Home

Featured Articles

May 27, 2025
Madhu Hebbar

India’s Diplomatic Evolution: A Critical Lens on Kargil and Pahalgam

India’s trajectory from the 1999 Kargil War to the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack reflects a remarkable ascent in global influence, yet a critical evaluation of world scenarios reveals both triumphs and vulnerabilities. In 1999, India repelled Pakistani incursions with international backing, leveraging a unipolar world order. By 2025, the Pahalgam attack, killing 26 civilians, and India’s assertive Operation Sindoor highlight its autonomy in a multipolar landscape. Despite the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) anti-India resolutions on Kashmir, India has reshaped alliances, particularly with Gulf nations. However, its bold actions risk diplomatic overreach, underscoring the need for evidence-based strategies to sustain its elevated stature. Kargil 1999: Leveraging a Unipolar World In 1999, Pakistan’s incursion across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kargil provoked a military response from India, confined to its territory to avoid escalation. This restraint earned global praise, with The Hindu (May 5, 1999) noting: “India’s disciplined approach won diplomatic legitimacy.” The U.S., in a unipolar world, played a decisive role, with President Bill Clinton pressuring Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif to withdraw during a July 1999 meeting (Reuters, July 5, 1999). The G-8’s Cologne Summit statement urged Pakistan to respect the LoC, isolating it diplomatically. Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE offered Pakistan rhetorical support but refrained from challenging India, wary of nuclear risks and U.S. pressure. Turkey backed Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative but took no action. The OIC, despite anti-India resolutions since the 1970s, remained silent, unable to counter India’s Simla Agreement framework. Critically, India’s success relied on U.S. mediation, reflecting its limited influence as a sanctioned post-1998 nuclear state. The unipolar world amplified India’s moral clarity but exposed its dependence on Western powers. The OIC’s silence masked underlying biases, as Islamic nations’ muted support for Pakistan hinted at future challenges in countering Kashmir-focused narratives. India’s gains were significant but tethered to a U.S.-led order, limiting its agency. Pahalgam 2025: Navigating a Multipolar World On April 22, 2025, terrorists linked to Pakistan-based The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy, killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam. India responded by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, expelling diplomats, and launching Operation Sindoor’s missile strikes on May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Over 20 nations, including the U.S., Israel, France, and Global South states like Brazil and Mauritius, condemned the attack, reflecting India’s expanded diplomatic reach (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). The U.S. adopted restraint, with Vice President J.D. Vance urging India to “avoid escalation,” a shift from 1999’s mediation (Reuters, April 23, 2025). The Guardian (April 28, 2025) noted this “underscores India’s emergence as a self-reliant power,” signalling confidence in its autonomy but caution over nuclear risks. The UN condemned terrorism but avoided naming Pakistan, as did China. The OIC issued two statements, calling India’s allegations “unfounded” and its strikes “unjustified,” demanding a UN-led investigation and Kashmir referendum. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar rebuked the OIC as “Pakistan-driven” (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Saudi Arabia, during Prime Minister Modi’s visit, condemned the attack, emphasising “zero tolerance for terrorism” (Reuters, April 23, 2025). The UAE and Afghanistan aligned with India, while Turkey sent naval and air support to Pakistan (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). Indonesia, Egypt, and Bahrain blocked Pakistan’s anti-India OIC motion (The Hindu, May 5, 2025), weakening its influence. India’s autonomy in 2025 reflects a multipolar world where it wields influence but faces challenges. The U.S.’s restraint, driven by domestic priorities and global distractions (Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025), highlights India’s ability to act independently but demands responsibility to avoid escalation. The OIC’s bias persists, but India’s sway over Gulf nations and moderate OIC members reveals Pakistan’s weakening influence. India’s unproven claims linking Pakistan to the attack and escalatory measures drew scrutiny, risking overreach, as Chatham House (May 8, 2025) warned: “India’s assertive diplomacy needs stronger evidence.” India’s Gains and Vulnerabilities India’s diplomatic evolution is evident: Economic Clout: India’s $4 trillion economy shifted Gulf loyalties. Saudi Arabia and the UAE prioritised $120 billion in trade, a “significant shift” from 1999 (Reuters, April 23, 2025). Strategic Alliances: India’s Quad membership and ties with France and Israel secured support. Emmanuel Macron called the attack “an assault on humanity” (The Hindu, April 24, 2025). Global South Leadership: Support from Brazil and Mauritius reflects India’s soft power (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). OIC Influence: India’s outreach to Indonesia and Egypt fractured OIC unity (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Assertive Diplomacy: India’s rejection of OIC statements and hints at “trade reviews” with Gulf states signal confidence (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). Autonomy: The U.S.’s shift to restraint reflects India’s self-reliance (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). Yet, vulnerabilities remain. In 1999, India’s restraint aligned with a U.S.-led order. In 2025, its strikes risked alienating neutral actors, as NPR (April 24, 2025) noted: “India’s actions invite scrutiny in a multipolar world.” The OIC’s bias and Turkey’s support for Pakistan signal opposition. India’s economic leverage over Gulf states is potent but delicate (Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025). Critical Evaluation of World Scenarios In 1999, a unipolar world amplified India’s stance but exposed its reliance on U.S. power. In 2025, a multipolar world grants India agency but demands nuance. The U.S.’s restraint reflects India’s stature but also global fatigue with South Asian crises (Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025). China’s neutrality balances its Pakistan ties with India’s economic weight (Chatham House, May 8, 2025). The Global South’s support lacks 1999’s G-8 commitments. The OIC’s fractured response highlights India’s gains but warns of Pakistan’s influence. India’s nuclear status ensures caution, but its assertive posture risks missteps without evidence (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). India’s Path Forward India’s journey from Kargil to Pahalgam showcases its rise. Its economic clout and alliances have fractured OIC bias and swayed Gulf nations. Yet, its assertive response risked overreach. India must balance resolve with evidence-based diplomacy to counter Pakistan’s narrative and sustain its stature in a multipolar world. References The Hindu, May 5, 1999, “India’s disciplined approach won diplomatic legitimacy.” Reuters, July 5, 1999, “Clinton pressures Sharif to withdraw from Kargil.” House of Commons Library, May 16, 2025, “Kashmir: Renewed India-Pakistan tensions.” The Guardian, April 28, 2025, “‘Pakistan is the root of the problem’: Kashmir attack stokes anger in India.” Wikipedia, May 24, 2025, “2025 Pahalgam attack.” Chatham House, May 8, 2025, “Rising tensions resurface Pakistan’s credibility problem.” Reuters, April 23, 2025, “India downgrades ties with Pakistan after attack on Kashmir tourists.” NPR, April 24, 2025, “India-Pakistan tensions escalate after deadly Kashmir attack.” Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025, “Experts react: India just launched airstrikes against Pakistan.” The Hindu, May 5, 2025, “Operation Sindoor highlights.” The Times of India, April 24, 2025, “Pahalgam carnage exposes Pakistan’s calculated diplomacy-terror nexus.” The Hindu, April 24, 2025, “Pahalgam terror attack highlights.” Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025, “India’s economic leverage shifts Gulf dynamics.”

