a range of contentious issues, signaling a contentious week ahead.

Lok Sabha Adjourned Amid DMK Protests

The Lok Sabha’s session began at 11:00 AM but was quickly overshadowed by vociferous protests from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) over the Centre’s three-language policy. DMK members, arguing that the policy undermines regional languages and imposes Hindi-centric education, stormed the well of the House, raising slogans and displaying placards. Their agitation reflects long-standing concerns in Tamil Nadu over linguistic identity and federal autonomy.

Speaker Om Birla attempted to restore order, urging members to return to their seats and allow Question Hour to proceed. However, with the din persisting, the Lok Sabha was adjourned until 2:00 PM. The brief session highlighted the Opposition’s intent to leverage the Budget Session to press the government on issues of regional significance.

Rajya Sabha Sees Opposition Walkout

In the Upper House, proceedings took a dramatic turn when Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and other INDIA Alliance members staged a walkout following remarks by Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. The trigger was a heated exchange over the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, tabled recently. Opposition MPs, including those from the Congress, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), labeled the report “biased” and “one-sided,” alleging that their dissent notes had been excluded or obscured.

AAP MP Sanjay Singh and JMM’s Mahua Maji, speaking to the media outside Parliament, warned that the Waqf Bill could be a precursor to broader governmental overreach into religious properties. “Today it’s Waqf land; tomorrow it could be temples or gurdwaras,” Maji remarked, amplifying the Opposition’s narrative of distrust toward the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The walkout disrupted a scheduled discussion on the Union Budget, leaving the Rajya Sabha adjourned for the day.

Key Issues on the Horizon

The day’s disruptions set the stage for a stormy session, with several flashpoints likely to dominate proceedings in the coming days. The Opposition has signaled its intent to corner the government on multiple fronts, including alleged electoral roll manipulation, the violence in Manipur, recent killings in Jammu and Kashmir, and the contentious issue of delimitation ahead of the 2026 census. 

Additionally, India’s foreign policy stance toward the incoming Trump administration in the United States has emerged as a point of debate, with MPs demanding clarity on trade and tariff implications.

Home Minister Amit Shah is expected to move a key resolution in the Lok Sabha this week, possibly related to delimitation or internal security, though details remain under wraps. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who introduced the Income Tax Bill, 2025, during the first part of the Budget Session in February, may face renewed scrutiny as the Opposition presses for its referral to a Select Committee.

A Session Under Strain

Today’s events reflect a broader decline in parliamentary decorum, a trend noted by observers in recent years. The Lok Sabha’s productivity in the previous Winter Session stood at just 54.5%, while the Rajya Sabha managed only 40%, figures that underscore the growing acrimony between the government and the Opposition. With the 18th Lok Sabha entering its second year, the lack of constructive dialogue risks stalling legislative progress on critical issues like economic recovery and social welfare.

As the Budget Session progresses from March 10 to April 4, all eyes will be on whether the government and Opposition can find common ground or if disruptions will continue to overshadow substantive debate. For now, March 10, 2025, has reaffirmed Parliament’s role as a battleground for India’s competing political visions, with little respite in sight.

Modi Government Faces Heat as Trump’s Tariff Rules Loom: A $7 Billion Threat to India

As the clock ticks toward April 2, 2025, the Modi government finds itself in a tight spot, grappling with the fallout of U.S. President Donald Trump’s new reciprocal tariff rules. Announced in a bold address to Congress on March 4, 2025, these tariffs aim to mirror the duties imposed by trading partners on American goods, putting India—a nation Trump has long branded a "tariff king"—squarely in the crosshairs. With bilateral trade talks teetering and economic stakes sky-high, here’s why the Modi administration is under pressure and what India stands to lose if these rules take effect.

Why the Pressure is Mounting

First, the U.S. is India’s biggest trading partner, with trade hitting $129.2 billion in 2024—$87.4 billion in Indian exports dwarfing $41.8 billion in U.S. imports. This $45.6 billion surplus has long irked Trump, who sees it as evidence of an "unfair" deal. His April tariffs, set to match India’s average 11% tariff rate (far above the U.S.’s 3.3% on Indian goods), threaten to upend this lucrative flow. The Modi government, keen to keep this economic advantage intact, is racing against time to negotiate relief, as Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal’s frantic March 3–8 U.S. visit underscored.

