Zohran Mamdani and Jawaharlal Nehru: A Comparison of Vision, Ideology, and Impact

YouTube

Comparing Zohran Mamdani, a rising political figure in New York, with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, may seem bold and premature at first. But the comparison is not without merit. Both are secular, socialist in outlook, and able to attract diverse support. However, any meaningful comparison must consider their vastly different historical and political contexts. Let us compare and contrast the analogy, showing where it works and where it doesn’t.

Similarities

Secularism and Inclusive Politics

Nehru was a strong believer in secularism. After India’s independence in 1947, he worked hard to keep religion separate from the state. This was crucial for a country divided along religious lines after Partition. Nehru aimed to unify people of different faiths under the banner of a modern, progressive India.

Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly and Democratic Socialist, also supports secularism. Despite being Muslim and openly pro-Palestine—a position that has led to Islamophobic attacks—he has gained support from various communities, including Jewish voters. His campaign for the 2025 New York mayoral race focused not on identity, but on economic issues like housing, childcare, and transport. His approach shows a commitment to inclusive, secular politics.

Socialist Orientation

Fabian socialism influenced Nehru. He promoted a mixed economy, where the state would lead industrialisation and offer public services, while also allowing private enterprise. His policies included land reforms, public sector expansion, and five-year development plans to reduce poverty.

Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist. Inspired by leaders like Bernie Sanders and Martin Luther King Jr., he wants to implement policies like rent freezes, fare-free public transport, city-run grocery stores, and universal childcare. These ideas ease economic burdens for working people, similar to Nehru’s emphasis on reducing inequality—though Mamdani works within a capitalist system rather than building a post-colonial nation.

Diverse and Broad-Based Support

Nehru led a vast coalition under the Indian National Congress. He had support from both urban elites and rural masses, from Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and others. His vision of a unified, modern India helped him win wide trust.

Mamdani, in the 2025 Democratic primary for New York mayor, built a coalition of young voters, working-class people, and immigrant communities. He won big in neighbourhoods like Bushwick (79%) and Ridgewood (80%) and even secured votes in areas like the Financial District. He connected with people by using South Asian pop culture, similar to Nehru’s emotional appeal during India’s independence.

Charismatic Communication

Nehru was known for his powerful speeches. He connected deeply with the people and helped shape public imagination around progress and unity. His Tryst with Destiny speech remains iconic.

Mamdani uses modern tools—especially social media and video production—to speak directly to voters. His clear messaging and cultural references help break down complex issues and build a loyal base. His communication style, like Nehru’s, is rooted in making politics understandable and personal.

Differences

Context and Time Period

Nehru led a newly independent country. He had to deal with the trauma of Partition, poverty, illiteracy, and the task of building institutions from scratch. His socialism was shaped by anti-colonial struggle and global Cold War pressures.

Mamdani works in a very different setting: a mature, capitalist democracy in the 21st century. His socialism is reformist and operates within the Democratic Party system. He isn’t building a nation, but proposing changes within a complex city bureaucracy. His focus is more about affordability than national transformation.

Scale of Power and Influence

Nehru, as Prime Minister, had national and international influence. He helped design India’s economic policies, led the Non-Aligned Movement, and shaped India’s democratic institutions.

Mamdani, while rising fast, is still operating at a local level. He currently holds a state-level position and is running for mayor. Though his win over Andrew Cuomo in the primary was a big political moment, his executive powers are still to be seen. His future impact depends on whether he wins and successfully governs New York City.

Background and Personal History

Nehru came from an elite Indian family. Educated at Harrow and Cambridge, both Indian nationalism and Western liberalism influenced him. He was a Kashmiri Pandit and part of India’s upper class, though he chose to work for the poor.

Mamdani has a very different story. Born in Uganda to a Muslim father (Mahmood Mamdani) and Hindu mother (Mira Nair), he moved to New York at age seven. He embodies a mix of South Asian, African, and American influences. Unlike Nehru’s elite upbringing, Mamdani’s identity is shaped by immigration and multiculturalism. His strong pro-Palestinian views also reflect a bolder stance than Nehru’s more cautious foreign policy.

Ability to Enact Policies

Nehru, with strong executive powers, was able to implement national-level policies. He launched major programs, like the Five-Year Plans and large-scale infrastructure projects. While his state-led model faced criticism for inefficiency, it laid the foundation for India’s growth.

