Greater Israel, Christian Zionism, and the Politics of Prophecy: Theology, Power, and Geopolitics in 2026

YouTube

Theology, nationalism, and geopolitics have long been intertwined with the idea of “Greater Israel.” Rooted in a literalist reading of the Book of Genesis—particularly Genesis 15:18–21, which describes land stretching “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates”—the concept envisions an Israel encompassing not only present-day Israel and the Palestinian territories, but also parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This idea, once limited to religious Zionist groups, keeps coming up in politics, causing controversy everywhere.

In February 2026, the U.S. re-introduced the topic into diplomatic discussions. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, seemed to confirm that it would be alright if Israel claimed the full biblical territory. The remark, while clarified as not current policy, elicited strong reactions in the Middle East and prompted challenging questions about how theology influences foreign policy. Examining Greater Israel’s ideological origins, the growth of Christian Zionism, Israel’s domestic politics, and the regional and American strategic outcomes is crucial to grasping the impact of this rhetoric.

The Biblical Claim and Its Political Translation

Genesis, especially God’s promise to Abraham, forms the theological basis for Greater Israel. For those who believe, these promises hold true forever and are linked to specific areas. The land, from the Nile (sometimes called the “river of Egypt”) to the Euphrates, is believed to have been divinely given to Abraham’s descendants, Isaac and Jacob.

The shift from this religious account to political statements has consistently been a source of dispute. In late 19th-century Europe, Jewish Zionism was predominantly secular and nationalist in nature. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, presented their movement not primarily as a prophecy but as a response to antisemitism and the lack of a state. Modern Israel’s founding in 1948 was a result of international relations and conflict, rather than a divine mandate.

In Israel, some religious Zionists, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War, saw the West Bank’s capture as a sign from God. Political groups, viewing territorial compromise as a strategic and theological threat, facilitated the expansion of settlement movements. The use of comprehensive historical maps, including Palestinian areas, by contemporary figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, reinforces the notion that the Greater Israel ideology persists.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite a more reserved official tone, has occasionally spoken about Israel’s biblical heritage and historical claims, generally within established international borders or strategically secure areas. Israeli politics is still influenced by the conflict between maximalist theology and pragmatic statecraft.

The Rise of Christian Zionism

To grasp the controversy over Huckabee’s comments, one must study Christian Zionism, a significant theological and political force, particularly in the US.

Christian Zionism is older than modern Jewish Zionism. Originating in Protestant millennialist ideas from the Reformation, it grew significantly in the 19th century due to dispensationalism, which John Nelson Darby widely promoted. History was segmented into separate divine periods by this framework, which also posited that the return of Jews to their homeland was essential for end-times occurrences, such as Christ’s Second Coming.

Christian Zionism gained popularity within American evangelicalism during the 20th century. Publications like   “The Late Great Planet Earth” and groups such as the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem engaged millions in interpreting Middle Eastern events through prophecy. Prophetic milestones were seen in Israel’s founding in 1948 and Jerusalem’s capture in 1967.

Christian Zionism, unlike its secular counterpart, believes Israel’s current state and growth are divinely guided, not just a result of national will. Unwavering political support is viewed as a mandate based on biblical verses such as Genesis 12:3. As a result, many evangelicals oppose territorial concessions, believing they go against God’s will.

This theological commitment has had a real impact on American policy. The Republican Party relies heavily on evangelical voters. Christian Zionists had long pushed for the U.S. embassy to be moved to Jerusalem and for Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the Trump administration’s actions reflected these priorities. Huckabee’s assertions are part of a more extensive ideological environment.

Diplomatic Firestorm: Regional Reactions

The Arab world reacted quickly and harshly to Huckabee’s comments. The remarks were denounced as inflammatory and destabilising by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry stated that such language went against international law and the U.S.’s historical stance against unilateral West Bank annexation.

The idea of biblical borders covering Egypt and Jordan, who have peace treaties with Israel, is a direct challenge to their national sovereignty. According to the Arab League, the remarks worsened tensions, especially with ongoing violence in Gaza and the West Bank.

The strategic issue is more than just words. Territorial claims rooted in religion could incite public anger and bolster extremists in an area with significant historical conflicts and unstable political situations. Symbolic resonance can hinder diplomacy, even without current policy support for such claims.

Reports of evangelical perspectives influencing official policy grew, as the US State Department offered no immediate explanation. Regional actors find ambiguity to be destabilising.

International Law and the Question of Sovereignty

Modern international law is in sharp opposition to the Greater Israel concept. State sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination, as outlined in the UN Charter, form the basis of the post-World War II order. Taking land by force is generally considered unacceptable.

Since 1967, Israel’s control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem is disputed by international law, and most of the world sees the settlements as illegal. Moving claims outside these areas into adjacent sovereign nations would be a significant shift from current practices.

Scholars contend that using religious justifications for land acquisition weakens the secular legal structures that manage global affairs. This could normalize religiously motivated irredentism, potentially encouraging similar demands globally, like those for “Akhand Bharat” by Hindu nationalists or the revival of a caliphate by Islamists.

Strategic Scenarios

In the first scenario, Greater Israel ideas are symbolic, staying in ideology/theology, not becoming state policy. Even with religious nationalist pressures, Israeli administrations maintain a focus on practical regional partnerships, especially via normalisation pacts with significant Gulf states. Economic integration, security cooperation against shared threats, and technological partnerships are more important than extreme territorial goals. Here, American officials moved fast to state that Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s words represented his personal theology, not the official position of the U.S. Reaffirming existing diplomatic frameworks and rejecting territorial expansion based on biblical claims reassures Arab allies of Washington’s commitment. Despite lingering suspicion and distrust, particularly among Palestinians and Arab publics, the regional balance remains intact. This scenario is most likely due to Israel’s reliance on strategic alliances, foreign investment, and stable regional relations for its security, economy, and diplomacy. Prophecy is secondary to pragmatism in this instance.

The second scenario anticipates a slower but significant change. Israeli leaders are not overtly calling upon biblical maps from the Nile to the Euphrates, but instead are steadily expanding their territory through settlement growth and targeted annexation in the West Bank. Security, demographic, or historical claims regarding Judea and Samaria serve as the main justifications for these actions, rather than explicit appeals to Genesis. Nonetheless, the symbolic weight of past statements remains, even if not formally backing a Greater Israel. Regional actors and Palestinian leaders view gradual annexation as a step in a larger ideological progression, increasing concerns that territorial compromise is no longer feasible. This action could escalate tensions with the Palestinians, damage Israel’s relationships with Jordan and Egypt (who have peace agreements with Israel), and hinder U.S. ties with Arab allies who desire stability. The process of normalising relations with Gulf states could face slowdowns or increased conditions, particularly if public opinion within those nations pressures their leaders to distance themselves from perceived expansionism. Even without major land grabs, steady changes can alter the political landscape towards extreme goals.

The third, most destabilising scenario is an escalatory backlash where words trigger wider regional unrest. Militant and hardline groups in the Middle East use biblical claims to support their claims of existential threats. When the environment is like this, maximalist ideologies fuel ideas of civilisation wars, making it easier for extremist groups to recruit and radicalise people. Governments are backing away from cooperating with Israel as public opposition erodes diplomatic normalisation agreements and fuels internal unrest. A belief in Israel’s intent to expand beyond contested lands could be as unsettling as any actual move toward expansion. Escalating tensions in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or Israel’s northern borders might lead to a larger conflict, drawing in regional states and obstructing global diplomatic initiatives. Achieving a Greater Israel that spans several independent nations is unlikely given military, population, and international factors. However, the destabilising impact of ideological talk should not be disregarded. Maximalist ambitions, both symbolic and strategic, create ripple effects beyond theology in a region already suffering from historical conflicts and delicate power equilibriums.

Internal Israeli Dynamics

We must acknowledge that Israeli society is diverse. Secular Israelis, liberal Zionists, and security pragmatists are often against maximalist territorial goals. They focus on global credibility, financial security, and population trends.

Demographic facts on the ground in Israel challenge the notion of Greater Israel. Granting millions of Palestinians full citizenship would be essential to upholding democratic ideals. This means expansionist goals conflict with the core issue of preserving Israel’s Jewish and democratic nature.

Theological Debates Within Christianity

There is mounting opposition to Christian Zionism. The Catholic Church and mainline Protestant denominations typically do not accept Old Testament land promises as literal. They prioritise universal salvation and justice, setting aside territorial covenant.

Within evangelical circles, generational differences can be seen. Younger Christians are becoming more vocal about Palestinian rights and are questioning blind support for Israeli government actions. Advocates for Palestinian Christian perspectives dispute Christian Zionism’s theological basis, asserting it distorts biblical texts and worsens hostilities.

Thus, the theological discussion remains unresolved. It mirrors wider conflicts in Christianity concerning nationalism, prophecy, and political involvement.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

The US has a long-standing role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American diplomacy’s credibility suffers if it’s seen as motivated by apocalyptic theology instead of strategic thinking.

Christian Zionist influence has the potential to bolster U.S.-Israel relations while simultaneously creating challenges for regional diplomacy. American neutrality might be questioned by Arab states working with Washington on security, energy, and counterterrorism. Religious rhetoric could be used by Iran and non-state actors to portray the conflict as civilizational instead of territorial.

From a strategic viewpoint, American leaders need to weigh domestic political concerns against the realities of global affairs. Stability requires clear policy statements rooted in international law and strategic aims, not theological justification.

Conclusion: Theology, Nationalism, and the Fragile Middle East Order

The debate over Huckabee’s statements highlights a greater conflict: sacred stories versus contemporary governance. While grounded in ancient religious texts, the notion of Greater Israel holds volatile ramifications in an area characterised by shared governance and historical wounds.

To supporters, it signifies a divine pledge and a restoration of fairness. To critics, it implies imperialistic goals and a threat to their existence. In reality, Israeli governments typically blend ideological leanings with practical limitations. Yet rhetoric matters. Words possess the power to mould perceptions, rally support, and change strategic decisions within a volatile area.

The Middle East’s stability relies on agreed-upon borders, mutual recognition, and adherence to international standards, as opposed to prophetic maps. A central geopolitical puzzle of the 21st century is how religious stories and secular diplomacy can coexist.

GreaterIsrael, ChristianZionism, MikeHuckabee, TuckerCarlson, Genesis 15 18 21, BiblicalBordersIsrael, IsraelExpansion, Israel PalestineConflict, WestBank, BezalelSmotrich, Benjamin Netanyahu, USIsraelRelations, EvangelicalSupportIsrael, MiddleEastGeopolitics, ArabLeagueReaction, SaudiArabiaIsraelTensions, JordanEgyptIsraelPeaceTreaty, GazaWestBank, InternationalLawIsrael, ZionismVersusChristianZionism, ProphecyPolitics, Dispensationalism, IsraeliSettlements, TwoStateSolution, MiddleEastStrategicScenarios, PoliticalTheologyGeopolitics, IsraelGulfStates

U.S. Tariffs: A Landmark Judgment on the American Presidential Trade Powers

YouTube

The US Supreme Court’s combined decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. on February 20, 2026, is a landmark ruling regarding presidential trade powers. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a 6–3 decision that struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imports from numerous countries, like India, which were imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling nullified specific tariffs, but more importantly, it reinforced a core constitutional idea: Congress, not the executive, holds the primary taxing power.

The ruling’s effects reach further than just trade figures or one-on-one talks. It redefines how U.S. trade is managed, specifies the boundaries of emergency authority, and impacts international economic allies, especially rapidly developing nations focused on exports, such as India. The ruling’s fundamental message is a restatement of the constitutional separation of powers, coming as executive authority in economic policy had been growing.

The Origins of the Dispute

In mid-2025, President Trump declared national emergencies due to trade imbalances, supply chain vulnerabilities, and reliance on foreign manufacturers, sparking controversy. Broad tariffs were placed on imports from many countries by the administration, invoking IEEPA. India felt a significant impact. Around $48 billion of goods exported from India to the United States, such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, chemicals, and petroleum products, were taxed at rates up to 50%.

The tariffs dropped to 18 percent w.e.f. March 2026 as part of a bilateral agreement linked to India’s reduced purchasing of Russian oil. Still, the monetary effects were not trivial. Exporters in India experienced problems in their supply chains, price competitiveness, and contract stability. The administration defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” during declared emergencies extended to imposing tariffs.

The Supreme Court firmly dismissed that reading. Most believed that while IEEPA allows for the regulation of financial transactions and property interests in true emergencies, it doesn’t specifically grant the president the authority to impose import taxes. The Court stressed that tariffs are more than simple regulatory tweaks.

Constitutional Allocation of Trade and Tax Powers

The majority based their decision largely on Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which empowers Congress to levy taxes and regulate foreign commerce. Congress has historically granted presidents limited tariff powers via precisely worded laws. But, these delegations have always been limited and defined.

Chief Justice Roberts emphasised that if Congress had meant to grant extensive tariff authority through IEEPA, they would have used clear and unambiguous terms. The primary purpose of IEEPA, enacted in 1977 to address executive overreach, was to enable asset freezes, sanctions, and financial controls in genuine emergencies. Its purpose was not to serve as a broad trade regulation.

The Court’s decision upholds a key constitutional protection: while the executive can enact policies within legal limits, it cannot gain new spending authority without explicit approval from the legislature.

The Major Questions Doctrine and Its Expansion

The ruling heavily relied on the “major questions doctrine,” a legal concept demanding explicit congressional approval for significant executive actions affecting the economy or politics. The Court has recently employed this doctrine in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, restricting broad regulatory interpretations without clear statutory support.

A “major question” was defined by the majority in the 2026 tariff case as economy-wide tariffs that influence over $100 billion in trade annually. IEEPA’s wide-ranging provisions on import regulation failed to reach the required level.

When the Court applied the major questions doctrine to trade policy, it signalled increased judicial oversight for extensive executive readings of economic statutes. With this new development, the president has less room to make unilateral choices on economically significant matters.

Historical Precedents Limiting Executive Authority

Historical examples that defined the outermost boundaries of a president’s powers were a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Supreme Court, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, struck down President Harry S. Truman’s action of taking control of steel mills amidst the Korean War. In his concurring opinion, Justice Robert Jackson introduced a three-part structure for assessing presidential power. When Congress approves, presidential power is at its zenith; when Congress is quiet, it’s ambiguous; and when it opposes, it’s at its nadir.

President Trump operated in his weakest constitutional capacity by using IEEPA for broad tariffs, bypassing more specific trade laws with clear boundaries. The Trade Act of 1974, passed by Congress, already included provisions for temporary tariffs. Resorting to emergency powers instead of established mechanisms indicated a clash with the legislative intent.

In their dissent, the justices cited Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., a case that supported the imposition of restricted import fees based on the president’s authority to “adjust” imports. The key difference for the majority, separating Algonquin, was its use of targeted, statutory measures over broad, unauthorised emergency tariffs.

Legislative History and Congressional Intent

The legislative history of IEEPA was crucial. Congress reformed executive emergency powers after President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent global tariff in 1971 using the Trading with the Enemy Act. These acts, the National Emergencies Act and IEEPA, were created to limit, not increase, presidential latitude.

Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent are explicitly permitted for a maximum of 150 days to counter significant balance-of-payments deficits. Congress intended this tightly focused mechanism to provide a balance between discretion and control. The Court’s reasoning was that a precise congressional provision suggested it was not plausible for IEEPA to silently confer broader, indefinite tariff authority.

The presence of these legal safeguards strengthened the majority’s view that the president’s interpretation went too far.

Executive Response and Policy Adjustments

Trump reacted with speed and defiance. He announced that American trade policy would stay strong, using Section 122 to implement a temporary 10 percent worldwide tariff starting February 23, 2026. Although legal, this measure will naturally end after 150 days if Congress doesn’t intervene.

Investigations were commenced by the administration, utilising Sections 201, 232, and 301 of applicable trade statutes. Tariffs for national security are enabled by Section 232, Section 301 deals with unfair trade, and Section 201 provides safeguards against import surges. The legal bases provided by these statutory routes are more stable, but they involve procedural reviews, evidence collection, and discussions that can last for months.

The executive’s shift highlights the ongoing conflict between protectionist aims and constitutional limits.

Immediate Economic Impact on India

The ruling offered India some relief, but it didn’t resolve all its uncertainties. Invalided tariffs, previously as high as 50 percent, could allow exports to return to most-favoured-nation rates of 0-5 percent. Pharmaceuticals, textiles, and engineering goods saw their prices become more competitive in the US market.

According to economic analysts, a 10 to 15 percent rise in Indian exports to the United States in affected sectors is expected within a year if the high emergency tariffs are removed. But, the benefits are lessened by the temporary 10 percent worldwide tariff from Section 122. Indian exporters face a period of both opportunity and caution.

Refunds and Commercial Adjustments

A major concern involves reimbursements for duties collected from the voided IEEPA tariffs. Importers might be able to get their money back under US Customs rules. Initially, refunds go to U.S. importers, yet contract talks and competitive shifts could pass financial gains to Indian exporters.

The procedure will probably be complicated and involve a lot of paperwork. Claims processing can be lengthy, and eligibility disputes are possible. However, the reimbursement of duties collected improperly is a major financial factor impacting bilateral trade.

Strategic Implications for India

The decision enhances India’s bargaining power, not just for current export benefits. The U.S.-India trade agreement from March 2026, once influenced by tariffs, could now be re-examined more equitably. India’s participation in the Quad, with the US, Japan, and Australia, boosts its global standing.

The diversification of global supply chains from China also makes India a desirable manufacturing destination. With more predictable US trade policy, multinational firms may be motivated to expand their investments in India, with a focus on electronics, pharmaceuticals, and components for renewable energy.

Effects on Other Emerging Economies

The Court’s restriction of emergency tariff powers likewise benefits nations like Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, and Turkey. Economies reliant on exports find more room to manoeuvre and increased certainty. The procedural paths may have changed, but the potential for protectionist pressures remains, as tariffs under Sections 232 or 301 are still on the table.

The decision lessens but doesn’t remove the instability linked to American trade policy.

Congressional Politics and Future Legislation

The future course in the medium term is highly reliant on how Congress behaves. Congress might try to give itself explicit tariff powers by passing new laws, but this could be difficult due to pushback from businesses and free trade supporters. Lawmakers could also enhance emergency trade powers to avoid future issues.

This decision prompts a wider institutional discussion on the tension between an executive’s autonomy during economic crises and the constitutional principle of separated powers.

Long-Term Implications for Global Trade Stability

In the long run, this ruling could bolster global trade stability by setting a higher bar for unilateral executive tariffs. Investors and trading partners place a high value on legal frameworks that are predictable. To prevent executive branch decrees from dictating major trade policy shifts, the Court insists on explicit legislative authorisation for sweeping tariffs.

This doesn’t ensure liberal trade policies. Congress could still implement protectionist policies. But, expect debate, hearings, and political accountability, which will help prevent drastic policy shifts.

Conclusion: Constitutional Boundaries and Strategic Opportunity

In 2026, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the constitutional limits on trade regulation. The Court’s decision that IEEPA does not permit broad tariffs highlighted that the legislature retains primary authority over taxation and trade rules.

Emerging economies like India can find both solace and a strategic opening in this decision. Export sectors are poised to regain their competitive edge, and negotiations could move forward on a more equitable footing. New statutory paths are being explored, but uncertainty lingers.

The judgment, in essence, redefines the interplay between constitutional law and worldwide commerce. This implies that economic power, similar to political power, should operate within clear constitutional limits. This action brings back balance to US trade policy and alters how global marketplace nations strategise.

US Supreme Court 2026 ruling, Learning Resources v Trump, Trump v VOS Selections, Trump tariffs struck down, IEEPA Supreme Court decision, International Emergency Economic Powers Act case, John Roberts majority opinion, major questions doctrine 2026, presidential tariff powers limited, Article I Section 8 taxation power, separation of powers trade policy, Section 122 Trade Act 1974, Section 232 national security tariffs, Section 301 trade investigation, Section 201 safeguard tariffs, US India trade relations 2026, impact on Indian exports to US, India US trade framework 2026, global tariff policy debate, Supreme Court limits executive power, US constitutional law and trade, emerging markets export impact, Quad strategic trade implications, WTO trade dispute analysis, protectionism vs free trade US, congressional authority over tariffs

THE NATION OF APPLAUSE

YouTube

Let me start with a simple question.

If everything is going so wonderfully in India—if the economy is booming, governance is strong, institutions are independent, security is airtight—then why does the government spend so much time begging us to believe it?

Confident nations don’t need daily reassurance. Functional systems don’t need hashtags. And real progress does not arrive with a drum roll and a disclaimer.

India today is not collapsing. That’s the dangerous part. It is appearing stable while quietly hollowing out—like a beautifully renovated house where the walls are freshly painted, the lights are bright, the guests are impressed… but the foundation is cracking underneath. And anyone who points to the cracks is accused of being “anti-house.”

And if you think I’m exaggerating, allow me to present Exhibit A: the Great Civilisational AI Moment.

THE AI SPECTACLE: PEOPLE, PLANET, PROJECTION

In February 2026, India hosted the grandly titled India-AI Impact Summit 2026 at Bharat Mandapam. It was billed as the first major global AI summit hosted by a Global South nation—a historic milestone, a technological awakening, a digital Kumbh Mela with GPUs.

Over 2.5 lakh visitors. Global leaders. Policymakers. Startups. Exhibitors from 30 countries. Thirty-eight thousand GPUs—because nothing says inclusive technology like aggressively counting your graphics processors.

The summit revolved around three sacred guiding principles: People, Planet, and Progress. And because this is India, we upgraded themes into “Chakras.” Seven of them. Human Capital Chakra. Inclusion Chakra. Safe and Trusted AI Chakra. Resilience Chakra. Innovation Chakra. Democratising AI Chakra. Economic Development Chakra.

There was this moment - more funny than fun - when the global Hi-Tech honchos were ambushed. Suddenly, they were asked to lock their hands with each other and raise their arms skywards. Confusion writ large on the elite faces, while a couple of them revealed their mutual hostility by not joining hands and displaying fists. Was it consensus AI style? Waiting for the official clarification. By the end of the inaugural speech, one half expected a Vishwaroop Darshan of artificial intelligence itself.

Eight foundational AI models were launched under the IndiaAI program—multilingual systems from IIT Bombay, domain-specific models for agriculture, healthcare, science. AI avatars for Indian languages. Data labs. Fellowships for 13,500 scholars. A target of 10,000 GPUs surpassed like a schoolchild proudly exceeding homework requirements. 

On paper, it was impressive. On television, it was mystical. Barring one Chinese robot, which was presented as pure Hindustani. Thanks to the Galgotias genius, the Chinese Unitree Go2 robot dog was converted and naturalised as Indian Orion robot dog. The scandal reveals how low the ethical standards have fallen not just in our educational but just about every Indian enterprise and institution.

Unsurprisingly, at a summit supposedly about India’s AI scientists, startups, and researchers, the spotlight seemed unusually well-trained—not on code, not on labs, not on young innovators—but on a single, omnipresent face.

The Prime Minister inaugurated the event. Which is normal. He spoke about AI being a “civilizational moment.” Which is also normal. What was less normal was how the event coverage slowly transformed from “India’s AI Leap” into “AI Bows to Supreme Vision.”

Panels discussed human-centred innovation. Anchors discussed leadership-centred inspiration. Developers explained multilingual models. Prime-time studios explained how artificial intelligence itself was grateful to the powers that be.

The Godi Media, ever alert, understood the assignment. Instead of showcasing the scientists who built models from 500 proposals, we were treated to multi-angle shots, reverential background music, and graphics that made it appear as if silicon chips had personally endorsed the leadership.

It was less a technology summit and more a devotional festival where GPUs hummed in patriotic frequency. 

To be clear: hosting a global AI summit is good. Investing in AI infrastructure is necessary. Expanding fellowships is commendable. But when projection begins to overshadow participation, something curious happens.

We stop celebrating institutions.

We start celebrating individuals.

And that is the recurring pattern.

GROWTH WITH A CREDIT CARD

India loves big numbers. Trillion-dollar dreams. Five-trillion-dollar promises. Seven-trillion-dollar fantasies. What we don’t love discussing is how those numbers are being achieved.

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: a growing chunk of India’s growth is being fuelled not by productivity or innovation, but by borrowing. The country is running on debt like a middle-aged executive pretending energy drinks are a long-term health plan. Central and state governments together are carrying a debt load that would make any responsible household panic. But in official speeches, debt has been rebranded as “confidence.”

Borrowing isn’t bad—when it builds capacity. But borrowing to maintain appearances is a classic path to trouble. Interest payments now eat into budgets that should have gone to schools, hospitals, and research. We are borrowing to pay for yesterday’s borrowing. That’s not development. That’s refinancing reality.

And then there is the great free-ration miracle. Eighty crore Indians receive free food grain. This is presented as compassion. And it is compassionate—in an emergency. But here’s the problem: emergencies end. Or at least, they’re supposed to.

In India, the emergency has become a political strategy. There is no exit plan. No timeline. No roadmap for how these families move from dependence to dignity. You can’t build a confident economy by permanently feeding people while refusing to ask why they aren’t earning enough to feed themselves. Welfare without employment is not empowerment. It is managed helplessness.

Exports, meanwhile, are quietly underperforming. Despite all the chest-thumping about manufacturing powerhouses, India struggles to compete on quality, reliability, and innovation. Vietnam exports more electronics. Bangladesh dominates garments. China owns entire value chains. India? We excel at inaugurations.

The problem is not that Indians can’t manufacture. It’s that policy rewards proximity to power over competence. Contracts go to the connected. Quality control is an afterthought. Protectionism replaces competitiveness. When foreign markets reject our products, we ban imports instead of fixing factories.

And unemployment? Officially, it’s under control. Magically so. Because if you redefine unemployment creatively enough, it disappears. A delivery worker becomes an entrepreneur. A gig job becomes a startup. A frustrated graduate becomes “self-employed.”

Tell that to the 27-year-old engineer driving twelve hours a day with no security, no benefits, and no future. He isn’t empowered. He is being pacified.

GOVERNANCE—INSTITUTIONS WITH A MUTE BUTTON

Corruption, we’re told, is a thing of the past. Which is fascinating, because corruption cases haven’t vanished. They’ve just changed direction.

Cash bribes have evolved into electoral bonds. Suitcases have been replaced by shell companies. Scams don’t disappear—they migrate to safer political ecosystems. If you’re accused and inconvenient, you’re investigated. If you’re accused and useful, you’re inducted.

The real scandal is not corruption itself. India has survived corruption before. The scandal is the destruction of accountability. When agencies act selectively, when investigations depend on loyalty rather than law, the message to the citizen is clear: justice is negotiable.

Public health is another lesson India refused to learn. COVID exposed everything—staff shortages, oxygen scarcity, underfunded hospitals. We applauded healthcare workers, declared victory, and promptly forgot every structural reform required. Health spending remains low. Primary care remains neglected. Another crisis will arrive. And when it does, we will again act surprised.

Crime statistics, meanwhile, have become political documents. Hate crimes are renamed. Lynchings become “incidents.” Riots are rebranded as “spontaneous reactions.” Victims are investigated more aggressively than perpetrators.

When law enforcement starts asking what the victim was wearing—or believing—the rule of law has already been compromised.

The judiciary and police, once pillars of trust, are increasingly perceived as pressured, delayed, or selectively efficient. Cases that matter to the powerful move fast. Cases that matter to ordinary citizens move… eventually. Or never.

Justice delayed is bad. Justice selectively delayed is corrosive.

POLITICS—DEMOCRACY AS PERFORMANCE ART

Parliament is supposed to be the place where national problems are debated. Instead, it has become a theatre of disruption, suspensions, and rushed legislation. Laws affecting millions are passed with minimal discussion, while MPs shout slogans and television anchors call it “robust democracy.”

Debate is treated as obstruction. Questions are treated as sabotage. And dissent is framed as disloyalty.

This is how democracy hollows out—not through coups, but through contempt for process.

What is missing from Indian politics today is painfully obvious: serious discussion about education quality. Not enrolment numbers. Not photo-ops. Actual learning. Teacher training. Research funding. Skill relevance.

India loves to boast about its demographic dividend. But a dividend only pays when you invest wisely. An under-skilled, under-employed youth population is not a dividend. It is deferred instability.

SECURITY—LOUD CLAIMS, QUIET FAILURES

Officially, terrorism is under control. Unofficially, incidents continue. Intelligence warnings are occasionally ignored. Accountability is rare. After every attack, the response is predictable: patriotic visuals, emotional speeches, and warnings against asking uncomfortable questions.

Internal security has increasingly shifted from targeting threats to targeting identities. Surveillance, profiling, and detention are justified as “precautionary.” Citizens are told to prove loyalty repeatedly. Silence becomes suspicious.

This does not create security. It creates resentment.

Borders, despite all the rhetoric, remain porous in multiple regions. Strategic challenges are complex and long-term. But long-term thinking doesn’t trend. So we substitute speeches for strategy.

THE FOURTH ESTATE FOR SALE: FROM WATCHDOG TO LAPDOG

India’s mainstream media today no longer asks questions—it negotiates terms. Once imagined as a watchdog, it now behaves more like a pampered pet, trained to bark only at approved targets and roll over for power on cue. Prime-time studios have become auction houses where ethics are quietly traded for advertising revenue, government access, and political patronage. News is no longer reported; it is curated, choreographed, and conveniently aligned with the mood of those in authority. Investigative journalism has been replaced by shouting matches, nationalism has become a substitute for verification, and loyalty is rewarded more generously than accuracy. Editors who once feared getting facts wrong now fear getting phone calls right. The result is a pliable press that amplifies power, silences dissent, demonises inconvenient citizens, and calls it “nation-building.” When the media stops holding power accountable and instead sells accountability to the highest bidder, democracy doesn’t collapse overnight—it is slowly suffocated under a pile of breaking news graphics, patriotic background music, and paid silence.

CONCLUSION: THE REPUBLIC OF PERMANENT APPLAUSE

Let me be very clear. India is not doomed. But it is drifting. And drift is dangerous precisely because it feels calm.

We are becoming a country where numbers look impressive but systems are weak. Where institutions exist but hesitate. Where elections happen but debate shrinks. Where citizens are fed but not empowered. Where criticism is tolerated only until it becomes inconvenient.

This is not dictatorship. It is something quieter. A democracy where applause is mandatory and silence is strategic.

Red flags are not anti-national. They are alarms. And nations that smash their fire alarms to enjoy the music burn down beautifully.

Patriotism is not obedience. It is responsibility. And the most patriotic thing you can do today is to stop clapping long enough to ask where we are headed—and whether the foundation can still carry the weight of all those promises.

Because slogans don’t hold buildings together.

Systems do.

GalgotiasUniversity, AISummit, BharatMandapam, IndianEconomy, IndianPolitics, GovernanceCrisis, Unemployment, IndianDebt, FreeRations, MakeInIndia, EconomicReality, RuleOfLaw, JudicialIndependence, JobCrisis, CorruptionInIndia, InstitutionalDecline, ParliamentDebate, IndianParliament, PoliticalAccountability, DemocracyInDanger, InternalSecurity, HateCrimes, CivilLiberties, HumanRightsIndia, NationalSecurity, PoliticalCommentary, CurrentAffairs, NewsAnalysis, RealityCheck,  CriticalThinking,