Second, timing couldn’t be worse. Modi’s February 2025 U.S. trip and Goyal’s follow-up talks aimed to preempt Trump’s tariff threats with concessions like bourbon duty cuts and promises of $25 billion in U.S. oil imports. Yet, Trump’s unwavering stance—doubling down just weeks after Modi’s visit—has left Modi’s strategy in tatters. With the deadline looming, the government faces a diplomatic and economic scramble to salvage its $500 billion trade goal by 2030.

Third, India’s export sectors are on edge. Automobiles, steel, pharmaceuticals, and jewelry—key drivers of the $74 billion in goods shipped to the U.S. in 2024—could face duties as high as 100% if Trump mirrors India’s rates. The Indian Steel Association warns of an 85% export drop, while pharma ($8 billion) and jewelry ($8.5 billion) brace for a hit. For a government touting "Make in India," this threatens industrial stagnation and job losses, amplifying domestic pressure.

Fourth, the political stakes are rising. India’s economy is already wobbling—GDP growth has slowed, and inflation looms. Trump’s tariffs could slash $7 billion from exports annually, per Citi Research, potentially cutting GDP by up to 0.6 points ($23.4 billion), according to Goldman Sachs. With senior BJP leader, Dr. Subramanian Swamy slamming Modi’s misplaced notions of having a close friendship with Trump, the country risks losing the ongoing trade war.

Finally, global trade ripples add complexity. Trump’s tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada could flood India with cheap imports like Chinese steel, undercutting local producers. The Modi government must juggle this external threat while dodging a full-blown trade spat with its biggest ally—a delicate dance with little room for error.

The Estimated Loss: $7 Billion and Beyond

If Trump’s reciprocal tariffs kick in, India’s losses could be steep. Citi Research pegs the direct export hit at $7 billion annually, targeting chemicals, metals, autos, pharma, and jewelry—sectors where the U.S. is a top buyer. For context, India’s 2024 merchandise exports to the U.S. were $74 billion; a $7 billion cut is nearly 10% of that pie. Steel could see an 85% drop, per industry warnings, while autos face crippling 100% duties matching India’s own rates.

Goldman Sachs paints a grimmer picture: a 0.1 to 0.6 percentage point GDP drop, translating to $3.9 billion to $23.4 billion in lost economic output, given India’s $3.9 trillion GDP. This includes indirect blows—capital outflows, a weaker rupee, and pricier imports fueling inflation. Experts like Rathin Roy note India’s mere 2% share of global exports limits its leverage, making domestic fallout the real sting.

Beyond numbers, the human cost looms large. Job losses in export hubs—think Tamil Nadu’s auto plants or Gujarat’s jewelry workshops—could spark unrest. A stronger dollar and trade disruptions might also force the Reserve Bank of India to burn reserves defending the rupee, squeezing an already slowing economy.

Can Modi Turn the Tide?

The Modi government isn’t sitting idle. Goyal’s U.S. dash and offers to buy more American oil and defense gear signal a push to soften Trump’s resolve. Yet, with Trump’s "America First" mantra unshaken, India’s options are narrowing. A trade deal by fall 2025—promised after Modi’s February talks—remains a long shot as April nears.

For now, the pressure is palpable. Trump’s tariffs aren’t just a trade policy—they’re a test of Modi’s economic stewardship. If the $7 billion loss becomes reality, India could face a storm of crashing stocks, surging prices, and a bruised global standing. The question is: can Modi’s diplomacy outpace Trump’s deadlines? As March 8, 2025, fades into history, the answer feels more urgent than ever.

Capitulation Over Courage: Modi’s Mystery in the Face of Tariffs

In the grand theater of global trade, where nations clash with tariffs as their swords and resilience as their shields, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has chosen not to fight but to kneel. As Donald Trump, with his characteristic bombast, threatens reciprocal tariffs set to take effect on April 2, 2025, Modi’s response—or lack thereof—stands as a glaring testament to a troubling capitulation. While other nations rise to the challenge with cunning and defiance, India’s leader seems content to let the winds of Washington blow away decades of economic sovereignty. What drives this surrender? Is it strategy, cowardice, or some deeper, unspoken weakness lurking within the man who once promised a resurgent India?

Trump’s tariff threats are no idle bluster. Announced with the swagger of a man who believes “nobody can argue with me,” they target nations like India for imposing higher levies on American goods—auto tariffs exceeding 100%, by his reckoning. Come April, the U.S. intends to mirror these rates, a move that could batter India’s exports in automobiles, electronics, textiles, and more. Yet, while the world watches this unfolding trade war, Modi’s India does not counter with strength or shrewdness. Instead, New Delhi murmurs of “amicable resolutions” and clings to the frail hope of a bilateral trade agreement, as if pleading at Trump’s table will spare us the lash. This is not leadership; it is submission.

