The Hidden Insecurity Behind the Desire to Dominate by Anupam Srivastava

At first glance, people who try to dominate others often appear confident, powerful, and in control. They speak loudly, assert authority, impose their will, and expect compliance. Society sometimes mistakes this behavior for strength or leadership. However, beneath this outward show of control often lies a deep sense of insecurity. The urge to dominate others is less about genuine power and more about an inner struggle to feel safe, valued, and significant.

Insecurity as the Root Cause

True confidence does not need to overpower others. Secure individuals are comfortable with themselves; they do not feel threatened by differing opinions, success of others, or loss of control. In contrast, insecure individuals often feel internally unstable. They may struggle with low self-esteem, fear of rejection, fear of being exposed as “not good enough,” or unresolved emotional wounds from past experiences.

Dominating others becomes a coping mechanism. By controlling external situations and people, they temporarily silence their internal chaos. Authority over others creates an illusion of strength that masks feelings of inadequacy.

Psychological Factors

From a psychological perspective, dominance can stem from childhood experiences. Individuals who grew up in environments where they felt powerless, ignored, or constantly criticized may learn that control equals safety. If they were dominated themselves, they might unconsciously replicate the same behavior as adults, believing it is the only way to avoid vulnerability.

Narcissistic tendencies can also play a role. Narcissism often hides fragile self-worth. When someone’s sense of identity depends on superiority, domination becomes essential to maintaining their self-image. Any challenge feels like a personal attack, triggering defensive or aggressive behavior.

Fear of Losing Control

Insecure individuals often have an intense fear of losing control. They may believe that if they are not in charge, they will be disrespected, ignored, or harmed. This fear drives micromanagement, manipulation, intimidation, or emotional coercion.

Ironically, this need for control pushes people away. Relationships become strained because dominance leaves little room for mutual respect, trust, or emotional safety.

Social and Cultural Reinforcement

In some cultures and systems, dominance is rewarded. Aggressive leadership, authoritarian behavior, and emotional suppression are sometimes praised as signs of strength, especially in professional or patriarchal settings. This reinforcement allows insecure individuals to continue dominating without addressing their internal issues.

However, dominance-based power is unstable. It depends on fear, not respect. Once fear disappears, so does the authority.

The Cost of Dominating Others

While domination may provide temporary relief, it comes at a high cost. Dominating individuals often experience loneliness, shallow relationships, and constant anxiety about maintaining control. Since their self-worth depends on external validation and obedience, they are never truly at peace.

For those on the receiving end, dominance can cause emotional damage, loss of confidence, resentment, and trauma. Healthy relationships cannot thrive in an environment of fear or submission.

True Strength Lies Elsewhere

Real strength comes from self-awareness, emotional regulation, and the ability to coexist without control. Secure individuals empower others instead of suppressing them. They listen, collaborate, and lead with empathy. They are not threatened by independence because their self-worth does not depend on dominance.

Letting go of the need to dominate requires courage—the courage to face one’s insecurities, heal past wounds, and accept vulnerability. But it is only through this process that genuine confidence and meaningful relationships can emerge.

Those who try to dominate others are often fighting battles within themselves. Their behavior is not a sign of superiority, but a signal of unresolved insecurity. Understanding this does not excuse harmful actions, but it helps explain them. A healthier society is built not on dominance, but on mutual respect, emotional intelligence, and inner stability—qualities that no amount of control can replace.

Time for Transparency: Foreign Engagements, Political Narratives, and the Question India Must Ask– by Anupam Srivastava 

Transparency is not a slogan; it is the backbone of a functioning democracy. In any mature political system, especially one as large and complex as India’s, public figures are expected to subject themselves to scrutiny—particularly when their actions intersect with foreign platforms, global political ecosystems, and narratives that shape international opinion about the country. It is in this context that a growing public debate has emerged around the foreign travels and overseas engagements of senior Indian opposition leaders, especially Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

This debate is not about the right to travel. No democratic society should question a citizen’s freedom of movement, least of all that of an elected representative or political leader. The concern instead is about opacity—the absence of clear disclosures regarding the purpose, funding, affiliations, and outcomes of these visits, especially when they coincide with sensitive political moments at home.

Since 2015, Rahul Gandhi has undertaken a large number of foreign trips, many of which have been described as “private.” The term itself is not illegitimate; public figures are entitled to personal time and privacy. However, the issue arises when “private” travel repeatedly overlaps with political speaking engagements, interactions with foreign institutions, think tanks, and advocacy groups, and public commentary on India’s internal democratic processes. At that point, the line between private citizen and political actor becomes blurred—and citizens are justified in asking questions.

The Pattern That Fuels Suspicion

Patterns matter in public life. One isolated instance can be dismissed as coincidence; repeated occurrences demand examination. Over the years, Rahul Gandhi has been seen engaging with foreign universities, policy forums, and civil society platforms, some of which are linked—directly or indirectly—to global ideological networks critical of India at every stage. These interactions often include speeches or discussions that portray India’s democratic institutions as weakened, compromised, or under threat.

Criticism of a government is a legitimate democratic act. Opposition leaders exist precisely to challenge those in power. But when such criticism is consistently articulated on foreign soil, before non-Indian audiences, and through platforms that already hold adversarial views of India’s political direction, it raises a fundamental question: Why here, why now, and why this audience?

This question becomes sharper when similar patterns appear across time. Rahul Gandhi in Europe, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in the United States—often during moments when India is debating major reforms, facing protests, or navigating contentious policy shifts. The repetition of location, timing, and narrative creates the impression—fair or not—of a coordinated communication strategy rather than spontaneous, individual expression.

