Home

Featured Articles

Feb 16, 2026
Shubhi Malhotra & Dr Adityanjee

Annexing Greenland with “Americanese” Characteristics

Introduction After controlling the oil sales from Venezuela, it is Greenland’s turn for the United States. Since the beginning of 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has made repeated statements to acquire Greenland by any means for national security reasons. Although it is not new and has leapt from the realm of historical speculations, it has now highlighted emerging crisis diplomacy, accompanying geopolitical tensions, public protests and a looming threat to Greenlandic sovereignty and International Law. There is a clear clash of ideologies between the countries. The United States is mostly focused on its roots of expansionist ideology, while Greenland is based on cultural self-determination and follows the established international norms. The United States attempts to annex Greenland dwells on a broader question: How do superpowers engage with small countries in this rapidly changing global order? Historical Context American interest in Greenland is not new. In the 19th century, Secretary of State William H. Seward, the architect of the Alaska Purchase, seriously considered acquiring Greenland and Iceland as part of U.S. territorial expansion, seeing strategic value comparable to Alaska’s geography. In 1867, the U.S. government commissioned surveys anticipating economic and strategic benefits from Greenland’s fisheries, minerals and position. Denmark rejected these early overtures. During World War II and the early Cold War, Greenland’s importance crystallised. The United States signed a Defence of Greenland agreement in 1941, and from 1951 onward maintained bases - notably the Thule Air Base (renamed Pituffik Space Base) under formal bilateral accords with Denmark, integrating Greenland into U.S. missile early warning and Arctic defence infrastructure without changing sovereignty. Greenland’s Identity A vast, autonomous and self-governing Arctic island within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is a sovereign and independent nation. After the U.S. claims, Denmark’s government reiterated that “you cannot annex another country,” Greenland’s premier denied any deal to surrender sovereignty, and allied nations warned against undermining NATO unity. Crucially, the people of Greenland, around 57,000 and predominantly Inuit, have been vocal in opposing any scenario that would see them absorbed into another state. Leaders of Greenland’s parliamentary parties jointly condemned U.S. annexation, showing unity in times of adversity. Both Greenland and Denmark are witnessing large-scale protests with slogans like “Greenland is not for sale.” These movements reflect anxiety and fear of external interference in their culture and language, to gain strategic or economic interests. Why Greenland Matters Strategically Various strategic factors make Greenland more attractive for superpowers to invest and multiply their vested interests. Strategically, Greenland signifies stronger Arctic geopolitics. Amid the rising Russian and Chinese activity, the Arctic has assumed greater military importance. Greenland, sitting on the crossroads of Iceland and the United Kingdom, serves as an important corridor for naval and air operations between the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Additionally, the missile defence and space bases contribute immensely to the early warning systems and space-oriented military infrastructure. Moreover, Greenland is a treasure island, offering rare earth and critical minerals, which are of increasing economic and technological interest for countries globally. For the U.S., Greenland could further enhance national defence and act as a natural barrier for Chinese or Russian influence. It can also help in economic development if placed under Washington’s control, as then the U.S. will have control over all of its resources, whether natural or man-made. However, critics argue that these claims of enhanced security are too selfish and a cover for strategic hegemony, conflicting with international law and self-determination. American Exceptionalism and Expansionism The U.S. has long been known for its ambitious plans based on strategic realpolitik, whether we talk about the Monroe Doctrine or the 19th-century territorial expansionism. A country that started as a union of thirteen colonies now has fifty states and eight overseas territories and colonies. The US’s lust for expansion may not end at Greenland as the current administration has consistently floated the idea of acquiring Canada as the 51st state, renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, reclaimed physical control of the Panama Canal and claimed hegemony over the entire Western hemisphere under the newly re-articulated Donroe doctrine. Unfortunately, the domestic opinion in the US borders on rationalisation and hyper-nationalism. Trump’s acolytes like Senator Lyndsey Graham have reinforced this imperialistic dominance and acquisitions by statements like, “Who gives a sxxx who owns Greenland?”! These acquisitive actions were conducted in the past for national security, political ambitions, and economic growth, as justified by the U.S., even when the impacts on local populations were secondary or adverse. In this complex global order of the 21st century, America continues to act on its own imperial impulses, as we have seen in its actions regarding Greenland annexation plans. However, unlike past expansions, there are various constraints in the present scenario that put a barrier on any attempt to redraw borders for strategic gains. These include strong international legal frameworks, multinational alliances like NATO, and a heightened emphasis on human rights and indigenous autonomy. Conclusion There is yet no diplomatic end to this chaos. Reports indicate ongoing talks between the U.S. and Denmark about new agreements about expanded military access, parallel to other global U.S. base arrangements, though full annexation remains out of reach under existing international law. The rules-based liberal world order, carefully crafted following World War II is over. The discourse around annexing Greenland with Americanese characteristics illuminates fundamental tensions at the heart of 21st-century geopolitics: strategic competition in the Arctic, the rights of smaller nations and peoples to self-determination, and the limits of superpower ambition under international law. Invoking non-existent Chinese and Russian threats to Greenland has become a fig leaf for the naked expansionist ambitions. While Greenland’s strategic value to the United States is clear from both historical precedent and contemporary defence considerations, the idea of annexation clashes with Greenlandic identity, Danish sovereignty, and international norms. The path forward, if any shift in status were ever to occur, would need to be grounded in mutual consent, respect for local choice, and adherence to legal frameworks that protect sovereignty and human rights. Nationalism is something that cannot be taken out of the roots of the citizens of that nation. Similarly, Greenlanders desire to be seen not as Americans or Danes, but as Greenlanders, asserting their democratic autonomy and indigenous identity. References The 1951 agreement allowing the US military in Greenland. (2026, January 15). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/articles/1951-agreement-that-allows-us-military-presence-in-greenland Here’s why Greenland is strategically important to the U.S. (2025, January 23). National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/greenland-us-purchase-history-wwii A milestone in Arctic sovereignty? Trump’s new Arctic strategy is shaping Greenland’s future as an independent state. (n.d.). Avaleht | Sisu@UT. https://sisu.ut.ee/defactostates/a-milestone-in-arctic-sovereignty? US and Denmark discuss Greenland 'military access' in more conventional talks. (2026, January 24). Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/24/us-and-denmark-discuss-greenland-military-access-in-more-conventional-talks Why is the U.S. interested in Greenland? (2026, January 23). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Why-Is-the-US-Interested-in-Greenland?

Feb 16, 2026
Rudra Dubey

India’s Biopharma Moment: Government Vision and BIRAC’s Evolution Powering a Global R&D and Manufacturing Hub

India is no longer content with being known only as the “pharmacy of the world” for generics. The national ambition has shifted decisively toward innovation-led biopharma R&D, advanced biomanufacturing, and globally competitive healthcare technologies. At the centre of this transformation stands the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) — an institution that has evolved from a grant-making facilitator into a full-spectrum innovation architect. This is not incremental growth. It is structural repositioning. From Capacity Building to Global Ambition: The Evolution of BIRAC Established in 2012 under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), BIRAC was created to bridge academia and industry, de-risk early innovation, and catalyse biotech entrepreneurship. In its early years (2012–2017), India’s bioeconomy was valued at roughly $10 billion, and the country had only around 50 biotech startups. BIRAC’s role during this period was foundational: Seed funding for proof-of-concept projects Early translational grants through SBIRI (Small Business Innovation Research Initiative) and BIPP (Biotechnology Industrial Partnership Programme) Initial bio-incubation centres Basic IP and regulatory support Private investment was limited. Regulatory pathways were complex. Innovation was largely incremental and domestically focused. Fast forward to 2024–2026. India’s bioeconomy has surged to approximately $151 billion, growing at sustained double-digit rates. The number of biotech startups has expanded dramatically — from 5,300 in 2022 to more than 11,000 by 2026, with 1,390 new incorporations in 2022 alone. Biopharma now represents the largest share of the bioeconomy at 35.65% (~$53.8 billion). This transformation mirrors BIRAC’s own evolution. BIRAC Today: A Full-Stack Innovation Ecosystem Enabler BIRAC has transitioned from a grant administrator to an ecosystem architect. Its expanded toolkit now includes: 1. Scaled Funding Mechanisms BIG (Biotechnology Ignition Grant): ₹50 lakh grants supporting 6,700+ entrepreneurs for proof-of-concept. BIPP: Cost-sharing support for advanced R&D, focusing on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7+ technologies. SEED Fund: Equity investments up to ₹30 lakh; ₹30 crore invested across 112 ventures. Accelerating Enterpreneurs Fund (AcE Fund) (Fund-of-Funds): ₹174.5 crore base; ₹349 crore committed to 102 startups; leveraged ₹1,560 crore follow-on private capital. Support to over 3,500 startups and 2,165 projects since inception. BIRAC funding increasingly catalyses private capital — a key marker of ecosystem maturity. 2. Infrastructure at National Scale 95+ (Bioincubators Nurturing Entrepreneurship for Scaling Technologies) BioNEST incubation centres ~10 lakh sq ft of incubation space 75+ incubators supporting 1,800+ incubatees E-YUVA pre-incubation centres nurturing student innovators This network reduces infrastructure barriers and democratises access to advanced facilities, including shared labs, pilot-scale manufacturing, and regulatory advisory support. 3. Regulatory and Policy Integration BIRAC’s Regulatory Affairs and Policy Advocacy (RAPA) division helps startups navigate Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) approvals and compliance frameworks. Programs such as Promoting Academic Research Conversion to Enterprise (PACE) and Biotechnology Ignition Grant Scheme (BIG) address translational bottlenecks, ensuring innovations are regulatory-ready and globally competitive. This regulatory scaffolding is crucial as India moves into complex biologics, cell therapies, precision medicine, and advanced diagnostics. Mission-Driven Alignment: ANRF and the RDI Fund India’s Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), established in 2023–24, aims to promote interdisciplinary research with strong private sector participation. BIRAC’s role has now expanded into that mission architecture. BIRAC–RDI Fund (2025) Under the broader Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Scheme — a ₹1 lakh crore national innovation framework — BIRAC anchors a ₹2,000 crore biotech-focused RDI Fund over five years. Unlike traditional grants, the RDI Fund deploys: Equity Convertible debt Long-term innovation loans It focuses on scaling technologies from TRL 4 to TRL 9, precisely the “valley of death” where most biotech innovations