Contrast this with the steel of other nations caught in Trump’s crosshairs. Canada, under Justin Trudeau, has not flinched. Facing 25% tariffs on its lumber and dairy, Trudeau called Trump’s move “very dumb” and struck back with retaliatory tariffs on $107 billion of U.S. goods. He’s challenged the U.S. at the World Trade Organization and through the USMCA, wielding legal and economic tools with precision. Mexico, too, refuses to cower. President Claudia Sheinbaum has signaled plans to target U.S. products with reciprocal levies, hinting at shifting trade alliances to Canada or beyond if Trump persists. Even China, Trump’s perennial foil, stands ready. Having diversified its markets since Trump’s first term, Beijing could halt U.S. oil and gas imports—a devastating counterpunch—while shrugging off a 20% levy with the confidence of a nation prepared for battle.

These countries do not merely react; they strategize. Canada’s boycott of American goods—from California wines to Amazon deliveries—mobilizes its people, turning consumer choice into a weapon. Mexico’s threat to pivot trade partnerships exploits the U.S.’s reliance on North American supply chains. China’s diversification ensures it can weather the storm, its economy no longer tethered to American whims. Each move is a calculated defiance, a refusal to let Trump dictate terms unchallenged. And then there is India—silent, compliant, reducing tariffs unilaterally as if to appease a bully rather than outmaneuver him.

What explains this stark disparity? Modi, the man with the oft-touted “56-inch chest,” appears diminished on this global stage. During his February 13, 2025, visit to Washington, he agreed to negotiate a trade deal by year’s end, setting an ambitious $500 billion annual trade target with the U.S. Noble in theory, but in practice, it reeks of desperation—a willingness to lower India’s defenses to keep Trump’s favor. Where is the leader who promised to make India a manufacturing powerhouse? Where is the resolve to protect our exporters, our farmers, our industries? Instead, we see a hasty retreat, a promise to slash tariffs that Trump deems “very unfair,” as if India’s economic policies should bend to American whims.

This surrender cannot be chalked up to mere pragmatism. Canada, Mexico, and China face the same economic stakes—perhaps greater—yet they fight. India’s vulnerability, with a $45.7 billion trade deficit with the U.S. in 2024, is real, but capitulation is not the only path. Other nations prove that resistance, whether through retaliation, diversification, or diplomatic leverage, can shift the balance. Modi’s choice to bow suggests something more troubling: may be a hidden frailty that cripples his will when the moment demands defiance. Is it a fear of confrontation? A lack of vision? Or some personal failing?

While others sharpen their swords and rally their forces, he offers platitudes and concessions. The world watches as Canada stands tall, Mexico pivots, and China endures—each carving a path through the trade war’s chaos. India, meanwhile, drifts, its leader’s surrender a quiet betrayal of a billion dreams.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Bold Proposal to Deploy Troops to Ukraine: India’s Strategic Imperative

In a thought-provoking post on X on March 4, 2025, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a prominent Indian politician, economist, and strategic thinker, proposed that India send 20,000 troops to Ukraine to defend the nation against Russia and protect Indian students and teachers caught in the ongoing conflict. While the suggestion has sparked sharp criticism, a closer examination reveals the strategic brilliance and out-of-the-box thinking behind Dr. Swamy’s idea. Far from being a mere rhetorical flourish, this proposal underscores India’s potential to assert itself as a global power, safeguard its citizens abroad, and reshape its geopolitical standing in an increasingly polarized world.

Arguments in support of Indian troops deployment in Ukraine:

1. Protecting Indian Nationals in Ukraine
   One of the most compelling arguments is the need to protect Indian students and teachers stranded in Ukraine amid the Russia-Ukraine war, which began with Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Thousands of Indian citizens, particularly students pursuing medical education, were trapped in the conflict zone, prompting large-scale evacuation efforts like Operation Ganga in 2022. Deploying troops could ensure a sustained, robust presence to secure their safety, provide humanitarian aid, and deter further threats. This aligns with India’s moral and constitutional duty to safeguard its citizens abroad, as enshrined in Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, which emphasizes international peace and security.
2. Strengthening India’s Global Standing
   By aligning with Western nations like the UK, Canada, and France—countries that have supported Ukraine militarily—India could enhance its strategic partnership with the West, particularly the United States. While India has historically maintained a close relationship with Russia, the shifting dynamics of global power necessitate diversification of alliances. Dr. Swamy’s proposal positions India as a proactive player in the international arena, signaling its willingness to contribute to global stability and counterbalance Russia’s aggression. This move could elevate India’s role in forums like the United Nations and strengthen its bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
3. Countering Russia’s Traditional Dominance
   India’s historical reliance on Russia for military hardware and diplomatic support—particularly during conflicts with Pakistan and China—has shaped its foreign policy for decades. However, Russia’s actions in Ukraine have strained this relationship, prompting India to recalibrate its stance. Dr. Swamy’s suggestion to support Ukraine indirectly challenges Russia’s dominance and signals India’s readiness to assert independence in its foreign policy. This strategic pivot could reduce India’s dependence on Russian arms and open doors to advanced military technology from Western nations, bolstering India’s defense capabilities against threats from China and Pakistan.
4. Learning from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
   The Russia-Ukraine war has offered critical lessons in modern warfare, including the importance of drones, artillery, and hybrid tactics, as highlighted in recent analyses (e.g., Forbes, October 2024). By deploying troops to Ukraine, India could gain firsthand experience in these cutting-edge military strategies, enhancing its own defense preparedness along its borders with China and Pakistan. Dr. Swamy’s proposal reflects a forward-thinking approach to leveraging global conflicts for India’s strategic advantage, ensuring the Indian military remains at the forefront of technological and tactical innovation.
5. Promoting Global Peace and Stability
   Dr. Swamy’s call for India to “ensure peace” in the region aligns with India’s long-standing commitment to non-alignment and peaceful coexistence, rooted in its post-independence foreign policy. By contributing troops to Ukraine, India could play a mediatory role, working alongside Western powers to de-escalate the conflict and prevent further humanitarian crises. This would reinforce India’s image as a responsible global power committed to multilateralism, countering criticism of its neutral stance on the Ukraine war and its continued purchase of Russian oil.

The Strategic Brilliance of Dr. Swamy’s Out-of-the-Box Idea

Dr. Subramanian Swamy, known for his Hindu nationalist views and unconventional political stances, has once again demonstrated his strategic brilliance with this audacious proposal. His ability to think beyond traditional geopolitical alignments—challenging India’s decades-long partnership with Russia—reflects a deep understanding of the shifting global order. In a world where the U.S. and China are locked in a new Cold War, and regional powers like India must navigate complex alliances, Dr. Swamy’s suggestion offers a bold vision for India to emerge as a decisive player on the world stage.

The out-of-the-box nature of this idea lies in its departure from India’s cautious, non-interventionist foreign policy. Rather than remaining on the sidelines, as it has largely done since the Ukraine war began, India could seize this opportunity to assert leadership, protect its citizens, and gain strategic advantages. Dr. Swamy’s proposal also highlights his knack for identifying long-term opportunities amidst immediate crises—transforming a humanitarian concern into a geopolitical masterstroke.

Moreover, the proposal’s alignment with Western powers, while maintaining India’s strategic autonomy, showcases Dr. Swamy’s nuanced understanding of balance-of-power politics. By criticizing the U.S. for “ditching their former ally” (likely a reference to Ukraine or NATO partners), he positions India as a principled actor willing to uphold international commitments, further enhancing its moral authority.

Addressing Potential Criticisms

Critics may argue that deploying troops to Ukraine risks antagonizing Russia, India’s long-standing partner, or overstretching India’s military resources, given its commitments along the borders with China and Pakistan. However, Dr. Swamy’s proposal could be implemented with a limited, well-defined mandate—focusing on humanitarian protection and peacekeeping rather than direct combat—minimizing risks while maximizing benefits. Additionally, India’s military, one of the largest and most capable in the world, is well-equipped to handle such a mission without compromising domestic security.

