Home

Featured Articles

Aug 26, 2026
Lt Gen L N Singh (Retd)

Turbulence in the US Navy: The Importance of Tail

Someone aptly said ‘An army marches on its stomach’ - logistics are crucial to any successful military campaign. The problems being experienced by the USS Abraham Lincoln and other US Navy ships, recently, are not simply a series of unrelated mechanical failures. They point to a deeper issue- the enormous logistical and maintenance burden which is created when a sophisticated navy is forced into a sustained and prolonged, high-tempo military operation. The required maintenance and support cycle comes under severe strain. The central question is NOT whether the US Navy has suddenly forgotten how to maintain its ships. Rather, the problem is that a system designed around carefully planned deployments, maintenance periods and logistics rotations is being pushed towards a wartime tempo that leaves increasingly little room for routine maintenance and unexpected failures. The USS Abraham Lincoln This aircraft carrier, which came under extraordinary strain, provides a clear example. The carrier has reportedly been at sea since November 2025, spending more than 260 days deployed, including more than 200 days without a conventional port call. During the Iran operation, it has reportedly conducted more than 10,000 sorties. That level of operational activity inevitably produces a cascading effect: High operational tempo has accelerated wear and tear. This led to increased maintenance requirements. But continuous operational involvement resulted in fewer opportunities for maintenance and greater consumption of spare parts. There is difficulty in bringing parts and technicians aboard; hence, this led to temporary repairs, which led to further equipment degradation. Reports from sailors and families described shortages of food and personal supplies, plumbing/toilet problems, water-quality concerns, poor living conditions and serious morale/mental-health problems. There were also overboard incidents, including one sailor who went overboard on 03 August and was rescued. An aircraft carrier is not simply a warship. It can be termed a floating industrial facility or a city with more than 5,000 sailors. Hence, it requires continuous supplies of food, fresh water, medical supplies, refrigeration, sewage-treatment systems, electrical equipment, aviation fuel, weapons, aircraft spare parts, engineering components, communications equipment, specialist technicians, plumbers, electricians, mail and personal supplies etc. If a carrier can regularly enter a friendly and well-equipped port, many of these requirements will be sorted. But when port access becomes difficult or dangerous, the entire system becomes much more complicated. Critical Logistic Support Base at Bahrain Attacked The US Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain. Besides, it has traditionally been far more than simply a naval base and is also a forward maintenance hub for the US Navy vessels operating in the region. It provides logistics, maintenance, technical assistance, voyage repairs and more advanced maintenance support to US naval operations in the Middle East. It also provides logistics support operations in Dubai, Oman, Jordan and Djibouti. Every ship does not have come to Bahrain. Instead, technicians, spare parts and support are moved forward. Thus, the existence of a secure forward maintenance hub in Bahrain dramatically shortens the logistical chain. After the US and Israelis attack, the Iranians targeted Bahrain and other US bases. Repeated Iranian missile and drone attacks against US facilities in Bahrain caused substantial damage to the buildings, maintenance, logistics and repair facilities. The logistical consequences of attacks are much greater than the physical damage to the buildings themselves. The forward support system was unable to perform. This dramatically changed the maintenance standard of the US Navy in the Gulf. The Navy had to look for alternatives. Changing over to alternative support locations led to longer supply routes, which in turn led to greater logistical complexity, including vulnerability. The ships, including the carrier, can remain operational while experiencing shortages, deteriorating conditions and growing maintenance requirements. But the question is: when the logistics system supporting ships is under prolonged attack, can the ships continue to function efficiently? And what about the morale of the crew? So, the US reportedly began relying on Diego Garcia as a major strategic logistics facility, which can provide logistics and maintenance support, including fuel, water, transportation, material handling, waste removal, and maintenance of pre-positioned equipment. But there is a crucial difference between Bahrain and Diego Garcia. The geographical turnaround from Bahrain to the US naval assets in the Persian Gulf is very less. But Diego Garcia is thousands of kilometres further away, and the turnaround time is much greater. Hence, Diego Garcia