Mamdani, so far, has mostly advocated policies rather than implementing them on a large scale. For example, his proposal for fare-free buses in New York underwent partial testing but requires broader state support. Critics argue that some of his ideas—like city-owned grocery stores—might not be practical in a profit-driven city.

Political Climate and Opposition

Religious groups and conservatives opposed Nehru, but overall, post-independence India remained relatively united under Congress. His secularism was mainstream in early Indian politics.

Mamdani operates in a polarised American environment. He faces strong resistance from the right wing, especially over his socialist label and Muslim identity. Some Republicans have called him a “terrorist sympathiser,” especially because of his stance on Gaza. Unlike Nehru, Mamdani is up against sharp partisan attacks and a divided public discourse.

Critical Reflection

A comparison of Mamdani and Nehru is interesting, but one must consider their very different worlds.

Nehru was building a country. His socialism aimed to lift a nation out of colonial poverty. His secularism sought to hold a fragile, diverse society together. He had the backing of a large party, a popular mandate, and the power to shape laws and institutions.

Mamdani, though promising, is still testing the waters of governance. His vision is bold—reshaping New York’s economy to serve ordinary people—but his tools are limited. He must work within existing city structures, win over skeptical voters, and manage practical concerns like funding and legal constraints.

Both leaders share optimism, clarity of vision, and moral courage. Both aim to unite people across religious and economic divides. But while Nehru is a historical figure whose legacy is set, Mamdani’s story is still unfolding.

Their common focus on equity, economic justice, and secularism forms the core of the comparison. However, Nehru dealt with a colonial legacy and a national canvas. Mamdani is working in a global city with different pressures—gentrification, racial inequality, and political polarisation.

Conclusion

Zohran Mamdani and Jawaharlal Nehru share some key qualities: a secular, socialist approach to politics; the ability to build diverse support; and a commitment to justice and equality. Both are also skilled communicators who connect deeply with their audiences.

But the comparison has limits.

Nehru was a statesman building a country. Mamdani is a local leader with potential for broader influence. Their visions may align, but their tools and terrains are very different. Mamdani’s ideas echo Nehru’s ideals, but they play out in a smaller, more fragmented space.

If Mamdani wins the 2025 New York mayoral race and delivers on his promises, he may indeed grow into a national and perhaps even international leader. Until then, he remains a figure of promise—one whose political philosophy recalls Nehru’s, but whose journey has only just begun.

Zohran Mamdani vs Nehru, Nehru comparison, Mamdani New York mayor, Democratic Socialism, secular politics, socialist leaders, Nehru legacy, Indian politics, American politics, Nehru ideology, progressive politics, Mamdani 2025 mayoral race, Nehru socialism, Mamdani Nehru comparison, inclusive politics, Mamdani campaign, secularism in politics, multicultural leadership, Mamdani Nehru similarities, global political comparison, young political leaders, Nehru impact, Mamdani vision,

The Great Language Conspiracy: How Politicians Keep India in the Dark Ages

YouTube

“A time will come when people in India will feel ashamed of speaking in English!” - The Saffron Oracle-Cum-Chanakya

In a land where diversity is as common as chai stalls, India’s Home Minister recently dropped a linguistic bombshell: speaking English, apparently, is something to be ashamed of. Yes, you heard that right. In 2025, when the world is zipping along on AI-driven hyper-loops and debating the ethics of brain-computer interfaces, India’s political elite are wagging their fingers at English, the global lingua franca, as if it’s a colonial stain that needs to be scrubbed out with patriotic bleach. But let’s not be naive—this isn’t about pride in Hindi, Urdu, or Tamil. This is a masterclass in manipulation, a page ripped straight out of the playbook of our neighbours in Pakistan, where language has long been weaponised to keep the masses docile and the elite smugly in power. It’s an absurd, yet sinister, plot to keep India’s masses linguistically shackled while the ruling class sips Scotch whiskey and quotes Shakespeare in private.

