Can the United States Cope With The Fragmenting Global Order?

 YouTube

The ongoing shifts in global geopolitics present a formidable challenge to the USA’s long-held dominance. The declared intention of France to recognise Palestine, Britain’s similar intentions, China’s rise as an economic superpower, India’s independent foreign policy, Russia’s defiance on Ukraine, and the U.S.-EU trade deal suggest a changing world order. How do these developments affect the American power worldwide?

China’s Rise As a Rival Economic Power

China has become a rival economic superpower to the USA through a combination of strategic reforms and aggressive global outreach. Starting in the late 1970s, Deng Xiaoping’s economic liberalisation policies opened China to foreign investment, manufacturing, and trade. China became the “world’s factory” by offering cheap labour and infrastructure, attracting global businesses. It invested heavily in infrastructure, education, and technology, and later moved up the value chain into high-tech industries like AI, 5G, and green energy.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative expanded its economic influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe. It built financial institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to challenge Western-dominated institutions. Meanwhile, its massive foreign currency reserves, trade surpluses, and global export dominance enabled it to challenge the U.S. economic order.

Today, China rivals the U.S. in GDP (in purchasing power parity), manufacturing output, and tech innovation—making it Washington’s top economic competitor.

France’s Independent Stance on Palestine

France was always a maverick among NATO and EU members. It has a history of acting independently or divergently within NATO and the EU, often prioritising its national interests or asserting strategic autonomy. This stance stems from France's desire to maintain sovereignty, global influence, and a distinct foreign policy. In 1966, Under Charles de Gaulle, it withdrew from NATO’s Integrated Military Command. However, it rejoined the command in 2009 under Nicolas Sarkozy. Again, in 2003, under Jacques Chirac, it opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, refusing to join the coalition. In 2005, French voters rejected the proposed EU Constitution in a referendum, reflecting skepticism about deeper EU integration. France has advocated for an independent EU defence policy, especially under Emmanuel Macron, who called for a European Army in 2019. The intention is to reduce reliance on NATO and the U.S.

France has always pursued bilateral relations with countries like Russia and China, sometimes diverging from NATO and EU consensus. He engaged with Vladimir Putin on Ukraine issues and maintains trade ties with China.

So, it came as no surprise when France announced recognition of Palestine. It was a clear break from the NATO’s USA-led narrative that aligns with Israel. Successive U.S. Presidents have viewed Israel as a strategic ally. The former Senator Jesse Helms described it as “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East” because of its military foothold in the region. France has signalled a willingness to prioritise its own diplomatic agenda. This can result in the weakening of NATO’s unified front on various contentious issues.

Defence contracts and strategic influence go together. France is USA’s rival in the defence equipment market. Its independent foreign policy enhances its ability to market its defence products to nations seeking alternatives to the U.S. influence, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. 

France’s support for Palestinian statehood could strengthen its diplomatic ties with Arab states. This may increase demand for French military hardware over American systems. This may erode U.S. strategic influence in regions where defence contracts are a tool of geopolitical leverage.

Defence industry is a big contributor to the U.S.A.’s GDP. It needs exports to maintain the economies of scale. France’s ability to leverage its independent foreign policy to secure contracts in different parts of the world reduce U.S.A.’s potential export revenues. For example, France’s Rafale fighter jet has gained traction in markets like Qatar and India, competing with U.S. systems like the F-35. This competition could lead to job losses in the U.S. defence sector and reduce the economic benefits derived from military exports.

Britain’s Recognition of Palestine and Trade Agreement with India

Britain’s announcement of its intent to recognise Palestine further complicates America’s position in the Middle East. As a key ally and fellow NATO member, Britain’s move aligns it closer to France and the broader European sentiment, which has increasingly emphasised a two-state solution. This signals a growing European consensus that diverges from Washington’s pro-Israel stance. This may weaken U.S.A.’s diplomatic leverage in the Middle East. Although The U.S. has traditionally led mediation efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its perceived bias has eroded its credibility as a neutral broker. If Britain and France push for Palestinian statehood, the U.S. may not be able to counter them.