cannot substitute Bahrain for forward logistics & maintenance support. The US Navy was operating a distributed logistics system, in which Bahrain supported operations across a wide geographical area without every ship having to return directly to the base. But with the Bahrain base damaged or highly vulnerable, the alternatives became more expensive and time-consuming. Longer supply routes resulted in longer turnaround times and more vulnerability during transportation. This also led to greater demand for support/ supply vessels, greater fuel consumption, more complicated maintenance planning and more dependence on additional locations such as Oman, the UAE, etc. The result is a much more difficult logistical environment. The Hidden Dependency of an Aircraft Carrier The United States has one of the world's most sophisticated blue-water navies. An aircraft carrier can remain at sea for extraordinarily long periods. But it cannot manufacture every spare part onboard. It cannot repair every damaged system. It cannot replenish every consumable indefinitely. The real logistical chain is therefore much larger than food and fuel It has to be something like: Carrier will need oil tanker, ammunition ship, supply ship, port calls, warehouses, maintenance facilities, technicians, spare parts, strategic transportation network This entire chain has to function. This is the hidden vulnerability of global naval power. Hence, an aircraft carrier may be extremely powerful, but its effectiveness ultimately depends upon the enormous support network behind it. That is why damage to a forward logistics and maintenance hub such as Bahrain can have consequences far beyond the facility itself. The case of USS Benfold: A Warning from the Pacific The USS Benfold incident is particularly revealing because it occurred far from the Iran theatre. It suffered a major engineering failure on 24 July 2026 while operating in the South China Sea. The ship is a guided-missile destroyer carrying about 300 sailors. The US Navy said the problem involved the ship's generators and caused a complete loss of electrical power. The destroyer reportedly suffered an electrical power failure lasting approximately four days due to generator problems. Sailors had no functioning air-conditioning, problems relating to toilets, galley/hot meals and limited potable-water services. Another ship, the cruiser USS Robert Smalls supplied meals. The George Washington strike group supported the disabled destroyer. It had to be towed to Subic Bay in the Philippines. Though the incident occurred in the Pacific, its significance is broader. It demonstrates how a little mechanical failure costs very heavily when ships operate under sustained and continuous pressure. USS Gerald R. Ford In another incident, a severe fire broke out on another aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, on 12 March 2026 while it was operating in the Red Sea during US operations against Iran. Although the US Navy initially downplayed the incident as a minor, quickly contained blaze, subsequent investigations revealed extensive internal devastation that nearly threatened the safety of the entire ship. The ship's built-in fire suppression system failed to activate effectively, forcing the crew to combat the toxic blaze manually. It took the crew approximately 30 hours to fully extinguish the fire and eliminate the threat of reignition. Two sailors sustained non-life-threatening injuries, and over 200 crew members were treated for smoke inhalation. The fire completely destroyed sleeping quarters, leaving roughly 600 sailors displaced and without bunks. The Navy stated that the nuclear propulsion plant was untouched and the ship remained mission capable, but the $13 billion supercarrier had to be diverted to Crete and Croatia for emergency repairs. A modern warship contains thousands of sophisticated components. Those components age and suffer from normal wear and tear. Thus, if a Navy simultaneously has more deployments and more combat operations resulting in fewer maintenance periods and fewer port calls, then the probability of serious failures naturally rises. And the US Navy already had a significant maintenance backlog before the Iran war. The current conflict therefore appears to be amplifying an existing structural problem. Implications of Shifting USS George Washington: Void in The Pacific To relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln, the US needed another carrier in the Middle East badly. So, the USS George Washington moved from the Pacific to the Middle East to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln. The George Washington normally operates in and around the South China Sea. Thus, this represents an important strategic trade-off. There are strategically significant consequences when a carrier moves from one theatre to another. That means depletion of US Naval power available in the Western Pacific. For China, even a temporary reduction in US carrier presence in the Western Pacific creates an