The English-Shaming Gospel: A Politician’s Favourite Sermon

On a balmy day in 2025, India’s Home Minister, with the gravitas of a man who’s just discovered the secret to eternal votes, declared that speaking English is a shameful act, a betrayal of Indian-ness. Never mind that his own children likely attended elite schools where English is the medium of instruction, or that his own  colleagues’ speeches are peppered with angrezi phrases when he’s wooing foreign investors. The hypocrisy is as thick as Delhi’s smog. This isn’t a new tactic. In 2019, a prominent BJP leader, while addressing a rally in Uttar Pradesh, proclaimed, “Hindi is our soul, English is a foreign ghost.” The crowd roared, blissfully unaware that the leader’s own website was in flawless English, optimised for global SEO.

The message is clear: English is for the elite, not the aam aadmi. By shaming English, politicians create a cultural wedge, painting it as the language of snobs and sellouts. Meanwhile, they ensure their own kin are fluent in it, securing their place in the globalised world of Ivy League degrees and Davos summits. The irony? The same leaders who decry English as “un-Indian” are the ones negotiating trade deals in London and New York, where their Hindi would be as useful as a bicycle in a flood.

Pakistan’s Playbook: A Masterclass in Linguistic Divide

To understand the game, let’s take a quick detour to Pakistan, where this strategy has been perfected. Since its inception, Pakistan’s ruling elite—military generals, bureaucrats, and politicians—have cultivated a system where English is the golden ticket to power. The country’s top schools, like Aitchison College and Karachi Grammar, churn out English-speaking elites who dominate politics, business, and media. Meanwhile, the masses are fed a steady diet of Urdu-medium education, laced with jingoistic narratives about India, the West, and the evils of “foreign” influence. The result? A population primed to cheer for the elite’s agenda while remaining blissfully under-qualified to challenge it.

Take the case of Pakistan’s education system. A 2018 report by the British Council revealed that only 10-15% of Pakistanis have functional proficiency in English, despite it being the official language of government and judiciary. The rest? They’re stuck in Urdu-medium schools, where textbooks often glorify military rule and demonise outsiders. This isn’t an accident. As Pakistani sociologist Ayesha Siddiqa noted in her book Military Inc., “The elite use language as a gatekeeper. English opens doors to global opportunities; Urdu keeps the masses loyal and limited.”

The parallels in India are uncanny. In North India, where Hindi chauvinism runs deep, politicians have long pushed for Hindi-medium education while ensuring their own families attend English-medium schools. A 2020 study by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) found that 60% of students in Hindi-medium government schools in Uttar Pradesh lacked basic English reading skills by Class 10. Meanwhile, the children of MPs and MLAs are enrolled in Delhi’s posh schools, mastering the Queen’s English while their voters are told it’s a badge of shame.

The Hindi Heartland Hustle

In North India, the anti-English crusade is particularly vicious. Politicians in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh have turned Hindi into a sacred cow, milking it for votes while ensuring the masses stay linguistically stunted. The logic is simple: if you can’t speak English, you can’t access the global knowledge economy. You can’t read international journals, apply for high-paying tech jobs, or even understand the fine print of the trade deals your leaders are signing. You’re stuck in a cycle of low-skill jobs, dependent on the benevolence of the same politicians who told you English is evil.

Consider the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP), which emphasised “mother tongue” education. On paper, it’s a noble idea—teach kids in their native language to improve comprehension. In practice, it’s a trap. In Hindi-speaking states, the push for Hindi-medium education has led to a decline in English proficiency among rural students. A 2023 Annual Status of Education Report found that only 24% of Class 8 students in rural Uttar Pradesh could read a simple English sentence. Meanwhile, urban private schools, attended by the elite, continue to prioritise English, creating a two-tier system: one for the rulers, another for the ruled.

And who benefits? The political class, of course. By keeping the masses ignorant of English, they ensure a pliable electorate, fed on populist rhetoric and unable to question the fine print of policy. As Noam Chomsky once said, “Control of language is control of thought.” In India, the thought being controlled is the aspiration to rise above one’s station.

The Elite’s English Hypocrisy

Let’s not kid ourselves—the politicians preaching anti-English gospel aren’t burning their Oxford dictionaries. They’re fluent hypocrites. Take the example of a prominent North Indian politician who, in 2022, thundered against English as “a colonial relic” during a rally in Varanasi. Weeks later, he was spotted at an international conference in Singapore, delivering a keynote in impeccable English, complete with buzzwords like “sustainable development” and “digital transformation.” The crowd of global investors lapped it up, unaware that back home, he’d just slashed funding for English-language training in government schools.