Moreover, Britain’s recent Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India reflects a broader trend of allies diversifying their economic and strategic partnerships. The FTA strengthens UK-India ties. India is a growing market for defence and technology. The UK-India FTA could divert trade and investment opportunities in these sectors away from the United States. Britain’s early mover advantage through the FTA could reduce U.S. market share. This will adversely affect such American sectors like aerospace and IT. 

India’s Independent Foreign Policy

India’s pursuit of an autonomous foreign policy complicates U.S. geopolitical strategy, as it balances relations with multiple global powers. India has deepened defence and technology ties with Israel, including joint missile development, while maintaining robust relations with Russia, a key supplier of military hardware like the S-400 system and energy resources. Despite U.S. pressure to isolate Russia over the Ukraine conflict, India engages actively with Moscow through BRICS summits and bilateral trade agreements, such as discounted oil purchases, which surged to $65 billion in 2024. This reflects India’s intent to avoid over-reliance on any single power, including the U.S..

As a cornerstone of the Quad—comprising the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India—India’s alignment is critical to countering China. However, prioritising its own interests, such as economic ties with Russia or neutrality in great power rivalries, could undermine U.S.-led initiatives. India’s growing economic might, projected to surpass Japan by 2030, and military clout amplify its global influence. Its refusal to fully align with the U.S. may inspire other nations, like Brazil or South Africa, to pursue independent paths, eroding American hegemony and fostering a multipolar world order. 

Russia’s Defiance in the Ukraine Conflict

Russia has emphatically rejected America’s global dominance. It signals a strategic pivot toward a multipolar world. Russia’s actions carry significant geostrategic implications for U.S. security interests. The Ukraine conflict has exposed vulnerabilities in NATO’s cohesion. Already experts in Europe are debating over resource allocation straining member states. 

By forging stronger ties with China, India, and non-Western nations through frameworks like BRICS, Russia is constructing alternative alliances to counter Western influence and bypass sanctions. These measures promise to stabilise its economy and prolong its ability to resist U.S. sanctions. This dynamic may limit the economic pressure the U.S. can exert on Russia.

Russia’s energy deals, alongside efforts to bolster gold reserves and promote non-dollar trade, undermine the U.S.-dominated financial system. This may also erode American economic leverage, weaken the dollar’s global dominance, and embolden other nations to pursue independent geopolitical strategies, reshaping global power dynamics. Are we looking at a broader global realignment, which challenges the Western-led order established post-World War II?

The U.S.-EU Trade Deal

The recent U.S.-EU trade deal underscores the importance of transatlantic energy security. The EU is the largest buyer of U.S. natural gas and oil. This strengthens the U.S. energy sector, particularly in light of Europe’s efforts to reduce reliance on Russian energy following the Ukraine invasion. However, the trade deal has been described as disadvantageous to the EU. It has raised concerns in Europe about U.S. protectionism. The EU is the U.S.A.’s largest trading partner. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the deal’s terms would strengthen or strain transatlantic relations. Let us not forget that millions of jobs in the USA depend on trade with the EU.

Geopolitically, the trade deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it reinforces U.S. economic influence in Europe, countering China’s growing presence. On the other hand, it risks alienating key allies if the deal is deemed as exploitative. The EU’s shift toward “economic statecraft”, i.e., using economic tools for geopolitical ends ,  suggests it may respond with countermeasures, such as tariffs or increased trade with non-U.S. partners. This could weaken NATO’s cohesion and reduce U.S.A.’s strategic leverage in Europe.

The U.S.-EU trade deal may face challenges due to global trade fragmentation. Since 2018, geopolitical tensions, particularly between the U.S. and China, have driven a decline in trade between rival blocs. The trade between aligned countries has increased. However, Europe’s growing emphasis on strategic autonomy could limit its long-term benefits. For instance, the EU’s focus on diversifying supply chains and reducing reliance on external powers may lead to increased trade with Asia or the Global South at the expense of the United States.

Dollar Dominance and Financial Stability

Countries like China and Russia are increasing gold reserves and reducing holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds to hedge against sanctions risk. If this trend continues, it could weaken the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. This will increase borrowing costs for the U.S. and potentially destabilise its financial markets. Additionally, India’s independent stance and its trade with Russia could further diversify global trade away from dollar-based transactions, amplifying this risk.

Conclusion

Geopolitical and geostrategic shifts are posing a challenge to U.S. global dominance. These shifts suggest a multipolar world, where nations are self-focused. This diminishes U.S. sway in areas such as the Middle East, Europe, and South Asia. These changes might negatively affect the U.S. economy in sectors such as trade, energy, and defence, and potentially devalue the dollar. GDP growth might slow down due to fewer trade opportunities because of global fragmentation. The Congressional Budget Office projects that trade restrictions and geopolitical tensions could reduce U.S. economic output by 1-2% over the next decade. The U.S. should change its foreign policy by collaborating with allies, enhancing the economy through trade, and addressing the causes of global division. If this is not done, the weakening of American power may speed up, with long-term impacts on its global influence and economic health.

Dollar Dominance, China, Russia, India, Quad, European Union (EU), United States, Congressional Budget Office, Middle East, Europe, South Asia, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Israel, U.S. Treasury bonds, F-35, Rafael Fighters, S-400 system

Explosions, Airstrikes, and Evacuations: What’s Fuelling the Deadly Thai-Cambodia Border Crisis?

YouTube

The recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, escalating in July 2025, is one of several that get overshadowed by wars going on elsewhere.  The escalation began in May 2025, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a border skirmish, followed by retaliatory actions like border closures and diplomatic expulsions. On July 23, 2025, a landmine explosion injured five Thai soldiers, with Thailand accusing Cambodia of laying new mines, a claim Cambodia denied, citing legacy ordnance from 20th-century conflicts. This incident, combined with alleged drone surveillance by Cambodia near Ta Muen Thom, sparked heavy clashes on July 24, involving gunfire, artillery, and Thai F-16 airstrikes. Political instability in Thailand, including the suspension of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra on July 1, 2025, after a leaked call with Cambodia’s Hun Sen, has amplified domestic pressure to take a hardline stance.

The July 2025 clashes have killed at least 19 people in Thailand (mostly civilians) and 13 in Cambodia, with over 130,000 Thais and 20,000 Cambodians evacuated. The UN Security Council met on July 25, 2025, at Cambodia’s request, but Thailand prefers bilateral talks via the Joint Boundary Commission. China, the U.S., and ASEAN have called for de-escalation, with Malaysia proposing a ceasefire. Cambodia reported “significant damage” to Preah Vihear from Thai airstrikes, raising concerns about cultural heritage.

Like every conflict this one has all the ingredients like historical border disputes, nationalist sentiments, and strategic interests. But there is another factor the ancient Hindu temples which are the focal points of this conflict. But the temple dispute is linked to several other underlying causes of the conflict. For instance, the  century-old border dispute, made worse by nationalist fervour and recent political dynamics. Let us examine these factors.

Historical Border Ambiguities

In the 19th and 20th centuries France controlled much of the Indo-China region like Vietnam,  Laos and Cambodia. Thailand was an independent Kingdom of Siam - its original name. The dispute originates from the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty, when France, as the colonial power over Cambodia, and the Kingdom of Siam (modern Thailand) delineated their 817-km border. A 1907 French-drawn map placed key temples, like Preah Vihear, in Cambodian territory, based on a watershed line in the Dangrek Mountains. Thailand later contested this map, arguing it was inaccurate due to inconsistencies with natural geography and modern cartographic methods.

The lack of clear demarcation in some border areas, including around Prasat Ta Muen Thom, has led to overlapping territorial claims, fuelling periodic tensions.

Nationalist Sentiments

Both nations harbour strong nationalist narratives tied to their historical empires—Thailand’s Siamese legacy and Cambodia’s Khmer Empire. Temples like Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom are potent symbols of cultural heritage, intensifying disputes over sovereignty.

In Thailand, irredentist hopes of reclaiming “lost territories” (e.g., Preah Vihear) persist among nationalists, while Cambodia uses these sites to assert its historical dominance. Incidents like Cambodian soldiers singing their national anthem at Ta Muen Thom in February 2025 provoked Thai responses, escalating tensions.

Strategic and Political Factors

Beyond temples, the conflict reflects strategic interests. The border region, including the Emerald Triangle (where Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos meet), is geopolitically sensitive. Control over these areas can influence regional dominance and resource access.

Cambodia’s alignment with China, a major trading partner and investor, contrasts with Thailand’s U.S. security treaty alliance, adding a geopolitical layer. China’s call for peace talks and criticism of U.S. tariffs on both nations suggest it may seek to mediate, potentially increasing its regional influence.

Domestic politics also play a role. Cambodia’s Hun Sen, despite stepping down, uses nationalist rhetoric to bolster his son Hun Manet’s leadership, while Thailand’s shaky coalition government faces pressure to appear strong amid political turmoil.

Is It Only About the Temples or Something More Strategic?

While the Hindu temples—Prasat Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear—are central flashpoints, the conflict is not solely about them. Both governments resort to Nationalist rhetoric to distract public attention from internal issues. These issues involve Thailand’s political instability and Cambodia’s economic challenges under looming U.S. tariffs.

Of course, the temples embody national pride and historical claims, but the broader dispute involves territorial control, the undemarcated border areas, especially around Ta Muen Thom, are strategically located along the Dangrek Mountains, a natural frontier. The border region, part of an ancient Khmer highway linking Angkor to Phimai, remains strategically relevant for trade and connectivity. Control over these areas strengthens military and economic positioning. Another factor is geopolitical dynamics. Cambodia’s reliance on China, and Thailand’s alliance with the U.S. create a proxy for great-power competition. The conflict could shift regional influence, with China potentially gaining leverage if it mediates successfully.

Thus, while the temples are catalysts, the conflict is driven by a mix of historical grievances, territorial ambitions, and strategic manoeuvring.

History of the Hindu Temples

Both temples were built by the Khmer Empire, reflecting its Hindu cultural influence, with intricate architecture and Sanskrit inscriptions showcasing Indian cultural reach. The 1907 map, drawn under French colonial rule, became a reference for Cambodia’s claims, but Thailand argues it deviates from natural boundaries like the watershed line. The temples’ strategic locations along ancient trade routes and their cultural significance have made them enduring symbols of national identity, complicating bilateral resolutions.

These Hindu temples are located in that part of Southeast Asia which is overwhelmingly Buddhist. So, why are these at the heart of the dispute? Perhaps their history will tell us something.

Prasat Ta Muen Thom

Ta Muen Thom is a Khmer Hindu temple complex dedicated to Lord Shiva. It was built in the 11th century under King Udayadityavarman II. It features a naturally formed Shivling in its sanctum. Unlike most Khmer temples facing east, its southward orientation is unique.

The temple is situated in the Dangrek Mountains, straddling Cambodia’s Oddar Meanchey province and Thailand’s Surin province. It lies on a strategic pass along an ancient Khmer highway linking Angkor (Cambodia) to Phimai (Thailand). Its position in a poorly demarcated border zone makes it a flashpoint. The temple’s ownership has been contested due to its accessibility from both sides and ambiguous border demarcation. In February 2025, Cambodian soldiers singing their national anthem at the site provoked Thai troops, escalating tensions.

Prasat Preah Vihear:

Prasat Preah Vihear is a 900-year-old Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva. It was built between the 9th and 11th centuries. Perched on a 525-meter cliff in the Dangrek Mountains, its architectural grandeur and UNESCO World Heritage status that was granted in 2008 make it a cultural icon. Located in Cambodia’s Preah Vihear province, near the Thai border, it was awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, based on the 1907 French map. The surrounding land remains disputed, as the ICJ did not rule on it. Thailand’s claim to the surrounding area led to clashes. The clashes in 2008–2011 caught the world’s attention because these happened after UNESCO’s listing . The 2013 ICJ ruling reaffirmed Cambodia’s control over the temple and its immediate vicinity but left broader border issues unresolved. 

Conclusion

The Thailand-Cambodia conflict of 2025 is not merely about Hindu temples but is deeply rooted in historical border ambiguities, nationalist fervour, and strategic interests. The temples—Prasat Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear—are potent symbols of cultural heritage, built by the Khmer Empire and contested due to their location in undemarcated border zones. While recent triggers like landmines and drone incursions sparked the violence, the underlying causes include geopolitical rivalries, domestic political pressures, and unresolved colonial legacies. A lasting resolution would require bilateral negotiations, possibly with ASEAN or Chinese mediation, to address both territorial and cultural claims while preserving these historic sites.

Thailand Cambodia conflict 2025, Thai Cambodia border clash, Preah Vihear airstrike, Thailand F-16 Cambodia, July 2025 border skirmish, landmine blast Thai soldiers, Hun Sen leaked call, Paetongtarn Shinawatra suspension, Southeast Asia tensions, Thai Cambodia war news, ASEAN ceasefire proposal, UN Security Council Cambodia, Thailand Cambodia drone surveillance, Preah Vihear damage, Thailand Cambodia evacuation, Thai Cambodian civilians displaced, Thai military airstrike Cambodia, Cambodia Thailand cultural heritage, Cambodia Thailand territorial dispute, July 2025 Thai Cambodia escalation

Jagdeep Dhankhar Resigns as Vice President: Just Health Reasons—or a Deeper Political Rift?

YouTube

Did he resign in a huff over some provocation, perhaps this assertion by Nadda? Was he pressured into resignation? Was the stated health issue real reason, or was it something else? There will be more speculations and conspiracy theories in the coming few days. But let us have a look at Jagdeep Dhankar’s journey from a village in Rajasthan to the post of India’s Vice President.

On July 21, 2025, Jagdeep Dhankhar, India’s 14th Vice President, announced his resignation, citing health concerns. The surprise event at the start of Parliament’s 2025 Monsoon Session has led to much debate regarding his career, political life, and the consequences of his departure.

Academic Qualifications and Profession

Jagdeep Dhankhar was born on May 18, 1951, in Kithana, a village in Rajasthan’s Jhunjhunu district, into a modest Hindu Rajasthani Jat family. His early education took place at Sainik School, Chittorgarh. He earned a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree from the University of Rajasthan. Following this, he completed his Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the same university. Jagdeep Dhankhar began his legal practice in 1979.

Political Journey

Dhankhar entered politics in 1989, winning a Lok Sabha seat from Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, on a Janata Dal ticket. He became the Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs in 1990 under Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar’s government. From 1993 to 1998, he served as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Kishangarh constituency, initially with the Janata Dal. During this period, he was influenced by Devi Lal and briefly aligned with the Indian National Congress (INC) during P.V. Narasimha Rao’s tenure as Prime Minister.

Dhankhar joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2008. He advocated for OBC status for the Jat community in Rajasthan. In 2016, he headed the BJP’s law and legal affairs department, leveraging his legal expertise. In July 2019, Dhankhar became the Governor of West Bengal. His tenure was contentious, marked by frequent confrontations with the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The TMC branded him the “real leader of the opposition”.

In July 2022, the BJP nominated Dhankhar as the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) candidate for Vice President. Promoted as a “Kisan Putra” (son of a farmer), his nomination was seen as an outreach to the Jat community, which had been active in farmers’ protests against the BJP government’s agricultural reforms in 2020. Dhankhar won the 2022 Vice-Presidential election with a significant margin, securing 528 of 710 valid votes (74.4%) against the opposition’s candidate, Margaret Alva. He assumed office on August 11, 2022, also serving as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Dhankhar’s political journey reflects a trajectory from regional politics to national prominence, with affiliations across the Janata Dal, Congress, and BJP, showcasing his adaptability and focus on constitutional and legislative issues.

Evaluation of Performance as Vice President of India

Considerable controversy marked Jagdeep Dhankhar’s tenure as Vice President. He was a vocal advocate for parliamentary supremacy, often questioning the judiciary’s role, particularly the Supreme Court’s Basic Structure Doctrine and the collegium system for judicial appointments. In 2025, he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling against Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s actions, calling Article 142 of the Constitution a “nuclear weapon against democracy” and accusing the judiciary of encroaching on legislative and executive powers. His remarks sparked debates about the separation of powers but also drew criticism for aligning too closely with the BJP’s narrative.

Dhankhar’s tenure was contentious due to frequent clashes with opposition parties in the Rajya Sabha. The opposition, particularly the INDIA bloc, accused him of partisan conduct, alleging he favoured BJP members while restricting opposition voices. In December 2024, the opposition moved a no-confidence motion against him, a historic first for a Vice President, citing his alleged bias. The motion was rejected by Deputy Chairman Harivansh, but it underscored the polarised atmosphere in the Rajya Sabha. Dhankhar dismissed the motion humorously, comparing it to a “rusted vegetable-cutting knife” used for bypass surgery.

In December 2024, during renewed farmers’ protests, he publicly questioned Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan about unfulfilled promises to farmers, urging dialogue. His comments embarrassed the central government, as they appeared to critique its handling of the protests.

Dhankhar maintained a high public profile. He advocated for agricultural diversification into food processing and marketing. His energetic public appearances invited criticism for overstepping the Vice President’s traditionally neutral role.

Health issues affected Dhankhar’s tenure, including angioplasty, in March 2025 at AIIMS, Delhi  . Then there was an incident where he fainted during an event at Kumaon University in June 2025. 

Overall, Dhankhar’s performance was polarising. Supporters praised his legal expertise, commitment to parliamentary processes, and advocacy for farmers, while critics accused him of partisanship and undermining judicial independence. His tenure was marked by a proactive approach but strained relations with opposition parties.

Reasons for Resignation

Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned on July 21, 2025, citing health concerns and the need to “prioritise health care and abide by medical advice.” His resignation letter, addressed to President Droupadi Murmu, was submitted under Article 67(a) of the Constitution, which allows the Vice President to resign by writing to the President. The resignation took effect immediately, ending his term two years early (his tenure was set to conclude in August 2027). 

The suddenness of his resignation, announced late on the first day of the Monsoon Session, led to speculation about underlying reasons. Opposition leaders, such as Congress’s Jairam Ramesh, expressed surprise, noting Dhankhar’s active engagement in the Rajya Sabha earlier that day, including accepting a notice for a motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma. Ramesh suggested there might be “far more to his totally unexpected resignation than meets the eye,” hinting at possible political pressures.

Political Consequences for the BJP

Dhankhar’s resignation has implications for the BJP, particularly given its timing and the political context.

As Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar’s exit leaves the Upper House under the Deputy Chairman until a new Vice President is elected, which must occur within six months per constitutional requirements. This transition could disrupt the BJP-led NDA’s legislative agenda during the Monsoon Session, especially on contentious issues like the motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, which saw both ruling and opposition MPs involved. The absence of a seasoned chair like Dhankhar may complicate proceedings in a polarised Rajya Sabha.

The resignation is a setback for the BJP, as Dhankhar was a key figure in its outreach to the Jat community and rural voters. The 2022 Vice-Presidential election saw his “Kisan Putra” image strategically deployed against farmer opposition. His December 2024 public criticism of the government’s handling of farmers’ issues, coupled with his resignation, strengthens the idea of internal conflict within the NDA, particularly given the current farmer protests. Dhankhar’s outspokenness reportedly caused “much embarrassment” to the government, particularly on judicial and agricultural issues.

The Prime Minister, who praised Dhankhar’s constitutional knowledge and legislative expertise in 2022, faces scrutiny over the resignation. The opposition, particularly Congress, has called for the BJP to clarify the reasons behind Dhankhar’s exit and even urged it to persuade Dhankhar to reconsider, framing it as in the “nation’s interest.” This puts BJP in a delicate position, as any perceived mishandling could fuel opposition narratives of governance instability. Moreover, Dhankhar’s criticisms of the judiciary, which aligned with the BJP’s stance against the collegium system, may now be seen as a liability, complicating the government’s relations with the judiciary at a time when it is pushing judicial reforms.

Dhankhar’s resignation could impact the BJP’s standing among the Jat community, a politically significant group in Rajasthan, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. His exit, coupled with his advocacy for farmers, may be leveraged by opposition parties to portray the BJP as disconnected from rural concerns. The BJP will need to carefully select a successor to maintain its appeal among Jats and other rural communities, especially with upcoming state elections.

The timing of the resignation, coinciding with a high-profile judicial impeachment motion and a meeting of top BJP leaders (including Amit Shah and JP Nadda) on July 21, has fuelled speculation of internal NDA tensions.

The election of a new Vice President will be a critical test for the NDA’s unity and its ability to manage coalition dynamics. The BJP will need to balance regional, caste, and political considerations in choosing a candidate, especially to counter opposition momentum. Maintaining stability in the Rajya Sabha and addressing the fallout from Dhankhar’s exit will be crucial to sustaining the government’s legislative momentum ahead of key reforms and elections.

Conclusion

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s resignation as Vice President marks the end of a significant chapter in his career as a lawyer and politician and adds a rather odious paragraph to Indian democracy’s journey. His academic grounding in science and law, combined with his legal expertise, shaped his roles as a parliamentarian, Governor, and Vice President. While his tenure as Vice President was marked by active engagement and advocacy for parliamentary supremacy, it was also fraught with controversies over partisanship and judicial critiques. His resignation has raised questions about underlying political factors, with implications for the BJP’s image and the NDA’s legislative strategy. As India awaits the election of a new Vice President, Dhankhar’s exit underscores the delicate balance of health, politics, and governance in one of the country’s highest offices.

Jagdeep Dhankhar resignation, Vice President of India, Indian politics 2025, BJP internal politics, Narendra Modi, Rajya Sabha news, Dhankhar health issues, Controversy, BJP vs judiciary, Dhankhar farmers protests, Dhankhar Modi rift, NDA political strategy, Monsoon session, Indian constitutional crisis, Jat community politics, BJP rural vote bank, Dhankhar BJP fallout, Indian judiciary vs legislature, Article 142 debate, Dhankhar Rajya Sabha clashes, Dhankhar no-confidence motion

A New Language Approach for a Diverse Nation

YouTube

Why do we complicate things when simple solutions can bring peace, unity and strength to India? Why push for the divisive three-language formula when the two-language formula can keep the country united and nudge it into the faster lane of all-round progress and development?

India is a country of many languages, cultures, and identities. Our diversity is an asset, which facilitates the blooming of a wide spectrum of talent. Imposing one culture on rest of the country can lead to avoidable resentment and conflict. The government’s promotion of Hindi as national language has triggered chauvinism based politics. Many people in non-Hindi-speaking states interpret this as an attempt to subsume their regional identities. A way to reduce this conflict is to adopt a two-language formula comprising English and the local language of each state. This approach can help India stay united, protect democracy, and weaken divisive politics.

Why Hindi Creates Tensions

People primarily speak Hindi in India’s northern and central regions, but it’s not India’s primary tongue. Actually, Hindi is an umbrella term for various dialects  like Bundeli, Mythili, and Bhojpuri etc. The southern and eastern states possess distinct and robust cultural and linguistic identities. Every attempt by the central government to promote Hindi as national language is interpreted by these states as imposition. This has led to protests, anger, and distrust, especially in Tamil Nadu, which has a long history of resisting Hindi.

One reason people resist Hindi imposition is the fear that their own languages and cultures will slowly disappear. Widespread use of Hindi might lead to fewer people speaking in their mother tongues. This might happen to youngsters. States like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, with strong ties between language, local identity and history, harbour this concern intensely. A two-language formula can ease these concerns by giving local languages an official and respected role. India’s regional languages are deeply connected to people’s sense of identity, culture, and pride. Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, and many others have rich literary histories and these languages are widely spoken in their regions. A language policy that allows each state to promote and use its local language alongside English can help people feel respected and included. When people feel their language is valued, they are more likely to trust the system and strengthen democracy.

Language Politics Can Backfire

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with its ideological partner the RSS, has often promoted the idea of “one nation, one language.” This is part of its larger vision of cultural unity based on Hindi and Hindu identity. In many ways, language and religion are used together in BJP’s political messaging. Promoting Hindi in schools and public services is often seen as part of the same strategy as building Hindu temples or emphasising Hindu festivals. These steps do not go well with non-Hindi speakers and religious minorities.

Opposition parties counter the BJP’s agenda by highlighting identity based on regional language and culture. This shifts perspectives on personal identity. Hindus, Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis are brought together for a common regional purpose, thus preventing religious division. Language, in this sense, becomes a powerful political tool for unity and resistance. In Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Maharashtra, regional parties have used language pride to challenge the BJP. Opposition parties argue that the BJP is trying to erase local cultures by forcing Hindi on everyone. Regional language, combined with social justice, has become an effective way to rally people. In West Bengal, for example, Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress used Bengali identity to portray the BJP as outsiders. In Maharashtra, opposition parties forced the BJP to cancel its plan to make Hindi the third mandatory language in schools.