The Soros Question and Global Ecosystems

Much of the public discourse has centered on appearances at or associations with institutions and forums perceived to be part of a broader global ideological ecosystem, sometimes linked in public imagination to philanthropist George Soros and organizations funded by the Open Society Foundations (OSF). It is important to be precise here. Association does not automatically imply alignment, coordination, or funding. Universities, think tanks, and civil society forums often host a wide range of speakers, including those with divergent views.

However, what concerns critics is not mere presence but consistency. Repeated engagement with similar networks, coupled with similar talking points about India’s democracy, electoral processes, media freedom, and institutional integrity, fuels speculation about whether these are coincidental overlaps or part of a deliberate outreach strategy.

Again, speculation is not proof. But democracy thrives on questions, not silence. When international reports questioning India’s democratic credentials surface soon after high-profile foreign engagements by Indian opposition leaders, citizens are entitled to wonder whether these narratives emerge independently—or whether they are influenced by political messaging amplified abroad.

Foreign Applause, Domestic Consequences

One of the most emotionally charged aspects of this debate is the perception that domestic political battles are being internationalized. Many Indians—across party lines—share an instinctive discomfort with the idea of internal political disputes being aired on global platforms in ways that may damage the country’s image or invite external pressure.

India’s recent history provides multiple flashpoints: the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the farm laws, debates over corporate governance involving major conglomerates, and international democracy indices. In each case, intense domestic debate was followed—or accompanied—by global commentary, protests, and reports critical of Indian institutions.

Correlation does not equal causation. But the sequence of events, combined with the visibility of overseas political messaging by Indian leaders, has created a narrative that cannot be dismissed outright. The concern is not merely reputational; it is strategic. International narratives influence investor sentiment, diplomatic leverage, and geopolitical positioning.

When foreign applause for domestic criticism is followed by internal unrest, protests, or global pressure campaigns, the cost is borne not by political elites alone but by ordinary citizens—farmers, workers, students, and businesses.

The Question of Funding and Briefings

Perhaps the most sensitive issue in this entire discussion is funding. Who pays for these frequent international travels? Are they self-funded, party-funded, or supported by host institutions? Are there speaking fees involved? Are logistical arrangements made by foreign organizations with specific ideological positions?

None of these questions are inherently accusatory. In many democracies, politicians disclose travel funding, honoraria, and affiliations precisely to avoid suspicion. Transparency protects not only the public interest but also the reputation of the individual involved.

Equally important is the question of briefings. Political leaders do not speak in isolation; they rely on research, data, and framing. Who prepares these briefs for overseas engagements? Are they drawn from party sources, independent researchers, or international advocacy networks? What narratives are emphasized, and which are omitted?

Without clear disclosures, the vacuum is filled by speculation—and speculation, in politics, is rarely benign.

Private Citizen or Public Actor?

Supporters of Rahul Gandhi often argue that he travels as a private individual and speaks as a concerned global citizen. Critics counter that a former Congress president, Member of Parliament, and scion of India’s most influential political family cannot easily shed his public identity. Both positions have merit, but the tension between them underscores the need for clarity.

In democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom, even opposition leaders face scrutiny over foreign engagements, lobbying laws, and disclosure requirements. India should be no different. Transparency is not an attack; it is a safeguard.

India and Foreign Agendas

At the heart of this debate lies a deeper anxiety: the fear that India could become a testing ground for external ideological or political agendas. Whether this fear is justified is a matter of perspective, but it resonates strongly in a post-colonial society that has historically guarded its sovereignty.

India is not a laboratory. Its democratic evolution is messy, noisy, and imperfect—but it is driven by its people, not by external validation or condemnation. Constructive criticism from abroad can be valuable, but it must not replace internal democratic processes or be weaponized for political leverage.

The Need for a Clear Framework

Rather than descending into partisan mudslinging, India would benefit from a clear, institutional framework governing foreign engagements by political leaders. Such a framework could include:

Voluntary or mandatory disclosure of funding sources for international travel.

Transparency about the nature of engagements—academic, political, or advocacy-based.

Clear separation between private travel and political activity.

Ethical guidelines for international speaking engagements.

These measures would protect both the credibility of opposition leaders and the integrity of India’s democratic discourse.

The call for transparency is not a call for censorship or restriction. It is a call for honesty, openness, and accountability. Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, and all political leaders—across parties—stand to gain from clearer disclosures, not lose.

If there is no coordination, no foreign influence, and no external agenda, transparency will only reinforce trust. If, however, legitimate questions exist, they deserve answers—not dismissal.

India’s democracy is strong enough to withstand scrutiny, but it is also wise enough to demand clarity from those who claim to defend it. Foreign travel, global dialogue, and international engagement are not the problem. Opacity is.

Who’s Paying the Price for India’s Stray Dog Crisis? Not the Activists, That’s for Sure -By Anupam Srivastava

 

Who’s Paying the Price for India’s Stray Dog Crisis? Not the Activists, That’s for Sure

By Anupam Srivastava 

It starts as a jog through the neighborhood. It ends at the hospital.

This story repeats itself across India, from the narrow lanes of Lucknow to the upscale colonies of Bengaluru, where stray dogs roam in packs — sometimes silently, sometimes snarling, sometimes biting. Every year, millions of Indians are attacked by strays. And yet, any effort to remove them from public spaces is met not with relief but with outrage — not from residents, but from a small, powerful group of dog lovers and self-proclaimed activists.

The recent Supreme Court directive allowing authorities to remove stray dogs from public places has ignited fierce backlash from animal rights activists. Their argument: that these dogs, despite their numbers and frequent aggression, should remain on the streets under protection. But this raises an uncomfortable question — why should ordinary citizens be forced to pay for the ideals of a vocal, elite minority?

A Public Health Crisis in Slow Motion

In 2024, India recorded over 3.7 million dog bites. That’s roughly 350 bites every hour. A staggering number by any standard — but it's only part of the story.

A government-backed survey in 2022–2023 estimated over 7 million bites annually, with most linked to strays. These attacks aren’t just painful or traumatic. They’re often fatal. India suffers between 18,000–20,000 rabies deaths annually — accounting for a shocking 36% of the global death toll. That number might be even higher, given the sheer volume of cases that go unreported in rural and peri-urban areas.

And yet, despite the hard data and disturbing imagery that circulates almost weekly — videos of children being mauled, elderly people knocked down, cyclists chased into traffic — there’s resistance to action. Why?

The Activist Bubble

The people most affected by stray dogs aren’t the ones with time to write op-eds, file petitions, or gather in candlelight vigils. They’re delivery workers, municipal sweepers, children walking to school, senior citizens out for morning strolls — in short, those without privilege, voice, or protection.

It is a cruel irony that those advocating to keep stray dogs on the streets often live far from them. Gated communities, dog-friendly apartments, private cars — these luxuries buffer many activists from the reality outside their walls. Meanwhile, people in lower-income neighborhoods, who must walk or cycle daily, face the direct consequences of unchecked canine aggression.

The humanitarian angle here isn’t about the dogs. It’s about the humans.

A Culture of Normalised Chaos

Name one modern city — London, Tokyo, New York, Singapore — where stray dogs chase vehicles, bark through the night, or roam school premises. You can’t. Because in functional urban spaces, animals aren’t left to fend for themselves on the streets. They’re sheltered, adopted, or euthanised when dangerous.

In India, however, we’ve normalised the abnormal. Stray dogs have joined the pantheon of freely roaming animals, alongside cows, bulls, and monkeys — sometimes out of compassion, often out of apathy. But compassion without regulation is chaos. And the cost of that chaos is human lives.

In cities like Lucknow, locals now refer to entire streets as “Kuttey Wali Gali” — not as a joke, but as a caution. In Karnataka, as of August 10, 2025, there have already been 286,000 dog bite cases this year, including 5,652 bites in just one week. Twenty-six people have died of rabies — in just eight months.

Is this what empathy is supposed to look like?

Follow the Money?

There’s also a murkier side to the outrage. Some critics have begun asking an uncomfortable but logical question: Are certain activist groups inadvertently (or intentionally) serving commercial interests?

India imports and distributes millions of doses of anti-rabies vaccines each year. Could it be possible that the endless preservation of the stray population is feeding into a larger profit cycle — from pet food manufacturers to pharmaceutical suppliers?

No one’s offering direct proof — yet. But in the absence of transparent policy discussions, the suspicions fester. When public health data points one way, but advocacy moves in the opposite direction, people start asking: Who benefits from the chaos?

Time for a Rational Middle Ground

This is not a call for cruelty. No one — resident or activist — wants to see dogs suffer. But real empathy demands solutions, not sentiment. Sterilisation efforts have failed on the scale required. Vaccination coverage is uneven. Shelters are underfunded. And removal or euthanasia of dangerous animals, though legal under existing laws, is met with fierce resistance.

We need to build safe, humane sheltering systems. Fund public adoption programs. Create better urban planning that doesn’t leave animals behind. And yes, in cases where dogs become dangerous and unadoptable, the state must retain the right to act in the interest of public safety.

Because here's the truth: keeping stray dogs on the streets isn’t kindness — it’s abdication. Abdication of responsibility, of compassion toward both humans and animals, and of the vision of a modern, safe India.

And until we face that honestly, the bites will continue. So will the deaths. And all of us — not just the elite activists — will pay the price.

India’s Air Power Paradox: Modern Defenses, Diminishing Teeth

 

India’s Air Power Paradox: Modern Defenses, Diminishing Teeth

By Anupam Srivastava

While Operation Sindoor in May 2025 was hailed as a tactical masterstroke showcasing India’s multi-layered air defense grid, it has also cast a stark spotlight on the growing imbalance between India's air defense capabilities and its fast-eroding offensive airpower. Behind the façade of missile shields and drone intercepts lies a force stretched dangerously thin.

Squadron Crisis: The Numbers Don't Lie

The Indian Air Force today operates just 31 fighter squadrons, significantly below the sanctioned strength of 42. But even this benchmark is seen by many defense planners as a compromise—what India truly needs, given its volatile borders with Pakistan, China, and a rapidly militarizing Bangladesh, is more than a 72-squadron force.

The drawdown has been years in the making. The retirement of legacy platforms like the MiG-21, MiG-23BN, and Jaguars has not been matched by commensurate inductions. Indigenous efforts, notably the HAL Tejas Mk1A, have been sluggish despite recent ramp-ups, while the Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) global tender for 114 fighters remains stalled—still at the RFI/RFP stage five years after inception.

“India is preparing for 21st-century warfare with 20th-century force levels and 19th century mindset of leaders,” said one retired Air Marshal.

Operation Sindoor: Air Defense in Action

The May 2025 border incursion scenario in the western sector saw India’s integrated air defense network, for the first time, operate at scale:

The S-400 Triumf, with three batteries currently active, provided deep-range aerial denial.

Akashteer, India’s automated command-and-control network, coordinated multi-layer radar feeds and interception assets seamlessly.

SAMAR, a low-cost innovation that repurposes old air-to-air missiles into surface-based interceptors, neutralized a wave of loitering munitions.

The outcome: zero enemy aerial penetrations, and no need to scramble manned jets.

It was a modern air defense victory—on paper. But it also reinforced a dangerous pattern: India is leaning increasingly on static defenses, rather than projecting air power forward.

Air Defense is Not Air Superiority

While air defense systems can protect key nodes, they cannot establish air dominance, conduct deep strikes, or neutralize strategic enemy infrastructure. Only combat aircraft can execute those missions.

The reliance on surface-based systems creates a defensive posture by default, reducing the IAF’s ability to shape events across the Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control.

Gaps in Force Modernization

Despite public rhetoric, India’s modernization track record remains sluggish and scattered:

Fighter Fleet Replenishment

Tejas Mk1A: 83 ordered; GE to supply 2 engines per month. Still, the full fleet won’t be operational before 2028.

Tejas Mk2: First flight delayed to late 2026; production may not begin until 2030.

AMCA (Fifth-Gen Jet): Cleared for development; first prototype by 2028, earliest induction not expected before 2035.

MRFA Tender: Still pending government approval; major vendors await clarity. Government still confused.

Su-30MKI Upgrade: Approved Rs63,000 crore program will include AESA radars (Virupaksha), avionics, and weapons integration—full rollout unlikely before 2030.

Drone & Surveillance Edge

Heron-TP & Loitering Munitions: Procurements underway, but indigenous capability still catching up.

AEW&C Fleet: Only 3 Netra platforms operational; 6 Netra Mk2 aircraft in development.

Radars: 18 Ashwini radar systems recently deployed—but inadequate for pan-India coverage.

The Strategic Limits of Defence

While these systems provide excellent point and area defence, they do not replace the strategic functions of a fighter aircraft. Air superiority is achieved not by denying airspace alone, but by dominating it—proactively and persistently. Only a robust fighter fleet can undertake:

Deep interdiction and suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD)

Offensive counter-air (OCA) missions

Close air support for ground forces

Strategic reconnaissance and ISR operations

Precision long-range strike

Air defence systems, no matter how advanced, are inherently reactive in nature. They protect but do not project. They deter but do not dominate.

Strategic Inertia or Misplaced Priorities?

India’s defense leadership has long prioritized surface forces, largely due to political optics and internal security pressures. The Indian Army accounts for nearly 55% of defense expenditure, while the IAF’s share remains below 23%.

This imbalance is stark for a country that faces simultaneous aerial threats from both China and Pakistan, with no true alliance structure to rely on in wartime. But now if you consider Bangladesh as another possible front then the threat becomes more serious. 

“The Indian Air Force is expected to punch above its weight, but it’s flying with one hand tied behind its back,” says a senior IAF planner.

What’s Needed: A Twin-Thrust Doctrine

To maintain strategic parity in the region, India must urgently pursue a dual-front modernization strategy:

1. Expand Fighter Fleet to at least 42 Squadrons by 2030

This requires fast-tracked production, AMCA prioritization, and political will to execute the MRFA tender without further delays.

2. Develop Autonomous Aerial Power

Armed drones, swarms, and AI-enabled loitering munitions must be operationalized by mid-decade. The DRDO Netra, CATS Warrior, and TAPAS-BH drones cannot remain prototypes indefinitely.

3. Invest in Strategic Lift and Refueling

Mid-air refueling and rapid troop deployment platforms like the C-295, IL-78, and new tankers are essential for long-range operations.

They are required in more numbers. 

4. Integrate Air Defense with Offensive Doctrine

While systems like Akashteer provide robust C2 capabilities, they must work in tandem with manned and unmanned strike platforms—not substitute them.

Political Will vs Strategic Requirement

While India’s defense budget continues to grow in absolute terms, its allocation is heavily skewed toward personnel and legacy commitments. The IAF’s share, often under 23% of the total defence expenditure, remains inadequate for a capital-intensive force tasked with maintaining regional air dominance.

The broader strategic community has voiced concern that airpower, despite being decisive in modern conflict, does not receive the institutional prioritization it deserves.

As former Air Chief Marshal R.K.S. Bhadauria once remarked:

“Air superiority is not a luxury—it’s a prerequisite.”

 The Sword Must Return

India’s current reliance on missile-based air defense, while tactically sound, is not a viable replacement for a shrinking fighter fleet. Deterrence is not built on denial systems—it is built on dominance.

As Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh pointed out earlier this year: “You don’t win wars with walls. You win them by flying over them.”

India must heed this warning. A force with only 31 squadrons cannot fulfill the ambitions—or the obligations—of a rising power. It is time for New Delhi to stop admiring its shields, and start sharpening its sword.

Anupam Srivastava is a Special Correspondent with Hindustan Times for last 25 years, with special interest in defence writing and reviews. 

Sources:

MoD Briefings, 2025

HAL & DRDO Public Statements

Janes World Air Forces Database, 2025

Indian Parliamentary Defence Committee Reports

India’s Military Shockwave: The 10 Defense Breakthroughs Shaping Global Power Redefining Power: India’s Defense Surge Stuns the World

India’s Military Shockwave: The 10 Defense Breakthroughs Shaping Global Power

---

Redefining Power: India’s Defense Surge Stuns the World

What happens when a nation once known for its defense imports suddenly becomes a global innovator in missile technology, submarines, and AI-powered warfare? You get a new power paradigm—and India is at the center of it.

Gone are the days of dependency. In just a few decades, India has transitioned from a buyer to a builder—from relying on foreign arms to producing some of the world’s most formidable weapons systems. And these aren’t just locally appreciated; they're making superpowers like the U.S. and NATO recalibrate their defense assumptions.

So, how did India get here? The answer lies in Make in India, the brilliance of DRDO scientists, and the urgency imposed by regional threats. Here are 10 Indian weapons so advanced that even America is taking notice—and what they reveal about the military future India is carving out.

---

The Top Weapons Disrupting Global Military Balance

---

1. BrahMos 2.0 – The Hypersonic Supermissile NATO Can’t Ignore

At the top of global watchlists is BrahMos 2.0, a hypersonic evolution of the original BrahMos cruise missile. Capable of reaching speeds of Mach 7, it's nearly impossible to intercept—and it’s redefining strike capability.

• Launch versatility: Deployed via land, sea, air, and submarines.
• Speed & accuracy combo: A rare technological feat.
• Global concern: U.S. analysts and NATO allies track its deployment closely.

This missile isn't just fast—it changes how wars are won before they're even fought.

---

2. Agni-V ICBM – The Long-Arm Deterrent

With a range exceeding 5,000 km, the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile gives India global reach—quietly but decisively.

• Nuclear-capable and road-mobile.
• Employs canister-launch tech for rapid deployment.
• Provides a credible second-strike capability—a cornerstone of strategic deterrence.

Agni-V isn’t built for show—it’s built to ensure peace through unmatched readiness.

---

3. INS Arihant – India’s Silent Nuclear Sentinel

India’s first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, INS Arihant, completes its nuclear triad, giving it air, land, and underwater launch capability.

• Fully indigenous, signaling self-sufficiency.
• Can stay submerged for extended periods, making it hard to detect.
• Carries nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.

This stealth submarine ensures enemies never know when or where a response could come from.

---

4. Artificial Intelligence Integration – The Smartest War Machine

While firepower dominates headlines, India’s quiet revolution is in defense AI—a domain many still underestimate.

• AI-guided surveillance drones in Ladakh and Northeast borders.
• Predictive maintenance of aircraft and systems.
• Facial recognition for urban and border warfare.

With AI, India isn’t just strengthening muscle—it’s sharpening its military mind.

---

5. DRDO’s AAD System – India’s Iron Sky

India’s Advanced Air Defence (AAD) system isn’t just about intercepting enemy missiles—it’s about rewriting missile defense playbooks.

• Neutralizes threats both within and beyond the atmosphere.
• Comparable to elite systems like the Iron Dome and THAAD.
• Adds a critical security shield over major Indian cities and assets.

The AAD is India’s promise: you may shoot, but we’ll shoot it down first.

---

6. Tejas Mk2 – The Next-Gen Fighter Born from Indian Skies

Aerospace independence now has a name: Tejas Mk2. With advanced avionics, stealth features, and indigenous weapons, this fighter jet is lightweight but lethal.

• Integrates AESA radar, BVR missiles, and stealth composites.
• Engineered for high agility and speed.
• Will carry India-made missiles like Astra and BrahMos NG.

It’s not just a replacement for outdated jets—it’s India’s ticket to fighter jet exports and aerial dominance.

---

7. Pinaka Mk-II – Precision Firepower, Made in India

Named after Lord Shiva’s bow, Pinaka Mk-II is a multi-barrel rocket launcher that brings devastation at scale to the battlefield.

• Launches 72 rockets in under 45 seconds.
• Range of over 75 km with ongoing upgrades.
• Used in actual combat situations in border skirmishes.

This is battlefield saturation on demand—Indian artillery at its finest.

---

8. Arjun Mk1A – The Tank of Tomorrow

India’s homegrown Arjun Mk1A tank proves that it can build next-gen armored warfare platforms.

• Armed with a 120mm main gun.
• AI-assisted targeting and battle management.
• Designed for deserts, high altitudes, and extreme conditions.

This isn’t just a tank—it’s India’s answer to global armor innovation.

---

9. Nirbhay Cruise Missile – Stealthy and Surgical

Designed for low-altitude flight and pinpoint strikes, Nirbhay is India’s long-range, subsonic cruise missile that operates under the radar—literally.

• Range of 1,000+ km.
• Capable of both nuclear and conventional payloads.
• Flies below radar, ensuring maximum surprise.

Think of it as India’s Tomahawk—but with its own stealthy signature.

---

10. Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Warfare – India’s High Ground

In 2019, India made a bold statement: space is part of the battlefield. With Mission Shakti, it became one of only a few nations to shoot down a live satellite.

• Established India’s ASAT capability.
• Enhanced control over space-based communication and surveillance systems.
• Critical for future cyber and electronic warfare.

India’s enemies now know—the sky is no longer a safe haven.

---

India's Military Transformation: More Than Weapons

India's defense revolution isn’t just about equipment. It’s about the ideological shift from dependency to dominance.

How It Happened:

• Make in India: Created defense corridors, promoted startups, and encouraged innovation.
• Private sector entry: Companies like Tata, L&T, and Bharat Forge now contribute to strategic programs.
• Strategic urgency: Border tensions with China and Pakistan accelerated indigenous development.
• Visionary leadership: Political and military leadership that prioritized long-term resilience over short-term imports.

---

The Emotional Engine: Stories Behind the Steel

Behind these machines are people—Indian scientists, engineers, soldiers, and policymakers—whose stories rival any battle tale.

• Scientists working late nights, sometimes for years, to overcome embargoes.
• Engineers reverse-engineering foreign tech to build something better.
• Visionaries betting everything on an indigenous path, despite global skepticism.

This is not just military might—it’s the soul of a self-reliant nation at work.

---

India’s Message to the World: Peace Through Power

India does not seek conquest. But its message is clear: sovereignty is non-negotiable, and deterrence is essential.

By developing elite military capabilities across land, sea, air, space, and cyber, India signals its readiness to be a global pillar of security and stability.

And while it respects the current global order, India is now also in a position to shape it.

---

India Has Arrived

India’s transformation is one of the greatest military tech success stories of the 21st century. It has moved from importing outdated gear to designing, testing, and deploying world-class systems that rival, and in some cases outmatch, Western counterparts.

Each weapon on this list is not just a piece of hardware—it’s a story of India’s determination to be self-reliant, respected, and ready.

So yes, America is watching. NATO is curious. And the world is recalculating.

Because India is no longer the underdog.

It’s the new giant they didn’t see coming.

Operation Sindoor: A Geopolitical Turning Point for India By Anupam Srivastava

Operation Sindoor: A Geopolitical Turning Point for India

By Anupam Srivastava

In the aftermath of the recently executed Operation Sindoor, a striking new clarity has emerged in India’s geopolitical landscape. This was not merely a tactical military engagement with Pakistan, but a defining moment in India's strategic evolution.

Operation Sindoor, a meticulously coordinated and surgically executed four-day 'Strikes', marked a profound shift in India’s defense posture. More than a military strike, it unmasked a complex matrix of global and domestic actors united in their objective to derail India’s emergence as a global power. Analysts now agree—Pakistan is not the central threat, but a pawn in a larger, transnational opposition facing India.

The Multipolar Threat Matrix

China: The Architect of Disruption

China remains India’s principal long-term strategic adversary. Repeated provocations along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), particularly during the Doklam standoff (2017), the Galwan clash (2020), and continued friction in Arunachal Pradesh, highlight Beijing’s intent to pressure India militarily while encircling it geopolitically.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), built through illegally occupied territory in Gilgit-Baltistan, not only violates India’s sovereignty but also ties China’s economic and military fate with Pakistan's. Intelligence cooperation, arms transfers, and strategic infrastructure in PoK illustrate how Beijing uses Pakistan as a surrogate to keep India distracted and overextended.

Turkey: The Islamic Populist Ally of Pakistan

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has emerged as an increasingly vocal critic of India. It consistently raises the Kashmir issue at the UN and funds NGOs that push anti-India narratives globally. More worryingly, its influence is growing in South Asian Islamist networks, particularly in regions with Muslim-majority populations, where Turkish religious and media entities subtly stoke identity-based divisions.

The U.S. Deep State and Strategic Hesitations

Though India shares warm ties with the U.S. at the executive level, elements within its institutional apparatus—commonly referred to as the “Deep State”—often act in ways that undermine India's interests. Whether it's through critical media coverage, congressional censure, or indirect funding of groups antagonistic to Indian policy, these actors prioritize American hegemony over regional stability.

India must remain cautious about over-relying on the West, especially given recent examples where Western support did not translate into strategic success for their allies.

Internal Saboteurs: The Enemy Within

Perhaps the most insidious threat to India's stability is domestic in nature. Certain sections of India's political elite, intelligentsia, and media frequently align—either out of ideology or ignorance—with foreign interests.

From pushing caste-based census campaigns to endorsing separatist dialogues, these groups often echo narratives seeded by hostile states. Their resistance to military operations, suspicion of national security agencies, and frequent denigration of the armed forces erode national unity and weaken India’s internal resilience.

This phenomenon—sometimes described as “intellectual insurgency”—feeds off global liberal institutions, foreign-funded NGOs, and academic circles. It is vital for India to address this head-on if it is to preserve national coherence in the face of global opposition.

Lessons from Ukraine and Israel: Beware the Trap

Ukraine: A Sovereign State Sacrificed

The war in Ukraine offers a cautionary tale. Backed heavily by NATO and the U.S., Ukraine entered into a catastrophic conflict with Russia. Over 40,000 Russian and 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers have reportedly died. Despite receiving billions in military aid, Ukraine now finds itself with 25% of its territory under occupation and its infrastructure decimated.

Western support came with conditions and limitations. Despite rhetoric, NATO refused to enforce a no-fly zone or offer troops on the ground, effectively ensuring Ukraine bore the brunt of the conflict alone. And now US has taken rare earth minerals rights against helping Ukraine. Now what remains with Ukrain is destroyed cities and no earth to drill. 

Israel: The Limits of Technological Superiority

Israel’s long-term engagement in Gaza, despite its technological superiority, has not eliminated the threat of Hamas. While Israel has killed over 60,000 militants, Hamas still holds dozens of hostages and maintains its operational capacity.

The lesson here is critical: technology and military prowess do not guarantee decisive or quick victory in asymmetric or ideological warfare. India must take heed.

The Bangladesh Front: A Foiled Strategy of Subversion

What remains underreported is the failed attempt by India’s adversaries to destabilize Bangladesh—a key ally and strategic partner. Intelligence sources suggest there were efforts to back anti-India political forces in Dhaka, aiming to install a regime hostile to Indian interests.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s survival and renewed cooperation with India is a major geopolitical win. It not only foiled external plans for regional destabilization but reaffirmed India’s diplomatic standing in South Asia.

Operation Sindoor: A Tactical and Psychological Masterstroke

Though most operational details remain classified, credible sources confirm that Operation Sindoor was aimed at dismantling terror infrastructure across Pakistan-occupied territories. Critical sites such as Kirana Hills—long suspected of hosting nuclear and chemical weapon depots—were targeted with precision.

Unconfirmed reports suggest possible radiation leaks post-strike, pointing to India’s willingness to cross previously sacrosanct lines in pursuit of strategic objectives. The destruction of launchpads, command centers, and arms depots effectively paralyzed Pakistan’s terror ecosystem.

Psychologically, the blow was even more devastating. Protests erupted across Pakistan over food, fuel, and institutional decay. Rumors of military dissent surfaced, and Islamabad sued for a ceasefire—an act viewed not as a concession by India, but a calculated show of restraint after strategic victory.

Pakistan: An Ideological Threat, Not Just a Rogue One

Pakistan remains an existential threat not only for India but for world —not because of its conventional military capacity, but because of its ideological idiosyncrasies. Born from the idea of communal hatred and separation, its national identity is inherently oppositional to India's secular and pluralistic ethos.

Extremist ideology is not a fringe element in Pakistan; it is embedded in the very fabric of the state's identity and institutional machinery. From school textbooks to television programs, from religious sermons, course books to political discourse, the demonization of India—particularly Hindus—is systematically cultivated and reinforced. This is not a product of rogue elements but a deliberate state-supported narrative that has persisted since the country’s inception in 1947.