globally stall. This positions BIRAC as a structured capital bridge between laboratory innovation and industrial-scale commercialisation. Biopharma SHAKTI and the Clinical Trial Expansion: A Structural Breakthrough Under Union Budget 2026–27, the Government of India announced Biopharma SHAKTI (Strategy for Healthcare Advancement through Knowledge, Technology and Innovation) with an allocation of ₹10,000 crore over five years. The initiative aims to strengthen India’s biologics, biosimilars, and medical device ecosystem while accelerating innovation-led manufacturing. A particularly transformative component aligned with this national thrust is the plan to establish and accredit 1,000+ clinical trial sites across India. This expansion is a structural game-changer for several reasons: 1. Enabling Innovation, Not Just Manufacturing India already has strong manufacturing capabilities, including 665 US FDA-approved plants — the highest outside the United States. However, innovative biologics and precision therapeutics require large, well-distributed, high-quality clinical trial networks. Expanding to 1,000 accredited sites strengthens India’s ability to conduct Phase I–III trials at scale. 2. Faster Recruitment and Diverse Populations India’s demographic diversity becomes a scientific advantage. A broad, accredited clinical network improves recruitment speed, data quality, and statistical robustness — making India more attractive for global clinical programs. 3. Integrating with BIRAC’s Innovation Pipeline BIRAC funds early and mid-stage innovation. The RDI Fund supports TRL 4–9 scale-up. The 1,000-site network enables late-stage validation and commercialisation. This creates a complete domestic innovation runway — from idea to global regulatory submission. 4. Global Confidence and Regulatory Credibility Structured, GCP-compliant clinical infrastructure strengthens India’s reputation as a trusted R&D partner. This is essential for attracting global biologics programs and positioning India beyond generics into high-value innovation. Together, SHAKTI funding and clinical expansion shift India’s role from cost-efficient producer to integrated innovation ecosystem. National Biopharma Mission (i3): Building the Translational Backbone Launched in 2017 with ₹1,500 crore (50% World Bank co-funded), the National Biopharma Mission accelerated vaccines, biologics, and device development, supporting 100+ startups and establishing shared facilities. India’s COVID-19 response — including indigenous vaccine development — demonstrated how BIRAC-enabled infrastructure can respond rapidly at national scale. BioE3 and Advanced Biomanufacturing The 2024 BioE3 Policy promotes: Bio-based chemicals Carbon capture technologies Advanced industrial biotechnology High-performance biomanufacturing This extends India’s biotech ambition beyond health into sustainable industrial transformation. Global Positioning: From Generics to Innovation India: Holds ~3% of the global biotech market Has 665 FDA-approved manufacturing plants Exports pharmaceuticals to 150+ countries But the strategic pivot is toward innovative therapeutics, biosimilars, medical devices, and precision medicine. India targets $150 billion biopharma turnover by 2025, with ambitions to rank among the top five global biomanufacturing hubs. BIRAC’s IP management, translational funding, equity instruments, and global collaborations strengthen India’s ability to compete not only on cost — but on innovation. Vision 2030: A $300 Billion Bioeconomy BIRAC’s long-term vision aligns with India’s aspiration to build a $300 billion bioeconomy by 2030. The shift is clear: Startups: 50 → 11,000+ Bioeconomy: $10B → $151B Funding: Grants → Blended finance + equity + fund-of-funds Clinical Capacity: Fragmented → 1,000+ accredited sites Focus: Incremental innovation → IP-driven global R&D India’s ambition to become a global biopharma R&D and manufacturing hub rests on: Strategic policy vision (ANRF, RDI, SHAKTI, BioE3) Scaled financial instruments Expanded clinical trial infrastructure Institutional enablers like BIRAC Biopharma SHAKTI provides manufacturing thrust. The 1,000 clinical trial expansion builds development muscle. The RDI Fund supplies innovation capital. BIRAC integrates all these layers into a coherent national pipeline. If execution matches ambition, India’s next chapter will not merely be about supplying medicines to the world — but about discovering, developing, and delivering them from within.