May 25, 2025
Viren S Doshi

Is Trump Administration making abortion more punishable than rape?

Rape Punishment vs. Abortion Punishment Leftist Propaganda vs. Pro-life Agenda (Roe vs. Wade Judgement) Young women students at a University in Ahmedabad were very agitated few days back while discussing rape and abortion issues in US. Some of them were “convinced” that “47th US President Donald Trump is responsible for curbing the abortion rights of women and he has made rape less punishable than abortion”. Is this true? Prompted, I did a meticulous search and here is the summary report based on verified and verifiable facts. The answer that I found to this question is clearly “No”. Leftists, liberals and wokeists in US and across the globe have been portraying Trump Administration as monstrous administration that is making abortion a more punishable crime than rape. Women across the educational and academic world, as well as working women, ought to know the facts which seem to have been obliterated by continuing vitriolic propaganda. Key Points Trump 2.0 has no plan yet to do what is being propagated about abortion regulation at the federal level, nor was it part of Trump's election manifesto. Roe vs Wade reversal is the US Supreme Court’s decision allowing states to regulate abortion at the state level. Rape punishment varies from state to state just as abortion punishment in US. The Trump Administration is not enacting, hasn't enacted any law to make abortion punishable at the federal level. Detailed Analysis Comparing punishments for rape and abortion in the United States is complex because laws vary significantly by state, and the legal frameworks for these offences differ in intent, application, and historical context. Here is a concise overview based on available information, focusing on general trends and specific examples, while acknowledging the variability across jurisdictions. Punishment for Rape in the United States Rape, often legally termed "sexual assault" or "sexual battery," is a serious felony across all U.S. states, with penalties depending on factors like the victim's age, use of force, and aggravating circumstances. General Penalties: Rape is typically punishable by imprisonment ranging from a few years to life, depending on the state and severity of the incident. For example: In Florida, "sexual battery" can carry 3–30 years, with life imprisonment for cases involving victims under 12 or severe aggravating factors (e.g., use of a weapon). In Texas, rape (first-degree sexual assault) carries 5–99 years or life imprisonment. In California, rape by force or fear is punishable by 3, 6, or 8 years, with longer sentences (9–13 years) if the victim is a minor under 14. Many states impose mandatory minimum sentences, especially for aggravated rape (e.g., involving a child or weapon). Additional penalties include fines (e.g., up to $10,000 in some states), mandatory sex offender registration, and loss of certain rights (e.g., voting, firearm ownership). Statutory Rape: Penalties for statutory rape (sex with a minor below the age of consent, typically 16–18) are generally less severe, ranging from 1–8 years, depending on the age gap and state law. For example, California imposes harsher penalties for offenders over 21. Death Penalty: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) that the death penalty for rape (of an adult or child) is unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual punishment" unless the crime results in death. Despite this, states like Florida (2023) and South Dakota (2024) have passed laws allowing the death penalty for child sexual abuse, defying precedent, though these laws face legal challenges. Conviction Rates: Convictions are rare due to underreporting (only 21–25% of rapes are reported) and evidentiary challenges. Of 1,000 estimated rapes, about 7 result in a conviction, compared to 22 for robberies and 41 for assaults. Sentences are often lengthy when convictions occur, with 95% of convicted rapists receiving prison time, averaging 8–30 years, though parole can reduce actual time served. Punishment for Abortion in the United States Abortion laws have undergone significant changes since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to regulate abortion. Penalties for performing or obtaining abortions vary widely, with some states imposing severe punishments and others protecting abortion access. States with Abortion Bans: Alabama: Performing an abortion is a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison, with attempted abortion as a Class C felony (1–10 years). No exceptions for rape or incest, only for life or physical health of the pregnant person. Mississippi: Abortion is illegal except to save the pregnant