Children in Pakistan grow up immersed in this ideology. From an early age, they are taught distorted versions of history that glorify aggression against India and portray Hindus as eternal enemies. This psychological conditioning creates a population that views conflict with India not as a political disagreement, but as a religious and civilizational war. This deeply ingrained hatred ensures that peace with India is not just improbable—it is structurally impossible under Pakistan's current political and ideological framework.

At the heart of this radicalization lie over 40,000 madrasas spread across Pakistan. These religious seminaries collectively educate an estimated 15 million (1.5 crore) students, many of whom receive little to no instruction in secular subjects. A significant portion of these madrasas operate outside formal regulation and are known to preach extremist ideologies, foster anti-Hindu sentiments, and glorify jihad as a religious duty.

This network serves as a breeding ground for militancy. Over the decades, countless terrorists and radical operatives have emerged from these institutions, joining outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Taliban. Unless this vast infrastructure of indoctrination is dismantled, Pakistan will remain the epicenter of global terrorism. The world must recognize that any meaningful counter-terrorism strategy must begin with dismantling the ideological roots—starting with reforming or shutting down radical madrasas that perpetuate hatred and violence.

India must move beyond reactive diplomacy and embrace a long-term strategy that addresses this reality.

Strategic Recalibration: Time for a New Doctrine

Operation Sindoor offers a rare window to reset India’s national security framework across multiple dimensions:

1. Military Modernization

India must invest aggressively in the modernization of all three branches of its military:

Air Force: Acquire stealth-capable fifth-generation fighters, long-range bombers, hypersonic cruise missiles, and advanced radar-evading systems.

Navy: Expand aircraft carrier groups, nuclear-powered submarines, underwater drones, and missile destroyers with stealth capability.

Army: Procure next-gen artillery, robotic ground units, loitering munitions, and hypersonic ballistic missiles akin to HIMARS systems.

2. Cyber and Space Warfare Capabilities

India needs dedicated cyber and space commands. Cyberattacks, satellite jamming, and AI-driven information warfare will define the next conflict. Offensive and defensive capacities in this domain are as vital as tanks and jets.

3. Internal Intelligence Overhaul

The intelligence apparatus must be predictive, not reactive. Advanced data analytics, AI-driven surveillance, and covert action capabilities must be enhanced to preempt internal and external threats.

Diplomacy: From Defensive to Assertive

India must abandon its defensive diplomatic posture and go on the offensive:

Expose Turkey: Call out its occupation of Northern Cyprus, persecution of Kurds, and Islamist export policies.

Highlight Chinese Imperialism: Consistently raise issues like Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong at the UN and global summits.

Reform Global Institutions: Demand restructuring of global tech and trade regulations to counter Western monopolies.

At international forums, India must shape narratives—not merely respond to them.

Domestic Resilience: The Frontlines Within

Security starts from within. India must challenge:

Caste-based Fragmentation: Avoid policies that divide society on caste or regional lines.

Religious Radicalization: Monitor and curtail foreign-funded religious organizations promoting separatist ideologies.

Academic Subversion: Reform educational content and prevent ideological capture of academic institutions.

Unity, clarity of purpose, and a robust civil society are as vital as a strong Country.

The Strategic Road Ahead

India stands at a historic crossroads. Operation Sindoor was not the end—it was a beginning. A new era of assertive geopolitics has dawned, one where India is no longer the reactive regional actor but a proactive global force.

But this journey will be tested repeatedly—by China’s ambition, by Pakistan’s ideology, by Turkey’s rhetoric, and by internal disunity. India’s success will depend on a clear, cohesive, and comprehensive national strategy that balances military might, diplomatic agility, and internal integrity.

India:  A Nation Reborn Through Fire

The message of Operation Sindoor is clear: India is prepared—not just to defend itself but to define its place in the 21st century. The days of strategic hesitation are over. India has acted, and it must now plan with the clarity and courage of a rising power.

As challenges mount, the nation must remain vigilant, unified, and visionary. Only then can the sacrifices of its soldiers and the spirit of its people lead to a future where India is not merely a regional power—but a civilizational force shaping the destiny of Asia and the world.

Anupam Srivastava is a Special Correspondent with Hindustan Times for the last 25 years. With Special interest in Defence, Strategic, Tactical and Geopolitical writings.  

Operation Sindoor vs. Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos: A Strategic Analysis

By Anupam Srivastava

In the evolving landscape of Global geopolitics, the recent military engagements between India and Pakistan have marked a significant shift in regional dynamics. Operation Sindoor, launched by India, and Pakistan's retaliatory Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos have not only redefined military strategies but also highlighted the changing contours of international diplomacy, economic considerations, and societal impacts.

Strategic Autonomy and Diplomatic Realignment

Traditionally, India has sought international support through forums like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) when responding to cross-border terrorism. Even an intrusion by tribals and the Pakistani army was taken to the UN by the then highly rated prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948.

However, Operation Sindoor signaled a departure from this approach. India chose to act decisively without seeking validation from the global powers, demonstrating a newfound strategic autonomy. This move reflects India's growing confidence in its military capabilities and a shift towards a more assertive foreign policy stance.

In contrast, Pakistan's response, Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos, was marked by a series of retaliatory strikes. Pakistan took the matter to the UN. While these actions were framed as a defense of sovereignty, they also underscored Pakistan's reliance on international diplomatic channels, as evidenced by its appeals to countries like the US, Saudi Arabia,Iran and China for mediation. This juxtaposition highlights the differing diplomatic approaches of the two nations in addressing regional security concerns.