Conclusion

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s suggestion to deploy 20,000 Indian troops to Ukraine may appear radical at first glance, but it embodies a visionary approach to India’s role in global affairs. By protecting Indian nationals, strengthening ties with the West, countering Russian dominance, learning from modern warfare, and promoting peace, the proposal offers a multifaceted strategy to elevate India’s geopolitical stature. Dr. Swamy’s strategic brilliance shines through in this out-of-the-box idea, challenging conventional wisdom and inviting India to seize a historic opportunity to redefine its place in the world. While the proposal warrants careful deliberation and diplomatic groundwork, it deserves serious consideration as a bold step toward India’s emergence as a global superpower.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy: A Stalwart Defender of Dharma in the Face of Political Betrayal

In a resounding victory for Hindu rights and temple autonomy, Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s relentless legal efforts have once again safeguarded the sanctity of India’s sacred spaces. On March 6, 2025, the Uttarakhand government, under Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, was forced to withdraw the controversial Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act through a voice vote in the state assembly. This Act, which sought to bring 104 temples, including the revered Char Dham shrines of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, and Yamunotri, under state control, was a blatant attempt to centralize power and exploit temple wealth for political gain. Dr. Swamy’s public interest litigation (PIL) played a pivotal role in exposing and halting this egregious overreach, reinforcing his unwavering commitment to protecting Dharma in the face of mounting challenges.

Dr. Swamy, a veteran politician, economist, and legal eagle, has long been a tireless advocate for the preservation of Hindu temple autonomy and the safeguarding of their spiritual and material heritage. His PIL, filed in response to the Uttarakhand government’s 2019 Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act, argued that the state’s attempt to assume control of these temples—and their vast reserves of gold, jewelry, and other valuables—violated constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, and 31-A, which guarantee religious freedom and the right to manage religious institutions. The Act, passed under the BJP-led government, aimed to transfer temple assets to the custody of the Chief Minister, who seemed to be directed by PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah to facilitate the transfer of this wealth. Courts, responding to Dr. Swamy’s PIL, ruled that the temple treasures belong to the deities, not the state, effectively thwarting this alleged scheme to loot temple wealth.

This victory is not an isolated incident but part of Dr. Swamy’s decades-long crusade to protect Hindu religious institutions from governmental interference and exploitation. His legal battles, including the successful challenge against the Maharashtra government’s takeover of the Vitthal-Rukmini temple in Pandharpur, demonstrate a consistent pattern of defending temple autonomy against encroachments by both state and central authorities. Dr. Swamy’s efforts underscore a deep commitment to Dharma—the eternal principles of righteousness and justice that form the bedrock of Hindu civilization. His courage in confronting powerful political figures, even within his own party, the BJP, is a testament to his integrity and dedication to the Hindu cause.

However, this triumph casts a harsh light on the betrayal of Hindutva by BJP central leadership, whose actions expose a shocking hypocrisy at the heart of their Hindu nationalist rhetoric. The BJP, under Modi and Shah’s leadership, has long positioned itself as the champion of Hindutva, promising to protect and promote Hindu interests. Yet, the attempt to seize control of the Char Dham temples and their wealth reveals a cynical agenda driven not by devotion but by greed and political opportunism. By directing the Uttarakhand Chief Minister to transfer temple gold and jewelry into their custody, Modi and Shah have betrayed the very principles they claim to uphold, turning sacred spaces into potential piggy banks for their personal or political enrichment. This act of sacrilege not only undermines the trust of millions of Hindus but also mocks the ideology of Hindutva, reducing it to a hollow slogan used to mask authoritarian and exploitative tendencies.

Current conduct of central leadership highlights the dangers of a government that prioritizes power and profit over the spiritual and cultural heritage of India’s majority community. Critics have long accused Modi’s administration of fostering a majoritarian agenda that excludes minorities while simultaneously exploiting Hindu institutions for political gain. This episode erodes their credibility as true guardians of Hindu values. Instead of fostering unity and reverence, their actions have sown division and distrust, tarnishing the legacy of Hindutva with accusations of corruption and sacrilege.

Dr. Swamy’s continuous efforts to save Dharma stand in stark contrast to this betrayal. His legal acumen, combined with his unwavering moral compass, has repeatedly thwarted attempts to undermine Hindu temple autonomy, from Tamil Nadu’s HR&CE Act to the Char Dham controversy. His willingness to challenge powerful figures within his own political party demonstrates a rare courage and conviction, making him a beacon of hope for those who believe in the preservation of India’s spiritual heritage.

As India navigates the complexities of its democratic and religious identity, Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s vigilance serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding Dharma against powerful machinations. Meanwhile, Modi and Shah’s actions in the Char Dham case demand introspection and accountability. If Hindutva is to remain a meaningful ideology rather than a tool for exploitation, its leaders must prioritize the sanctity of Hindu institutions over personal or political gain. Dr. Swamy’s triumph is not just a legal victory but a moral one—a clarion call to protect the soul of India from those who would desecrate it for their own ends.