This double game isn’t new. In 2014, a senior BJP leader from Madhya Pradesh famously declared, “Hindi is the language of our soul, English of our servitude.” Yet, his son was studying at a prestigious university in London, majoring in economics and tweeting about Arsenal’s latest match. The elite don’t just speak English; they wield it as a weapon to maintain their grip on power. As George Orwell put it in 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” In India, controlling the language controls the present.

The Economic Cost of Linguistic Jingoism

The anti-English brigade isn’t just playing with culture; they’re playing with India’s future. In a globalised economy, English is the key to unlocking opportunities. India’s IT sector, which employs over 5 million people and contributes 8% to GDP, runs on English. Companies like Infosys and TCS don’t hire in Hindi or Tamil or Kannada—they demand fluency in the language of Silicon Valley. A 2021 Nasscom report warned that India risks losing its edge in the global tech market if English proficiency among young graduates continues to decline.

Yet, the political na rrative remains stubbornly anti-English. In 2024, a Uttar Pradesh minister proposed replacing English with Hindi in all government job exams, claiming it would “empower the youth.” The result? A generation of graduates unable to compete for jobs at multinationals, relegated to low-paying local roles while the elite’s children snag internships at Google. It’s a linguistic caste system, and the politicians are the Brahmins.

A Pakistani Parallel

Back to Pakistan for a moment. The Urdu-medium masses there aren’t just linguistically limited; they’re fed a narrative that keeps them in line. Textbooks glorify the military, vilify India, and paint the West as a moral cesspool. The result is a population primed for jingoism, ready to rally behind the elite’s agenda without questioning it. As Pakistani journalist Nadeem Paracha wrote in 2020, “The Urdu-educated masses are taught to love the nation but not to think for it.”

In India, the Hindi-medium narrative isn’t much different. Textbooks in North Indian states often emphasise cultural nationalism, portraying English as a tool of Western domination. A 2022 history textbook in Uttar Pradesh described English education as “Macaulay’s plot to enslave Indian minds.” Never mind that Thomas Macaulay’s 1835 Minute on Education was about empowering Indians through English, not enslaving them. The truth doesn’t matter when the goal is to keep the masses ignorant and angry.

A Modest Proposal

So, what’s the solution? Here’s a modest proposal, in the spirit of Jonathan Swift: let’s ban English entirely. Not just from schools, but from Parliament, corporate boardrooms, and Netflix subtitles. Let’s force our politicians to negotiate trade deals in Hindi, write software code in Tamil, and tweet their outrage in Marathi and Kannada. Imagine the Home Minister addressing the UN General Assembly in chaste Hindi, with no translator in sight. Picture India’s tech giants trying to pitch to Silicon Valley in Tamil or Sanskrit. The chaos would be glorious, and the hypocrisy would be exposed faster than you can say “post-colonial trauma.”

Of course, this won’t happen. The elite need English to maintain their global clout. They’ll keep their children fluent while preaching linguistic purity to the masses. But here’s the kicker: the masses aren’t as gullible as they seem. In 2024, a survey by the English and Foreign Languages University found that 78% of Indian youth aged 18-25 wanted better access to English education, citing job opportunities and global connectivity. The people know the game, even if the politicians pretend otherwise.

Breaking the Linguistic Chains

The anti-English crusade is a scam, a deliberate ploy to keep India’s masses subservient while the elite play global chess. It’s time to call it what it is: a conspiracy to perpetuate inequality. If India is to compete in the 21st century, it needs a population fluent in the language of opportunity, not shackled by the rhetoric of shame. As Nelson Mandela said, “Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world.” In India, that weapon is English, and it’s time to stop letting politicians wield it against us.

So, the next time a politician tells you to be ashamed of speaking English, ask them why their kids are studying in London. Ask them why their speeches at Davos aren’t in Hindi. And then, in perfect English, tell them to shove their hypocrisy where the sun doesn’t shine. Because in the end, the only thing we should be ashamed of is letting a handful of elites dictate our future.

India language politics, English vs Hindi, English education, linguistic divide India, Hindi medium vs English medium, hypocrisy of Indian leaders, English shame in India, Indian education crisis, NEP language policy, English speaking elite India, Pakistan, satire on Indian politics, Indian political hypocrisy, English ban in India, Indian youth and English, why English matters in India, English in global economy, smart India dumb politics, Indian education, Urdu,

West Asia Crisis: Historical, Strategic, and Racial Dimensions

YouTube

The crisis in West Asia encompasses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran-Israel tensions, and broader instability. Some frame the crisis as a continuation of Western racial hegemony. This perspective is not entirely unfounded, but it fails to capture the complexity of strategic, historical, and regional factors at play.

Historical Context

The historical context of Western involvement in West Asia is deeply rooted in colonialism. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, European powers divided the region through the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Britain and France created artificial borders without considering the ethnic, tribal, and religious makeup of the people living there. Rashid Ismail Khalidi, a Palestinian-American historian, has pointed out that these borders were drawn with “no regard for local realities.” The result was a collection of fragile states, many of which were ruled by regimes aligned with Western interests. This colonial legacy sowed deep resentment and left behind a fractured political landscape.

The discovery of oil in the region added another layer of Western interest and interference. West Asia became a critical energy supplier for the industrialising West, especially during and after World War II. Britain and France initially dominated, but the United States soon took over as the main external power. Washington’s policy focused on containing Soviet influence, maintaining access to oil, and securing regional allies. To achieve this, the U.S. offered military and financial support to governments like Saudi Arabia and Israel, helping them maintain power in exchange for loyalty. Israel, in particular, emerged as a key Western ally, often viewed as a strategic outpost to maintain U.S. hegemony in the region.

This approach created long-term dependencies and suppressed local movements for self-determination. Critics argue that while the West no longer uses overtly racial language, its policies continue to reflect a system that disadvantages non-Western, non-White populations. However, the motivations behind contemporary Western involvement in West Asia are as strategic as they are racial.

Strategic Motivations and U.S. Involvement

Modern Western engagement in the region revolves around three main goals: containing Iran, maintaining strategic alliances, and securing energy routes. The escalation in June 2025, marked by Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites in locations such as Arak, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, followed by U.S. military involvement, underscores these priorities. Israel described its initial attacks, launched on June 13, 2025, as preemptive measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which it considers an existential threat. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes, including hypersonic weapons, claiming to have breached Israeli airspace. The death toll from these exchanges exceeded 600 in Iran and 224 in Israel, raising fears of a wider regional war.

The United States’ decision to join Israel’s campaign, announced by President Donald Trump on June 21, 2025, marked a significant escalation. Trump authorised strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines. In a televised address, Trump claimed the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, describing the operation as a “spectacular military success.” The decision was driven by several factors. First, Trump and his administration believed Iran’s nuclear program posed an imminent threat, with U.S. intelligence assessments suggesting Israel’s prior attacks had only delayed Iran’s nuclear progress by six months. Trump publicly dismissed claims by his intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, insisting Iran was “very close” to achieving nuclear capability. Second, Trump’s close coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he praised for working as a “team like no team has ever worked before,” reflected a strategic alignment to decisively neutralise Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Third, Trump’s frustration with stalled diplomatic efforts played a critical role. Despite earlier attempts to negotiate a new nuclear deal to replace the Obama-era agreement he abandoned in 2018, Trump grew convinced that diplomacy had “run its course” after Iran rejected his calls for “unconditional surrender” and continued retaliatory strikes against Israel.

However, the decision was controversial. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Jim Himes and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, argued that Trump’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congressional approval for military action. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie, also opposed the strikes, calling them unconstitutional. Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham and House Speaker Mike Johnson, supported the move, arguing it was necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which they deemed the “most acute immediate threat” to the U.S. and its allies. The strikes, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved 125 U.S. aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers carrying 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) “bunker buster” bombs, specifically targeting the heavily fortified Fordow facility. Despite Trump’s claims of total destruction, Iranian officials and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported limited damage and no increase in off-site radiation levels, suggesting Iran may have moved critical materials prior to the attack.

Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Hamas in Gaza have led to catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Since October 2023, Israeli military campaigns have killed over 55,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including women and children. Independent analyses suggest that up to 80% of the casualties in residential areas were civilians. On June 17, 2025, at least 51 Palestinians were killed while waiting for food aid in Rafah and Khan Younis. Witnesses and international media reported that Israeli forces opened fire on crowds gathered at aid distribution points. These incidents sparked outrage and drew comparisons to colonial practices where food and aid were used as tools of control. Humanitarian organisations, including the UN and Médecins Sans Frontières, accused Israel of obstructing aid and warned of possible war crimes.

Western Hypocrisy and Regional Perceptions

The selective response of Western countries to these events has drawn accusations of hypocrisy. The U.S. continues to provide military and financial aid to Israel despite mounting civilian casualties, while strongly condemning Iran for its support of armed groups like Hezbollah and for its nuclear program. This inconsistency has led some critics to claim that Western governments value strategic interests more than human rights. To many observers, these actions carry undertones of racial bias, as the disproportionate impact on Arab and Muslim populations is often downplayed in Western media and policy discussions.

It is true that Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway have imposed sanctions on Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians. The European Union is a major humanitarian donor to Palestinians, and is now reviewing its trade relations with Israel. But their condemnation of Israel is muted and of Trump absent.

The actions of Israel and its Western allies smack of neo-imperialism.    Israel is a tool of American imperialism. Many accuse the West of operating a “genocidal crime syndicate.” These expressions capture the depth of anger and disillusionment in the region. Decades of foreign interference, military interventions, and broken peace promises have created a strong sense of betrayal.

Security vs. Racial Narratives

In contrast, Israel and its allies argue that their actions are driven by security concerns. Israel sees Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as existential threats. The United States views its role as stabilising the region by countering Iran, ensuring the flow of oil, and supporting a democratic ally in Israel. Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities was framed as a necessary step to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state, which he argued would destabilise the region and threaten global security. Even when Western leaders express concern about civilian casualties, they tend to frame these tragedies as unfortunate byproducts of necessary military actions.

The vast majority of civilian casualties are Arab and Muslim. A 2025 report by the Middle East and North Africa Research Center described racism as a “global pandemic” and noted that Western media and political leaders often downplay suffering in non-White regions. This selective empathy, critics argue, reinforces a global hierarchy that devalues non-Western lives.

However, most Arab governments are keeping their distance from Iran, even if they criticise Israel from time to time. Iran is a Shia Muslim country, while most Arab countries follow Sunni Islam. There is a long history of mistrust and rivalry between Shia and Sunni leaders. Many Arab states are worried about Iran's growing influence in the region. Iran supports armed Shia groups in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These groups often challenge the authority of Sunni governments. Arab rulers see Iran as a country that wants to spread its power using religion and weapons.

Although many Arabs support the Palestinian cause, they do not trust Iran’s way of helping. Iran says it supports the Palestinians, but Arab leaders believe Iran is using the issue to gain power in the region. People in these countries may feel strongly about Palestine, but they do not want their leaders to join a dangerous war started by Iran. Even Syria, which depends on Iran for military help, is focused on its own survival and does not want to invite more trouble.

So, Arab countries are staying out of Iran’s war with Israel and the U.S. because of religious differences, political rivalry, economic interests, fear of unrest, and a desire to protect their own power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the West Asia crisis is deeply shaped by the legacy of Western hegemony, especially the colonial borders and alliances created in the twentieth century. Current conflicts are driven as much by strategic interests as by racism. Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025 was motivated by a strategic alignment with Israel to counter Iran’s perceived nuclear threat. The impact of these policies disproportionately affects non-White populations, fuelling perceptions of racial injustice. However, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and insecurity among Arabs too have complicated the situation which is worsening by the day.

west asia crisis, iran israel conflict, trump iran strikes, operation midnight hammer, palestine israel war 2025, iran nuclear program, fordow natanz isfahan attack, us israel alliance, colonial legacy west asia, middle east tensions, palestinian deaths 2025, humanitarian crisis gaza, racial bias in foreign policy, western hegemony middle east, west asia strategic interests, b2 bombers iran, tomahawk missiles iran, trump netanyahu iran attack, arab iran rivalry, sunni shia conflict, middle east geopolitics 2025, israel gaza war, us military iran 2025, trump foreign policy, iran nuclear retaliation, rafah khan younis aid attack, western hypocrisy middle east, racial injustice global politics, israel war crimes, neocolonialism middle east

How Israel vs Iran Is Derailing India’s Central Asia Strategy

 

YouTube

The long-running rivalry between Israel and Iran has descended to a regional crisis with global consequences. What started as proxy wars and strong words has now turned into a full-fledged war. How does it affect India’s interests? But before that let us understand the causes of this crisis.

A Recurring Flashpoint with Growing Global Stakes

Israel and Iran have deep ideological differences. Iran follows Shia Islamic beliefs, while Israel is built on Zionist ideas. Iran is a rising regional power while Israel wants to establish its hegemony in the region. This creates tension between them. Israel considers Iran as a threat to its very existence. This is because Iran backs armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen which are anti-Israel and anti-West. Let us understand this crucial dynamic.

Hamas is a Sunni group. It was founded in 1987, and stems from the Muslim Brotherhood. It governs Gaza and functions as both a political party and an armed group. Hezbollah originated in the 1980s with Iranian support. It’s a Shia Islamist group with military and political roles in Lebanon. Houthis are Shia Islamists and originated in Northern Yemen. Since 2014, they have controlled much of Yemen, including Sana’a.

Despite their sectarian differences Iran has managed to unite them as part of its Axis of Resistance. Iran leads a loose network including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. They often act in concert, despite the absence of a formal alliance, especially during regional conflicts.

Iran funds, arms, and trains all three groups. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, especially its Quds Force, plays a major role in connecting and supporting these groups. Iran leverages them to expand its regional power and challenge rivals. This strategy simultaneously pressures Israel and its allies.

Evidence suggests coordination among these three groups during major conflicts. Hamas’ October 7th 2023 attack may have involved Hezbollah and Iran. 2023-2025 Red Sea attacks on U.S. and Israeli ships showed Houthi support for Hamas.

Israel counters Iranian backed attacks through preemptive strikes and cyberattacks. A big change happened in April 2024. Iran launched a massive attack against Israel, using over 300 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. The attack was in response to a suspected Israeli airstrike on April 1st, targeting an Iranian consulate in Damascus; the strike killed sixteen people, among them two Iranian generals. For the first time, Iran directly attacked Israeli territory in an operation known as True Promise.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major military campaign against Iran, calling it Operation Rising Lion. The strikes targeted Iran’s nuclear sites, missile infrastructure, and military leaders. Israel justified its preemptive attacks. Intelligence reports indicated Iran had bomb-grade uranium and was violating nuclear agreements. Hundreds of Israeli jets and drones attacked over 100 Iranian sites, including nuclear and military targets. Dozens of Iranians, including top military and nuclear officials, were reportedly killed. Satellite photos show attacks on Natanz, missile bases like Tabriz and Kermanshah, and power facilities.

Iran retaliated under Operation True Promise III with missiles and drones aimed at Israel. They launched over 150 ballistic missiles and 100+ drones, many intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems. The death toll for Israeli civilians has reached 24, with dozens more wounded. This marks a direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran for the first time, raising fears of a wider region‑wide war.

How the Israel-Iran Conflict Affects India

Despite distance, India remains significantly involved. It has strong ties with both Israel and Iran, but these relationships often clash with each other.

India no longer buys oil from Iran due to U.S. sanctions, but imports over 60% of its oil and gas from West Asia. After the conflict began, oil prices jumped 9–12%, reaching around $78 per barrel. If the conflict worsens and Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz—a key route for 20–25% of the world’s oil—the price could rise to $120–130. Every $10 increase in oil can cut India’s GDP growth by 0.3% and raise inflation by 0.4%, threatening the gains made recently. The Reserve Bank may delay cutting interest rates as planned.

India trades around $400 billion every year with Europe, the US, Africa, and West Asia. This trade depends on shipping routes through the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz. Attacks by Houthi rebels have already pushed up shipping costs by 40–60% and insurance rates by 30%. Traffic through the Red Sea is down by 42%. If things get worse, ships may have to go around Africa, adding 2–3 weeks to delivery times and increasing costs by up to 20%. Exports like tea and textiles, especially to Iran, may suffer. India exported 4.91 million kg of tea to Iran in early 2024.

Investors are moving their money to safer assets like gold, which is hitting new highs. Companies with links to Israel (like Adani Ports, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s) and industries that depend heavily on oil (aviation, auto, paint, cement) are facing losses.

The war could delay major projects like the IMEEC, which is India’s answer to China’s Belt and Road plan. The Chabahar Port in Iran—important for India’s access to Central Asia—could also be hit.

Chabahar Port: A Strategic Gateway in Jeopardy

In May 2024, India and Iran signed an important 10-year deal. This agreement gives India control over the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar the port, which is in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province. India agreed to spend $120 million to improve the port and also offered a $250 million credit for future work. It gives India its only direct way to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia without going through Pakistan. It is a key part of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). This is a 7,200-kilometre trade route that connects India to Russia through Iran and the Caspian Sea.

India sees Chabahar as a way to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It also helps balance the growing influence of the Chinese-backed Gwadar Port in Pakistan. Chabahar’s future is now uncertain. The growing conflict between Iran and Israel has made big projects like this more risky. Earlier, the U.S. had allowed work on Chabahar because it helped Afghanistan. But in February 2025, a new order ended that exemption. Now, Indian companies working there could face U.S. sanctions.

Shipping through nearby areas like the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea has already become dangerous. There are threats from sabotage, piracy, and blockades. These risks make shipping more expensive because insurance costs go up.

India also has to deal with Iran’s growing friendship with China. On March 27, 2021, China and Iran signed a 25‑year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (aka “cooperation pact”) in Tehran. This gives China a lot of control over Iran’s trade and infrastructure. If China invests in Chabahar, India’s role could become smaller or even be replaced. As Iran’s foreign policy moves closer to China, India’s goals may suffer. India needs Iran’s support to reach Central Asia, so this shift could hurt its plans. Another bad news is the IMEEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor), meant to rival China’s Belt and Road, is also facing problems. Though it was approved during the 2023 G20 Summit, Iran’s opposition and regional instability have slowed its progress.

Central Asia: The Prize Behind the Port

India is interested in Central Asia for both economic and strategic reasons. The region has large amounts of natural gas, oil, uranium, and rare earth minerals. It also offers new markets for Indian products like medicines, IT services, and education. But Central Asia is landlocked and has strong ties with Russia and China. India planned to fix this by using the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Unfortunately, the Israel-Iran conflict has hurt these plans. Houthi rebels have attacked cargo ships in the Red Sea and Suez Canal. Consequently, numerous Indian vessels now circumnavigate the Cape of Good Hope. This longer route adds 12 to 18 days to the journey and increases shipping costs by 40% to 60%.

Trade with Central Asia is also falling. Meanwhile, China is increasing its presence in Central Asia. It is building railways and energy projects through its Belt and Road Initiative. India needs to act quickly to remain a strong player in the region.

Indians in the Conflict Zone

About 10,700 Indians live in Iran, mostly traders and students. Around 18,000–32,000 live in Israel. The Gulf region is home to 8–9 million Indians. After bombing intensified, Indian officials began shifting students in Iran to safer areas. A larger war might require mass evacuations.

India has issued warnings against travel to both countries. Flights are being rerouted due to airspace closures. For example, an Air India flight to London had to return after three hours. These diversions are adding to travel time and costs.

Conclusion

The Israel-Iran war is shaking up India’s economy, energy security, and regional diplomacy. Rising oil prices, stock market drops, trade delays, and the risk to Indians abroad are immediate concerns. Projects like Chabahar Port and the IMEEC are at risk, while India’s neutral position is getting harder to maintain. Some relief comes from Gulf nations staying neutral and India’s financial strength—but if the war continues, the impact could be severe.

India should build stronger energy and trade ties with stable Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These countries already supply a lot of India’s oil and invest heavily in India.

India should also invest more in its naval and cyber security. Because shipping costs have gone up sharply, India needs to build more of its own cargo ships. It should also boost its sea patrols in the Arabian Sea and nearby areas. Working closely with navies from France, the U.S., and the UAE would help.

The future is uncertain, the global turmoil is only getting worse. India needs to recalibrate its diplomatic, economic and geopolitical priorities. For this a visionary leadership is imperative.

India foreign policy, Chabahar Port, Israel Iran conflict, West Asia tensions, India Central Asia trade, Chabahar Iran India, geopolitics India, India Iran relations, India Israel relations, INSTC corridor, Belt and Road Initiative, India oil imports, Strait of Hormuz crisis, India Middle East policy, India strategic interests, global trade routes, Chabahar vs Gwadar, India China rivalry, India US sanctions, West Asia instability, India economy oil, India trade disruption, Chabahar Port news, Central Asia connectivity, IMEEC corridor, India shipping crisis, Iran missile attacks, Indian navy strategy, India Middle East trade, regional conflict impact India