Home

Featured Articles

May 23, 2026
Siddhartha Dave

Lahore’s Return to Civilisational Memory: Is Pakistan Rediscovering Its Civilisational Roots?

What Pakistan’s restoration of Hindu heritage names reveals about identity, memory, and the civilisational debate in Bharat My first visit to Pakistan was in 2004. Like many Bhartiyas crossing the border for the first time, I carried with me a mixture of curiosity, caution, and deeply ingrained ideas. Pakistan, after all, had always been not merely another nation-state, but a civilisational rupture — a land consciously separated from Bharat on the basis of religious identity. Yet, what struck me most during that visit was not the visible Islamic identity of Pakistan. It was the persistence of an older memory that continued to survive beneath the surface. Walking through Lahore, names such as Lakshmi Chowk, Temple Road, Krishan Nagar, and Dharampura immediately drew attention. These were not isolated relics. They were living reminders of a civilisational inheritance that neither Partition nor decades of ideological Islamisation had fully erased. One memory from that visit remains especially vivid even today. At a plaque installed near Humayun’s Fort in Lahore, it was mentioned that the city of Lahore was founded by Lahu (Luv), the son of Raja Ram Chander, while nearby Kasur derived its name from Kush, the other son of Prabhu Shri Ram. In that single plaque lay one of the great ironies of the subcontinent’s modern politics: Pakistan officially acknowledging Shri Ram as a historical king linked to Lahore’s origins, while several political voices within Bharat itself routinely dismiss Him as merely a “mythological figure.” That irony has become even sharper today. Because Lahore now appears to be slowly rediscovering and reclaiming parts of its buried civilisational memory. The Return of Historical Names In recent months, Pakistan’s Punjab government under Maryam Nawaz has initiated what is being described as a heritage revival exercise in Lahore. Within a short span, several historically rooted names — many associated with Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or older pre-Islamic identities — have either been restored or brought back into official and public usage. Islampura is once again being referred to as Krishan Nagar. Babri Masjid Chowk has reverted to Jain Mandir Chowk. Sunnat Nagar, the name has been corrected to Sant Nagar. Mustafabad is again being identified with Dharampura. Lakshmi Chowk, despite attempts over decades to replace it administratively, continues to survive in the public imagination and popular vocabulary. Is Pakistan realising that history cannot forever be held hostage to ideological anxieties? Civilisations Cannot Be Erased by Administrative Orders Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Lahore’s story is this: ordinary people never truly abandoned these names. Government notifications changed. Maps changed. Records changed. But public memory did not. Even after the official renaming, people continued saying “Lakshmi Chowk.” Elderly residents continued referring to “Krishan Nagar.” Generations inherited these names organically because they were embedded not merely in geography, but in collective consciousness. This is one of the great truths of civilisational societies. Empires may conquer territories. States may redraw boundaries. Ideological regimes may attempt to rewrite identities. But civilisational memory survives through language, rituals, folklore, and inherited cultural habits. The names endured because memory resisted erasure. And that reality carries lessons far beyond Pakistan. Bharat’s Civilisational Debate For decades, any attempt within Bharat to restore ancient names or reclaim civilisational symbols has often been attacked by sections of academia, media, and politics as “majoritarianism,” “revisionism,” or “communal politics.” Yet, ironically, Pakistan — a nation explicitly created upon Islamic separatist identity — now appears willing to acknowledge aspects of its pre-Islamic and Indic past with greater openness than many self-proclaimed secular voices within Bharat. This contradiction becomes impossible to ignore when one recalls statements made by leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, who referred to Bhagwan Ram as a “mythological figure” while speaking abroad. Similar dismissive language has often emerged from sections of India’s political elite whenever questions of