person’s life or in cases of rape (with a formal police report required). Violators face up to 10 years in prison. Texas: Performing an abortion after 6 weeks is a felony, with penalties up to life imprisonment and fines up to $100,000. No criminal penalties for the pregnant person, but civil lawsuits can be filed against those aiding abortions. Idaho: Performing an abortion is punishable by 2–5 years in prison, with exceptions for rape or incest (requiring a police report) or to prevent the pregnant person’s death. Physicians’ licenses may be suspended or revoked. Arkansas: Performing an abortion is a felony, with up to 10 years in prison and fines up to $100,000. Exceptions only for saving the pregnant person’s life, not for rape or incest. States with Exceptions: Of the 14 states with near-total abortion bans, five (e.g., Idaho, Mississippi) include rape exceptions, but these are often restrictive, requiring law enforcement reporting, which many survivors avoid due to stigma or fear. Only about 10 abortions per month occur in these states, suggesting exceptions are ineffective. Nine states (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Texas) have no rape or incest exceptions, exacerbating barriers for survivors. States with Legal Abortion: States like California, Vermont, and Virginia protect abortion access, with no criminal penalties for providers or patients. For example, California allows abortions up to foetal viability, and Vermont permits them at all stages. Impact on Survivors: A 2024 study estimated 64,000 rape-related pregnancies in states with abortion bans since Dobbs, with 58,979 in states without rape exceptions. This highlights significant barriers to abortion access for survivors, even in states with exceptions. Comparison and Context Severity of Punishment: In some states, penalties for abortion can exceed those for rape, particularly for providers. For example: In Alabama, performing an abortion (up to 99 years) is punished more harshly than many rape convictions (e.g., 3–20 years for sexual battery). In Texas, providing an abortion (life imprisonment) carries a harsher maximum penalty than rape (5–99 years). However, rape penalties are often more severe in cases of aggravated rape or repeat offences, which can carry life imprisonment, while abortion penalties *typically target providers*, *not patients*. Intent and Application: Rape laws aim to punish violent, non-consensual acts against individuals, with penalties reflecting the crime’s harm. Abortion restriction laws, post-Dobbs, are pro-life and focus on restricting reproductive choices, often prioritising foetal protection over individual autonomy, especially in conservative states. Abortion bans disproportionately affect rape survivors, forcing some to carry pregnancies to term or seek out-of-state care, which is often impractical. So, it is clear that whatever the situation is, Trump Administration has not done any enactment to lead to this situation. Public Sentiment: Posts on media highlight perceived disparities, with users noting that abortion penalties can seem disproportionate compared to rape penalties, reflecting broader debates about misogyny and reproductive rights. For example, users have claimed that in Texas, abortion providers face life imprisonment while rapists may serve 5+ years. These claims are at least partially misleading in a way as the situations vary by case and context. Such posts are not conclusive evidence but reflect frustration with post-Dobbs laws, especially for rape survivors. Critical Considerations Variability: Rape and abortion laws are not uniform across the U.S., making direct comparisons challenging. Trump Administration is Federal Administration and Federal Law does not govern either, leaving states to set penalties, which range from lenient to draconian. Reporting Barriers: Both crimes face underreporting issues. Rape survivors often avoid reporting due to stigma or distrust of law enforcement, and abortion providers may self-censor due to legal risks. Legal Challenges: Abortion bans are subject to ongoing litigation, and rape-related exceptions are often criticised as impractical due to evidentiary burdens (e.g., requiring police reports). Moral and Policy Debate: The comparison raises ethical questions about prioritising foetal life over survivors’ autonomy, especially when abortion bans lack rape exceptions. Public opinion (e.g., 79% support abortion access for rape survivors) contrasts with restrictive state policies. Conclusion It is for the states and the American people to take calls on these contentious issues. Trump Administration has a pro-life agenda, but it has relegated that to the states in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade.