Home

Featured Articles

May 28, 2026
Viren S Doshi

India's Stern Rebuff to China's Meddling in India's Internal Affairs

Overview In a strong diplomatic response issued on May 26, 2026, India firmly rejected the latest joint statement by CCP-Occupied China and Pakistan, which made unwarranted references to India's Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India highlighted concerns over attempts to interfere in India's internal affairs through Pakistan, opposed projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), dismissed notions of "trans-boundary water resources cooperation," and called on the Communist regime in Beijing to desist from actions impinging on Indian sovereignty. The Trigger: China-Pakistan Joint Statement The joint statement followed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to Beijing. It promoted an "upgraded version" of CPEC — the flagship project of CCP-Occupied China's Belt and Road Initiative launched in 2015. Critically, the statement referenced "trans-boundary water resources cooperation" and reiterated outdated positions on Jammu and Kashmir as a dispute requiring resolution under the United Nations. India’s Ministry of External Affairs responded unequivocally. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh “have been, are and will always remain integral and inalienable parts of India. No other country has the locus standi to comment on the same.” Sovereignty Concerns: CPEC as Encroachment on Indian Territory India has consistently opposed CPEC projects, many of which run through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and other Indian territories under illegal occupation. The MEA reiterated its position, “As regards the so-called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, some of which are in India's sovereign territory, we resolutely oppose and reject any moves by other countries to reinforce or legitimise Pakistan's illegal and forcible occupation of these territories, impinging on India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.” This has been conveyed multiple times to both sides. India does not recognise the so-called 1963 boundary agreement between Pakistan and CCP-Occupied China. CPEC has involved investments reportedly exceeding $60-70 billion since its inception, with ongoing expansions now being framed as CPEC 2.0. These projects are viewed as strategic moves that threaten regional stability and directly challenge Indian sovereignty. On the water aspect, India dismissed the joint statement outright: “As the two countries [China and Pakistan] do not share any boundary, the question of so-called 'trans-boundary water resources cooperation' does not arise.” This statement gains significance amid heightened water security concerns in South Asia. Operation Sindoor: India's Multi-Dimensional Counter-Terrorism Push These diplomatic exchanges occur in the context of Operation Sindoor, India’s resolute military and diplomatic response initiated in May 2025 after a major terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, that claimed the lives of 26 civilians. The operation featured precision strikes targeting terror infrastructure linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. As part of Operation Sindoor and follow-up measures, India implemented several steps: Temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 (which governs sharing of the six rivers — Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) until Pakistan demonstrably and irreversibly ends support for cross-border terrorism. Revocation and cancellation of visas for Pakistani nationals. Closure of the Attari-Wagah border check post. Restrictions under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Visa Exemption Scheme. Expulsion of diplomats and curbs on trade and mobility. These actions reflect India’s policy of holding terrorism sponsors accountable on par with the perpetrators. China's Complicity: Vetoes at UNSC and Support for Terrorism India has repeatedly pointed out that China's extensive involvement in Pakistan — through massive CPEC investments, military cooperation, and diplomatic cover — effectively supports terrorism. Beijing has used its veto power multiple times at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 1267 Sanctions Committee to block the designation of Pakistan-based terrorists responsible for attacks on Indian soil. This pattern undermines international counter-terrorism norms. By advancing infrastructure in occupied territories and now pushing water-related narratives, China is perceived as legitimising illegal occupations and complicating India’s water security, particularly with the Indus Waters Treaty under suspension. Pakistan depends heavily on the Indus basin, with approximately 80% of its cultivated land irrigated by these waters. As the upper riparian state, India wields leverage but has stressed that restraint depends on verifiable change in Pakistan’s behaviour. Strategic Implications This latest episode underscores the tripartite dynamics where China's so called "all-weather" “iron-clad” alliance with Pakistan serves as a proxy vehicle to meddle in India’s internal affairs. Pakistan may like to learn from an ancient story of this land - in the Mahabharat, Dhritrashtra wanted to give a hug to Bhim. But that was not out of love. It was out of malice. And when, out of strategy, an iron statue of Bhim was presented to Dhritrashtra, he gave a strong hug breaking the statue. Pakistan must realise that CCP’s “ironclad” hug is going to extract heavy costs from Pakistan. With CPEC advancing into new phases, including upgrades at Gwadar Port, risks of escalation in disputed areas persist. Bottom-line India’s response sends a clear message: Attempts to interfere in its sovereign matters — whether directly or routed through Pakistan — will not be tolerated. New Delhi expects the Communist regime in Beijing to respect red lines on territorial integrity, counter-terrorism, and water issues. In a nuclear-shadowed region facing water stress from climate change and proxy conflicts, India’s integrated approach under Operation Sindoor combines military precision, diplomatic firmness, and resource-based leverage to secure peace through strength for its 1.4 billion citizens.

May 27, 2026
YagnaSri

Uttar Pradesh: The Political Soul of Bharat Part 1

Beyond the Congress: The Unsung Nationalist and Revolutionary Freedom Fighters of Uttar Pradesh The official history of India's independence struggle, as constructed and perpetuated by the Congress party and its cultural apparatus, is at best incomplete and at worst a deliberate distortion. Textbooks celebrate Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, and their inner circle, while quietly erasing the contributions of hundreds of nationalists, revolutionaries, and armed resisters — many of whom hailed from the Hindi heartland of Uttar Pradesh. It is time to reclaim that history. The Revolutionary Tradition: Armed Resistance Against the Crown When we speak of the freedom movement, we must acknowledge that it was not monolithic. While Gandhian non-cooperation commanded the streets, another equally fierce struggle was being waged by revolutionaries who believed that British imperialism could not be dismantled through petitions and passive resistance alone. These men and women took up arms or spent their lives in seditious intellectual combat — and the soil of Uttar Pradesh produced some of the most remarkable among them. Ram Prasad Bismil, born in Shahjahanpur in 1897, represents this alternative tradition at its most luminous. A poet, a scholar of Sanskrit and Urdu, and a fiery nationalist, Bismil co-founded the Hindustan Republican Association (HRA). He masterminded the Kakori Train Robbery of August 1925, an audacious act in which he and his comrades intercepted a British treasury train to fund revolutionary activities. Bismil's poetry, including the immortal lines of 'Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna', became the anthem of a generation that chose the gallows over submission. Hanged by the British on December 19, 1927, alongside Ashfaqulla Khan and Roshan Singh, Bismil represents a nationalism that was both militantly anti-colonial and deeply rooted in the cultural and spiritual ethos of the Ganga-Yamuna plain of Bharat. Chandrashekhar Azad, the commander of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), born in Bhavra (present-day Madhya Pradesh), his entire revolutionary life was forged in the crucible of Uttar Pradesh. His legendary bold resistance against the British that took place in Allahabad's Alfred Park, was perhaps the most enduring symbol of uncompromising resistance. Azad reorganised HSRA and radicalised the revolutionary movement after the arrest of Bismil's group. His famous oath — that he would never be taken alive by the British — was honoured on February 27, 1931, when, surrounded by police in Alfred Park, he fired his last bullet into his own temple rather than surrender. He was 24 years old. The contributions of Bhagat Singh, though not from UP, were deeply intertwined with the state's revolutionary networks. His comrades Sukhdev and Rajguru, and the wider HSRA network, operated extensively across UP, and the ideological foundations of socialist nationalism that emerged from this tradition had a lasting influence on the region's political consciousness. The Hindu Nationalist Tradition: Cultural Warriors Beyond the revolutionary tradition, there existed a rich stream of Hindu nationalist and culturally rooted patriots whose contributions to the freedom movement have been systematically downplayed. Madan Mohan Malaviya, the founder of Banaras Hindu University, was not merely an educationist — he was a towering political figure who led the Congress at a time when its commitment to Hindu culture and Hindi language was not yet seen as communal. His insistence on the centrality of Hindu civilisation to Indian nationhood prefigured the ideological positions that would later animate the Jana Sangh and the BJP. Sampurnanand, Govind Ballabh Pant, and other UP leaders of the inter-war period represented a more traditional nationalist politics. Nevertheless, it is legends from the Hindu Mahasabha and related organisations — Bhai Parmanand, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (who, though not from UP, had a massive following here), and the early Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leadership — who most directly challenged the Congress's claim to represent all of India's freedom fighters. The RSS, founded by Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925, operated extensively in UP through the 1930s and 1940s, conducting shakhas, building character, and inculcating a deep sense of national identity rooted in Hindu civilisation. While the Congress's official history dismisses the RSS as non-participants in the freedom movement, the historical record tells a more complex story. RSS swayamsevaks participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942 in large numbers, despite the organisation's formal policy of non-involvement in party politics. Why This History Was Suppressed The suppression of this alternative nationalist history was not accidental. The Congress party, as the dominant political force in post-independence India, controlled the universities, institutions of cultural production like the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), school curriculum boards, and the publishing apparatus. Historians aligned with the Congress-Left consensus systematically elevated Gandhian non-violence and Nehruvian secular socialism while marginalising or demonising the revolutionary and Hindu nationalist traditions. This was fundamentally a political project. By constructing a narrative that portrayed the Congress alone as having led India to freedom, the party sought to cement its moral authority as the nation's natural governing party. Alternative nationalist traditions were absorbed into the Congress narrative after Bismil and Azad were dead. They became acceptable heroes after they could not challenge Congress's dominance. Otherwise, they would have been actively stigmatised as communal, fascist, or anti-national. The consequences of this historiographical distortion are still felt today. A generation of Indians grew up knowing Gandhi and Nehru but not Bismil or Malaviya, aware of the Salt March but ignorant of the Kakori Conspiracy, familiar with the Lucknow Pact but not the founding of the RSS. The BJP's Sanskriti Bodh Pariyojana and the revised NCERT curriculum represent, among other things, an effort to correct this historical imbalance. UP's Unique Contribution: A Civilisational Nationalism What made Uttar Pradesh distinctive in the nationalist imagination was its deep civilisational roots. The cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ayodhya, Prayagraj, and Agra are not merely geographic locations; they are the nodes of a sacred geography that defines Hindu civilisation. Nationalists from UP drew their inspiration not just from Enlightenment notions of political freedom but from a deep well of Dharmic consciousness — the conviction that the Indian nation-state was the political expression of an ancient civilisation, and that its liberation was simultaneously a political act and a spiritual restoration. This civilisational nationalism distinguished UP's freedom fighters from their counterparts elsewhere. When Bismil wrote poetry invoking the Ganga and the tradition of sacrifice, he was not simply using religious metaphor—he was articulating a vision of nationhood rooted in the land, its traditions, and its people in the most profound sense. This vision, dismissed by the Nehruvian establishment as backward or parochial, has proven to be the more durable one. The BJP's political dominance in UP today is not simply the result of electoral management or caste arithmetic. It represents the political triumph of this civilisational nationalist tradition over the Congress's imported, deracinated secularism. Understanding this requires recovering the full history of UP's freedom struggle — a history in which the Congress was one participant among many, and by no means always the most heroic one.