Targeting Terrorist Infrastructure and State Sponsorship

Operation Sindoor was characterized by precision strikes on terrorist infrastructure, including camps associated with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The operation aimed to dismantle the operational capabilities of these groups and send a clear message about India's commitment to countering terrorism. The presence of terrorism infrastructure inside Pakistan will remain a concern if not addressed by international powers unitedly. Today, India is fighting against this infrastructure of terrorism alone, but when other countries of the world feel the heat, they would be forced to act decisively against such infrastructure sheltered by the government of Pakistan, abolishing the distinction between state and non-state actors.

Pakistan's Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos, while  targeting  military sites, faced criticism for alleged civilian casualties and damage to non-military infrastructure. The international community expressed concern over the humanitarian impact of these strikes, emphasizing the need for adherence to international humanitarian law during military operations.

Economic Considerations Amid Military Engagements

An intriguing aspect of the conflict was Pakistan's simultaneous negotiation for an IMF loan during the military escalations. This development raised questions about the economic stability of a nation engaged in active military operations. The juxtaposition of seeking financial assistance while conducting military strikes highlighted the complex interplay between economic vulnerabilities and military ambitions. The world powers rallied behind Pakistan to grant the loan so that they could dissuade Pakistan from escalating the situation. This attitude of world powers shows that they are getting blackmailed by nuclear rhetoric of rogue country and West have not learned their lessons to act against terrorism and terrorists and their backers. If this continues, soon Europe would see acts of terrorism more than anywhere else. Britain has started feeling the heat of Islamic terrorism. However, this operation showed the double standards practiced by the West when it comes to terrorism in their country and in other countries.

India, on the other hand, demonstrated economic resilience, with its defense expenditures supported by a growing economy. The ability to finance military operations without significant external assistance underscored India's strengthened economic position in the region.

Societal Impacts and International Reactions

The societal impact of these operations was profound. In India, the strikes were met with nationalistic fervor, with public support for the government's actions. The naming of the operation, "Sindoor," symbolized the targeting of newlywed Hindu couples in the Pahalgam attack, resonating deeply with the Indian populace. Everyone connected with families of those who lost their beloved in the dastardly act of terrorism on April 22.

In Pakistan, the retaliatory strikes led to casualties, sparking protests and calls for accountability. Just to satisfy ego, General Asif Munir was ready to force Pakistan into a war. The Pakistanis knew it well. The common Pakistani was worried about his daily bread rather than fighting a war. Then, the international community expressed concern over the escalation of violence and the potential for further destabilization in the region. Humanitarian organizations called for restraint and adherence to international norms to protect civilian lives.

Military Capabilities and Technological Advancements

Both operations showcased advancements in military technology. India employed precision-guided munitions, including SCALP and Hammer missiles, launched from Rafale jets, to execute targeted strikes. The use of advanced technology highlighted India's growing defense capabilities and its ability to conduct precise military operations. The way Indian missiles destroyed seven airbases, including that of Rahimyar Khan and Sargodha, sent shockwaves through Pakistan. No military installation was out of reach of India. The Indians demonstrated pinpoint strike capabilities to the world, which left defense analysts baffled because it was the first time a non-Western country was demonstrating such pinpoint precision strikes with mostly indigenous weapons. The way India downed more than 700 drones and five aircraft of Pakistan was remarkable. It was despite the fact that Pakistan was operating its drones and aircraft internationally without closing its airspace.

Pakistan's response involved missile and drone attacks on Indian cities, mainly coming from equipment supplied by China and Turkey. While these strikes demonstrated Pakistan's drone capabilities, the lack of significant impact raised questions about the effectiveness of its military strategy. The absence of substantial damage to critical infrastructure suggested limitations in Pakistan's technological advancements compared to India. The downing of five JF-17 planes by India has forced Pakistan to think about trusting Chinese technology. The failure of all drone attacks by Pakistan also put a question mark on the capabilities and quality of Turkish drones. However, the AkashTir Air Defense system performed better than the Iron Dome. In the days to come, this system would be in huge demand internationally.

Media Narratives and Information Warfare

The role of media in shaping public perception during these operations was significant. In India, media coverage largely supported the government's actions, portraying the strikes as a necessary response to terrorism. The portrayal of the operations in the media reinforced nationalistic sentiments and bolstered public support.

In Pakistan, media coverage was more critical, focusing on the Islamic rhetoric against the humanitarian impact of the strikes and questioning the legitimacy of the targets. The differing media narratives in both countries underscored the role of information warfare in modern conflicts, where controlling the narrative can influence domestic and international opinions. The Pakistani narrative was mainly based on playing the victim card and approaching the Muslim Ummah and the West for financial help.

The Role of International Diplomacy and Future Prospects

The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan drew the attention of the international community. Diplomatic efforts, led by countries like the United States, sought to mediate and de-escalate tensions. The eventual ceasefire agreement highlighted the importance of international diplomacy in managing conflicts between nuclear-armed nations.

Looking ahead, Operation Sindoor has set a bold precedent in India’s counterterrorism strategy, showcasing a clear resolve to not just eliminate terrorists but also dismantle their infrastructure, target their backers, and expose their sympathizers—whether state or non-state actors. It represents a doctrinal shift toward proactive defense and strategic clarity. In contrast, Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos reflects Pakistan’s reliance on Islamic rhetoric and emotional appeals to the Muslim Ummah, while simultaneously leveraging its nuclear arsenal as a tool of blackmail to secure economic bailouts from the West. This operation, rather than showcasing military prowess, revealed Pakistan’s deep economic vulnerabilities and its waning credibility on the global stage. The divergence between the two operations marks a new phase in South Asian security—one where India asserts hard power backed by economic resilience, while Pakistan struggles to sustain influence through outdated strategies of fear and faith-based diplomacy.

Anupam Srivastava is a  Special Correspondent with Hindustan Times with special interest in defense analysis with expertise in South Asian security affairs,  military strategy and international relations in the region.