civilisational continuity are raised. Yet in Pakistan itself, plaques and historical references continue associating Lahore and Kasur with the lineage of Shri Ram. This is not merely a political contradiction. It is a deeper intellectual contradiction. Because civilisations are not sustained only through archaeological evidence or modern academic frameworks. They survive through sacred geography, oral traditions, inherited memory, pilgrimage routes, cultural continuity, and shared civilisational consciousness. Europe understands this principle very well. No European nation erases Athens because paganism declined. Rome does not deny its pre-Christian roots. Egypt does not erase the Pharaohs because later religions arrived. Ancient memory is preserved because mature civilisations understand that historical continuity strengthens societies rather than weakening them. Pakistan now appears to be cautiously moving toward that recognition. Name Change or Name Correction? This entire debate also requires conceptual clarity. The phrase “name change” itself is misleading. What is happening in many such cases is not the creation of something new, but the restoration of something historically original. Therefore, the more appropriate phrase is “name correction.” There is a profound distinction between the two. A name change often implies ideological imposition. A name correction implies historical restoration. When Allahabad became Prayagraj, critics projected it as political symbolism. Yet Prayagraj existed centuries before Mughal-era renaming. Similarly, countless places across Bharat carried names rooted in Sanskritic, Dharmic, regional, or civilisational traditions long before foreign conquests altered them. Correcting such names is not an act of revenge. It is an act of historical honesty. A civilisation has the right to restore its authentic vocabulary. Because names are not random labels. They encode memory, geography, faith, culture, and identity. Should Muslims in Bharat Learn from Pakistan? This question may sound provocative, but it deserves serious reflection. If even Pakistan can begin acknowledging Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Indic heritage without perceiving it as a threat to Islam, then why does the recognition of Bharat’s civilisational identity create discomfort among some sections within India? Acknowledging ancient heritage does not weaken religious minorities. Civilisational confidence is not exclusionary by nature. In fact, societies become insecure precisely when they disconnect themselves from their historical roots. Indian Muslims, too, are inheritors of this civilisational geography. The temples, rivers, epics, sacred cities, festivals, linguistic traditions, and cultural memories of Bharat are not “foreign” to them. They are part of the same civilisational ecosystem from which generations emerged before political ruptures and historical invasions altered identities. The acceptance of this truth does not demand religious conversion. It demands civilisational maturity. Pakistan’s ongoing symbolic restoration suggests something important: societies eventually realise that denial of history creates psychological instability, whereas acceptance of layered heritage creates cultural confidence. Lahore’s Message to the Subcontinent Lahore’s story today is not merely about roads, chowks, or administrative boards. It is about the return of suppressed memory. It is about the endurance of civilisation over ideology. It is about the limits of political engineering. For decades, attempts were made to construct identities disconnected from deeper historical roots. But the persistence of names such as Lakshmi Chowk and Krishan Nagar demonstrates that civilisations cannot be erased simply through official decrees. Memory survives. And eventually, memory reasserts itself. Perhaps Pakistan’s economic compulsions, tourism ambitions, or global image concerns have accelerated this process. But once societies begin revisiting buried history, they often rediscover truths far larger than immediate politics. That is what makes Lahore’s transformation significant. Because this is not merely about Pakistan changing signboards. It is about a society slowly recognising that heritage is not a threat. It is strength. And perhaps the greatest lesson emerging from Lahore today is this: A civilisation that remembers its roots moves toward stability. A civilisation that erases its roots eventually loses itself.