opportunity. It does not mean that America has abandoned the Pacific. But it demonstrates something important- US naval resources are finite. The same carrier cannot simultaneously reinforce the Middle East and remain available for contingencies in the Western Pacific. The Iran War Has Created a Three-Layer Problem The consequences of the Iran War and the attacks on Naval bases can be understood at three levels. Layer 1: Tactical - Individual ships experienced equipment failures, supply shortages, maintenance problems and crew exhaustion. USS Abraham Lincoln is the most visible example. Layer 2: Operational - The Navy has to rotate ships and carriers more aggressively. For example: George Washington moved to the Middle East instead of being in the Pacific. This reduces flexibility. Layer 3: Strategic - The United States is discovering how difficult it is to sustain simultaneous high-intensity operations across multiple theatres. And this is the most important lesson. The question is not whether the United States possesses enough ships to fight. It is whether it possesses enough logistical depth, maintenance capacity, spare parts, support vessels, technicians and available crews to keep multiple fleets operating at high intensity for a prolonged period. Iran Does Not Have to Sink an Aircraft Carrier This leads to the most important strategic point. Iran does not necessarily have to destroy an American aircraft carrier to impose high costs on the United States. Instead, it can attack the support architecture. The sequence could look like this: Damage in Bahrain led to disruption of maintenance and communications, which led to disruption in logistics. This forced the US ships farther from the Gulf and increased dependence on Diego Garcia, Oman and the UAE. It increased transit distances, increasing transportation requirements for replenishment. This led to an increase in wear and tear and also reduced sortie rates. This increased pressure on US naval rotations Thus, this is a classic anti-access/area-denial logic. The objective is not necessarily “Sink the carrier.” It can instead be, “Make operating the carrier extraordinarily expensive and complicated.” That is a very different form of warfare. This could be one of the reasons for the US changing from application of kinetic force on Iran to economic sanctions. The Pattern Is More Important Than Any Individual Failure Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the current situation is that several different problems are appearing simultaneously. USS Abraham Lincoln: prolonged deployment, supply pressures, crew strain and maintenance requirements. USS Benfold: serious engineering failure. USS Gerald R. Ford: on board fire Bahrain: damage to an important forward support node. USS George Washington: pulled from the Pacific to reinforce the Middle East. Diego Garcia: becomes increasingly important as a rear-area logistics node. Taken individually, each incident could be dismissed as an isolated problem. Taken together, they suggest something more significant - stress on the US Navy's global sustainment system. This does not mean that the US Navy is running out of capacity or that it is incapable of sustaining the war. The United States retains enormous logistical capabilities. The more important question is different: Can the United States sustain the operation indefinitely without degrading readiness in other theatres? That is much less certain. An Indicator to Watch Over the Next 6–18 Months The most important thing to watch is not simply whether another American ship suffers a mechanical failure. Instead, watch the overall deployment and maintenance cycle. In the next 6–18 months, we have to watch for longer Naval maintenance periods, ships being pulled from other theatres, delayed deployments, fewer carriers available, increasing dependence on Diego Garcia, more aggressive ship rotations and increasing maintenance backlogs. If this happens then the US may no longer be looking at isolated wartime inconvenience; instead, may be witnessing strategic exhaustion of the US Navy's global deployment cycle. And this would have consequences far beyond Iran. It would affect the US ability to respond simultaneously in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. For India, this is particularly important A sustained US logistic strain could alter the balance of naval presence across the Indian Ocean, potentially creating both opportunities and risks for India's strategic autonomy and regional role. The most important lesson, therefore, is not that US aircraft carriers are becoming unreliable. But it’s that ’even the world's most powerful navy has a logistical tail’ and that this tail could make an operational impact. A carrier can dominate the ocean. But only if the network behind it can keep it supplied, repaired, armed, fuelled and kept operationally ready with high-morale crew. In modern great-power competition, the ability to sustain military power may ultimately matter as much as the ability to deploy it.

Aug 24, 2026
Viren S Doshi

Reservations in Independent India: History, Rules, Controversies and the Drive for Fairness

Overview “Reservations in India” - the world's biggest Affirmative Action - means setting aside a fixed share of seats in government jobs, educational institutions, and legislatures for social (and economic) groups that have faced long-term social and educational disadvantages. The idea is to give them a fair chance to catch up. This system started before independence in some princely states and grew into a major national policy after 1947. It covers Scheduled Castes (SC — formerly called “untouchables” or Dalits), Scheduled Tribes (ST — tribals), Other Backward Classes (OBC — other socially and educationally disadvantaged castes), and, more recently, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS — poor people from any background including all religions, but not already covered by caste quotas). This article explains the early experiments, why some reports were delayed, current rules including the “creamy layer” (well-off people within a group who do not need the benefit), status in Jammu and Kashmir, minority institutions, state-level Muslim quotas, court rulings, the stand of Hindu civil society organisations, and how India has kept this policy going longer than almost any other country despite the trauma of Partition and impoverishing foreign invasions of 1300 years. Early Beginnings in Princely States Long before the British left, some Indian rulers tried to open up government jobs that were dominated by higher castes. In the princely state of Kolhapur (now in Maharashtra), Maharaja Shahu (also called Rajarshi Shahu) introduced one of the earliest formal reservation policies in 1902. He reserved 50 per cent of posts in the state services for communities who had been left behind. In the princely state of Mysore (now in Karnataka), Maharaja Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV appointed a committee in 1918 headed by Leslie Miller, the Chief Judge. The Committee submitted its report in 1919. It recommended that, over seven years, the share of “backward communities” (other than Brahmins, Europeans, and Anglo-Indians) in government jobs should rise to 50 per cent, provided they met basic qualifications. The Maharaja implemented this as the first large-scale, systematic caste-based reservation effort in India. Vadodara under the Gaekwad rulers, especially Sayajirao Gaekwad III, was known for progressive education and social reforms. The state promoted education and opportunities for lower groups as part of its modernising policies. These early measures showed that state rulers had recognised the problem of social imbalance. Constitutional Framework After Independence When India became independent, the Constitution (which came into force in 1950) gave the legal basis for reservations. Article 15(4) allows special rules for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, in education. Article 16(4) does the same for public employment. Articles 330 and 332 reserve seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. These political reservations have been extended several times and currently run until 2030. At the Centre, the usual shares in government jobs and many educational institutions are: 15 per cent for SCs, 7.5 per cent for STs, 27 per cent for OBCs, 10 per cent for EWS. This adds up to 59.5 per cent. The Supreme Court in the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992) ruled that total reservations should normally stay at or below 50 per cent, but the EWS quota was later allowed as an exception. Horizontal reservations also exist for persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, and sometimes women. Private-sector jobs mostly do not have compulsory reservations, though some states encourage them. Kaka Kalelkar Commission and the Long Delay on OBCs In 1953, the government set up the first Backward Classes Commission under Kaka Kalelkar (a social reformer). It submitted its report in 1955. It identified many communities as backward and recommended reservations and other help. The Congress government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did not implement it. Nehru disliked the label “backward classes”. In 1961, Nehru-led Congress formally decided against a national OBC list, Nehru was not committed to caste-based social justice for the OBC population. The report was set aside. A second commission, the Mandal Commission (1979–80 under B.P. Mandal), again recommended 27 per cent for OBCs. Congress governments kept it pending for about a decade. It was finally implemented in 1990 by the V.P. Singh government, which was supported by the BJP at the time. This led to big protests but was upheld by the Supreme Court with important conditions. Creamy Layer and Help for the Most Backward The “creamy layer” means the relatively well-off people within a reserved group. In Indra Sawhney (1992), the Supreme Court said the creamy layer among OBCs must be excluded so that the benefits reach the truly needy. The government sets income and status limits (for example, high parental income or senior government posts). These limits are updated from time to time. For SCs and STs, the Court previously said the creamy-layer idea did not apply, because their disadvantage came from centuries of untouchability or isolation. In 2024, in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, a seven-judge bench allowed states to create sub-quotas inside SC and ST lists for the more backward sub-groups. Several