English + Local Language Formula

India is a federal country. States ought to determine their own language policies for education and administration. The two-language policy allows for flexibility. This also respects the diversity of the country and avoids a one-size-fits-all approach. It also allows each region to decide whether or how much Hindi or any other language should be included in the academic curricula and everyday usage in administration. A central framework can support this by providing resources and coordination but not by imposing uniform rules.

English, although a colonial legacy, has become a language that does not belong to any one region or group in India. It is used in our Parliament, courts, higher education, business, and the media. People across states already see English as a common language to communicate with others who don’t speak their mother tongue. Because English is not seen as belonging to any one Indian group, it is more acceptable as a link language in India’s southern, eastern and northeastern regions. Using English along with local languages can reduce the feeling of cultural domination that comes with the push for Hindi. Let us not forget that English has been Indianised to the extent that it has become a distinct literary genre in our country.

English is important for getting good jobs, especially in cities and in fields like science, technology, and business. Knowing English gives people access to better education and global opportunities. Also, let us not forget that English is the most accepted language in international diplomacy, trade deals and publishing of research work. At the same time, knowing the local language helps people take part in state-level governance, public services, and cultural life. A policy that promotes both can help Indians become both global citizens and proud members of their own communities. This balance can make people feel less divided and more confident in their identity.

Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy — Tamil and English — for many decades. It rejected the three-language formula (which includes Hindi) that the central government proposed. Despite criticism, this policy has worked well for the state. Tamil Nadu has high literacy levels, a strong identity, and a good representation in national-level jobs and education. The people there are confident in both their regional language and English, although it must be said that the English language teaching standards could have been better. Nevertheless, this model shows that a two-language policy can work and allow people to succeed nationally and globally. 

Social Justice and National Unity: A Long-Term Vision

For the two-language formula to transform politics, it needs to be linked with other issues like caste, poverty, and education. Many of the people who are most affected by language politics are also the ones who face discrimination and lack basic services. Better schools, jobs, and respect make a policy more than just a language plan; it’s a tool for justice.

The two-language formula may not solve all problems immediately. Deep divisions take time to heal. But it can create a base for unity that respects difference; and an environment for diverse flowers to bloom naturally and not wilt under toxic politics. Instead of trying to make everyone speak the same language or follow the same culture, India can show the world how unity in diversity really works. People can feel Indian not because they speak a particular language, but because they are treated with respect and given equal chances — no matter where they live or what language they speak.

Make English Non-Elitist

Even though English can be a unifying language, it also comes with problems. Many Indians feel that English speakers are given more respect, power, and opportunities. This makes people who don’t know English feel left out and insecure. Any language policy must be careful not to promote English in a way that insults or pushes aside Indian languages. The aim should be to raise the level of English learning across the population without weakening local languages. People should feel that knowing English is helpful, and not a reason for snobbery.

To make a two-language formula successful, the government must ensure that good quality English education is available to everyone, including those in rural and poor areas. At present, English education is better in private schools and urban areas. This creates a class divide where the rich speak English and the poor are left behind. It is time to ensure that English is prevented from becoming the language of the privileged. Otherwise it will worsen class inequality and strengthen English elitism. Public investment in teacher training, textbooks, and digital tools is essential.

Digital platforms, social media, and regional news channels can play an important role in promoting a two-language culture. If apps, websites, and YouTube channels offer quality content in English and regional languages, people can learn and communicate more easily. Government and private companies should be encouraged to make more content in Indian languages, while also improving people’s access to English. The goal should be a digital India where everyone, regardless of language, can participate fully in the nation’s growth.

Conclusion: Towards a Fair and Inclusive India

Adopting a two-language formula that gives equal importance to English and local languages could help India move past narrow and divisive politics. It offers a way to balance regional pride with national unity and global progress. It challenges religious nationalism and the fear of cultural domination through Hindi. For it to work, the policy must be inclusive, equitable, and respectful of all communities without any exception. More importantly, it should be part of a broader effort to strengthen democracy, reduce inequality, and protect the rights of all Indians.

India language policy, two-language formula, English and regional languages, Hindi imposition, BJP language politics, linguistic chauvinism India, language-based unity, India bilingual education, regional language rights, English in Indian schools, Tamil Nadu language policy, Maharashtra Hindi rollback, language and democracy, countering BJP narrative, linguistic diversity India, Voice of Sanity YouTube, anti-Hindi protests, India language debate, political use of language India, secular politics India