May 21, 2026
Viren S Doshi

The Thucydides Trap: China’s Covert Colonialism and the Cold Conflict

Overview Xi Jinping, the Communist Supremo ruling over China, was eloquent about avoiding the Thucydides Trap last week when Donald Trump visited China. The Thucydides Trap is a political theory stating that when a rising power threatens to displace an established ruling power, the resulting structural stress makes violent conflict the rule rather than the exception. Popularised by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison in his 2017 book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?”, the concept draws on the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who attributed the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE) to “the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta.” Actually, invoking the Thucydides Trap by CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and its dictatorial leadership is in itself a psyop to corner the democratic and open America First USA, which is a victim of Leftist-Jihadi onslaughts even in its home turf, as the inimical forces take undue advantage of its openness and democracy. So, the question is – “The Thucydides Trap: Why China’s Covert Colonialism continues Cold War with the “America First” US government without regime change and democracy in China or without a leftist government in the United States’. Let us take a look at this doctrine called Thucydides Trap and how it is going to be difficult for the Expansionist CCP to avoid and overcome this trap until and unless the USA gets rid of its “America First Administration” led by Real Red Republicans, substituted by Leftist and Liberal Pro-Jihadi Blue “Democrats” led “Deep State Driven Administration” in the White House. Concept and Historical Context The Structural Catalyst: It is not necessarily outright aggression but the psychological fear and anxiety generated by the shift in the balance of power that forces both sides into confrontation. Historical Precedent: Allison’s research at the Harvard Belfer Centre examined 16 historical instances over the past 500 years where an emerging power rivalled an established hegemon. Twelve of these sixteen cases resulted in war. Notable Examples: These include the rise of the German Empire challenging the British Empire (leading to World War I) and rising imperial Japan challenging the United States in the Pacific (contributing to World War II in the Pacific Theatre). Relevance to CCP-Occupied China The theory is applied most frequently to contemporary United States – CCP-Occupied China relations, by the Communists and Leftists as a Power Game and as an agenda-driven narrative. CCP-Occupied China’s rapid economic, technological, and military expansion; based on blatant ruthless undemocratic means and methods; creates severe friction with the established United States-led open and democratic free world “global order”. While Allison notes that conflict is not inevitable — citing the Cold War United States – Soviet Union rivalry as a peaceful (though tense) competition — the structural pressures in the current case are compounded by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) unique hegemonic characteristics. It is not possible for the CCP to avoid the Thucydides Trap without drastic internal change. The CCP’s expansionist trends, lack of democratic accountability, systemic corruption, intellectual property (IP) theft, influence over international multilateral institutions, debt-trap Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), support for FATF black and grey listed rogue regimes, Jihadi and other terrorism proxies, supply-chain as well as resource monopolisation, and manufacturing dominance - all these form a pattern of revisionist behaviour incompatible with the existing free world order. These are not temporary policies but core features of the authoritarian regime. “Managed competition” offers only temporary delays, not resolution. Addressing Factors that Avoid the Trap Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): Both nations possess nuclear arsenals. The United States maintains thousands of warheads, while CCP-Occupied China has rapidly expanded to approximately 600 warheads as of 2025–2026 (with projections toward 1,000+ by 2030). Nuclear deterrence raises the bar for direct conflict, but doesn’t prevent grey-zone aggression, proxy support, internal meddling in democratic United States. Conventional flashpoints trigger these proxy war tactics. History shows nuclear powers can still clash indirectly or miscalculate. Deep Economic Interdependence: Bilateral goods trade reached around $415 billion in 2025 (United States exports to CCP-Occupied China ~$106 billion, imports ~$308 billion), with a large United States deficit. War would devastate supply chains. Yet this interdependence is asymmetrical and weaponised by the CCP through subsidies, dumping, and coercion. Decoupling and “friend-shoring” efforts already reduce the weightage of this restraint over time. Diplomacy and Shared Challenges: High-level talks and issues like climate or artificial intelligence exist, but the CCP’s bad-faith engagement (e.g., influence in World Health Organisation [WHO], World Trade Organisation [WTO]) undermines trust. Shared challenges have not curbed aggression. These factors buy time but do not resolve fundamental incompatibilities and ultimately even worsen the situation. High-Risk Triggers Key flashpoints include Taiwan (forced reunification by the CCP or declaration of independence by Taiwanese dispensation), the South China Sea (naval incidents), and technology/cyber domains. These risks intensify due to CCP behaviour. Fortunately or unfortunately, even severe actions against CCP proxies and allies have not drawn CCP into conflict - for example, recent actions against the dictatorial regime in Venezuela or Jihadi Ayatollah regime in Iran. CCP-Specific Factors Making Avoidance Unlikely 1. Expansionist Trends: The CCP asserts claims in the South China Sea (militarised artificial islands and other islands), Taiwan, Himalayan borders with India (Aksai Chin, Sakshgam Valley, Arunachal Pradesh), and beyond. Historical usurpation (Tibet, Xinjiang/East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, etc.) and recent Hong Kong absorption show a pattern. Counter-strategies like Quad, AUKUS, and Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) raise costs, but the CCP’s opportunism (advancing when targets seem weak) persists. Firm deterrence has sometimes paused actions, yet the regime’s revisionism continues. 2. Lack of Democracy: Authoritarian decision-making enables rapid, unaccountable aggression without domestic debate. The Cold War United States–Soviet analogy fails here: the CCP’s ideological Leninist system and national rejuvenation narrative drive zero-sum competition more aggressively than Soviet pragmatism. 3. Intellectual Property Theft and Economic Misconduct: State-sponsored theft costs the United States economy $225–600 billion annually (some estimates higher, up to $600–800 billion, including broader impacts). This erodes trust and technological edges. Sanctions and export controls (e.g., semiconductors) respond, but the systemic, CCP-directed nature makes it a persistent feature, fuelling resentment and decoupling pressures. 4. Domestic Corruption: Widespread corruption, including in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with high-profile purges, weakens capabilities and breeds risk-aversion. However, it also signals institutional fragility that could lead to desperate external actions to bolster regime legitimacy. 5. Influence Over International Organisations: The CCP’s placement of officials and leverage in the United Nations (UN), WTO, and WHO etc. distorts global norms. Counter-efforts via G7 alternatives help, but institutional capture advances CCP interests without military cost. 6. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Launched in 2013, the BRI has involved hundreds of billions in projects, creating dependencies. While debt issues, defaults, and backlashes have scaled back some ambitions, 2025 saw record engagement in some metrics, extending influence through infrastructure and resources. This “debt-trap” soft power advances strategic footholds. 7 and 8. Support for FATF-Listed States and Terrorism: Ties to North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Pakistan (including shielding at UN and indirect support for jihadist elements from Pakistan) destabilise regions. The CCP uses these as buffers but risks escalation. Domestic extremism concerns in Xinjiang create some alignment on stability, yet selective support continues. 9 and 10. Monopolisation of Supply Chains/Critical Minerals and Gigantic Manufacturing Scale: Dominance in rare earths, batteries, pharmaceuticals, and overcapacity dumping (e.g., solar, EVs) threatens competitors. “De-risking” via friend-shoring and tariffs (CHIPS Act, etc.) counters this, but the scale enables economic coercion short of war. 11. Economic Warfare and De-Dollarisation: Efforts to internationalise the Renminbi (RMB) and shift from the United States dollar act as non-kinetic tools. Dollar dominance persists due to rule of law and markets, channelling rivalry into economics. 12. Fake Narrative War: Disinformation via state media and apps and agents, as well as leftist and woke politics, seeks to divide the West and other democracies and project inevitability. Counters include restrictions (e.g., on TikTok) and independent journalism, keeping it below kinetic thresholds. 13. Territorial History: Absorbed regions (Tibet, etc.) are treated as fait accompli. Active claims face pushback (India border infrastructure, United States–Japan treaties on Senkaku), forcing grey-zone tactics. Yet the pattern signals endless revisionism. Conclusion Drastic CCP Change Is Required - The CCP’s authoritarian structure, ideological drive, moral and governance failures, and revisionist goals make it structurally incompatible with a stable rules-based order. While nuclear weapons, economic ties, and deterrence can delay hot war—redirecting conflict into grey zones—these do not eliminate the trap. Historical precedents (12 of 16 cases ending in war) and the CCP’s behaviour suggest high risk. “Managed competition” is a euphemism for prolonged tension. Without fundamental CCP transformation—greater transparency, reduced aggression, genuine reciprocity, and accountability—escalation remains probable. The Earth may be vast, but the Expansionist Communist Colonialist CCP’s zero-sum worldview leaves insufficient or no room for peaceful coexistence under current conditions. Peace depends on strength, resolve, and the CCP’s willingness (or forced necessity) to change.