judges also suggested identifying a creamy layer within SCs and STs and excluding them. The Central government has said that applying the creamy-layer rule to SCs and STs needs Parliament’s decision. The issue remains under discussion. Muslims, Christians, and the SC/ST Lists — De-listing Demands The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, says that only persons who profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism can be treated as SCs. Converts to Islam or Christianity normally lose SC status. This is because the original idea of SC status was linked to the practice of untouchability within the Hindu social order. Courts have repeatedly upheld this religious bar. In March 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling drawing a strict, legally absolute line on religious conversion and Scheduled Caste (SC) identity. In the case of Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh (decided on March 24, 2026), the apex court ruled that an SC individual incurs an "immediate and complete loss" of Scheduled Caste status the moment they convert to Christianity or Islam. Some Muslim communities have been added to OBC lists. A few Muslim or Christian groups appear in ST lists. There are instances where people convert but hide religious status to claim benefits. SC, ST and OBC organisations demand “de-listing” — removing converts to Christianity or Islam from SC/ST/OBC benefits. Caste is essentially a Hindu social phenomenon and people who leave Hindu or tribal faiths should not continue to claim the quotas meant to correct disadvantages inside Hindu systems. Including them reduces the share available for the original communities. Petitions on SC status for Dalit Christians and Muslims have been pending for years. In 2022, the Central government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by retired Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to examine whether SC status can be given to persons who converted from Scheduled Castes to Christianity or Islam. The Commission has submitted its report and it is going to be made public after it is submitted to the Parliament. Reservations in Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir Before and After Article 370 Before August 2019, Article 370 gave Muslim-dominated Jammu and Kashmir special status. Full central reservation rules did not apply in the same way. SC and ST quotas existed at lower levels, along with special categories for residents of backward areas, but OBC lists and some central schemes were limited. After the abrogation of Article 370 by the BJP government and the reorganisation into Union Territories, central laws applied more fully. SC quota stayed around 8 per cent, ST was raised (later including Pahari communities and reaching higher figures), OBC expanded, and EWS (10 per cent) was introduced. Special provisions also exist for Kashmiri migrants (mostly Kashmiri Pandits displaced in the 1990s) and people displaced from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation laws allow nomination of up to two members from Kashmiri migrants (including one woman) and one from PoJK displaced persons to the Legislative Assembly. There are also employment packages and transit accommodations for Kashmiri Pandit youth. West Pakistan refugees (Hindus who came from areas that became Pakistan in 1947 and settled in Jammu) long lacked full domicile and land rights under the old state laws; after 2019 they gained domicile certificates and related benefits. Muslim Educational Institutions and SC ST OBC Reservations Muslim institutions like Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) glorify Jinnah, receive government grants and do not implement SC ST OBC Reservations. Articles 29 and 30 protect the right of religious and linguistic minorities to run educational institutions. Article 15(5) currently exempts these institutions from the compulsory SC/ST quotas that apply to other government-aided colleges. They reserve a large share of seats (often up to 50 per cent) for their community. More than 90 per cent of these are Muslim and Christian institutions. Many minority educational institutions receive substantial financial support, grants, and infrastructure aid from Central and state governments. They function under the same general education regulations that apply to other universities and colleges. Their degrees are fully recognised by the government and are accepted for government jobs, higher studies, professional licensing and professional practice across India. Given this, they should follow the core constitutional norms, including reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs - a fundamental part of the Constitution’s commitment to social justice and equality. Exempting institutions that benefit from public funding and recognition creates not only an uneven playing field and reduces opportunities for the very groups the Constitution seeks to uplift, but most importantly in many cases of non-Indian-origin religions, this also raises silos, fomenting separatism, terrorism and anti-India or Break-India forces. Jamia Millia Islamia continues to reserve approximately 30 per cent of seats for Muslim applicants, 10 per cent for Muslim women, and 10 per cent for so-called Muslim OBC/ST candidates (non-creamy layer). AMU’s minority status is disputed. In 1967, in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, a five-judge bench held that AMU was not a minority institution because it was established by an Act of the Central legislature and therefore could not claim the special rights under Article 30. But still, it doesn’t implement reservation rules. On 8 November 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:3 majority, overruled the key holding of Azeez Basha. The bench did not decide on AMU’s minority status. It directed that the papers be placed before a regular bench to examine the correctness of the 2006 Allahabad High Court judgment that had struck down certain claims of minority status. As of now, that regular bench has not yet been constituted or delivered a final ruling on AMU’s minority status. AMU doesn't implement reservation rules even now despite receiving thousands of crores in grants year-on-year from the central government. State-Level Quotas for Muslim Communities Some states ruled by Congress or other “secular” parties created sub-quotas inside the OBC list for certain Muslim groups (for example, 4 per cent in Andhra Pradesh/Telangana and in Karnataka). Courts have allowed this only when the groups are shown to be socially and educationally backward by objective criteria, not merely because of religion. Pure religion-based quotas have been struck down. Such expansions reduce the share available to other OBC communities. So, while sections of Muslims pursue a kind of “Reservation Jihad” to grab as many opportunities in India as possible, secular parties seem not to have learnt any lessons from the horrendous partition of India that originated from Muslim reservations for legislatures in the early 20th century. Court Cases and What They Mean Today Major binding rulings include: Indra Sawhney (1992): 50 per cent ceiling, creamy layer for OBCs. Janhit Abhiyan (2022): EWS quota upheld. Davinder Singh (2024): Sub-classification of SCs/STs allowed; observations on creamy layer. November 2024 AMU judgment: Overruled Azeez Basha on the legal test for minority status and referred the factual question of AMU to a regular bench. Ongoing matters include state OBC lists, SC status for converts (Balakrishnan Commission), and implementation of sub-classification. Supreme Court judgments bind all courts and governments. BJP-led Governments and the Effort to Balance Interests The BJP-led government introduced the 10 per cent EWS quota in 2019 for economically weak people outside the existing caste quotas. This was upheld by the Supreme Court. The party has repeatedly said it will not allow reservations on the basis of religion, calling them unconstitutional. After 2019, it expanded reservations in Jammu and Kashmir and has focused on data, sub-classification, and economic criteria to balance the needs of SCs, STs, OBCs, and the poor among other groups. Commitment of Hindu Civil Society Organisations Hindu civil society organisations have consistently supported reservations for Hindu backward castes as a means of correcting historical social imbalances within Hindu society. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has affirmed this position at the highest level. RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat has stated on multiple occasions that reservations should continue for as long as social discrimination and caste-based inequality exist. He has linked the policy to the vision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar and said that as long as the social reasons that made reservations necessary persist, the system must remain. At the same time, he has urged those beneficiaries who have already progressed socially and economically to show generosity and make space for others who still need the support. The RSS has described reservations as a tool for social unity rather than permanent division, while firmly backing their constitutional continuation until discrimination ends. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has taken a similar stand. It regards reservations for Scheduled Castes as an article of faith and a form of social atonement that must continue as long as any caste discrimination remains. VHP leaders have emphasised that the original purpose was to uplift those who suffered untouchability within the Hindu social order. They strongly oppose extending SC status or related benefits to converts to Islam or Christianity, arguing that such religions claim to have no caste system and that extending the quota would dilute the rights of the original communities. The VHP has also supported continued benefits for genuinely backward Hindu castes while opposing religion-based expansions that reduce shares for Hindu SCs, STs, and OBCs. India’s Unique Commitment Despite Partition No other country has maintained such a large-scale, constitutionally backed system of caste- and tribe-based affirmative action for decades. India has continued this policy even after the tragic Partition of 1947 that resulted in violence and displacement and truncated the hopes of the nation. Yet successive governments and the Indian people have kept the reservation system alive as a continuing commitment to social justice for historically disadvantaged groups within the remaining territory of India. Conclusion In short, reservations remain a living instrument of social justice in India. They rest on the idea that historical disadvantage must be corrected by giving priority in opportunities. The system continues to be refined by commissions, governments, courts, and civil society so that benefits reach those who need them most, while trying to keep the overall framework fair for every needy citizen despite vote bank politics of secular parties and “Reservation Jihad” by sections of Muslims.