During the darkest days of India’s COVID-19 crisis, a familiar chorus rose from India’s journalist-activist-celebrity complex. While Indian families struggled through lockdowns and oxygen shortages, a certain class of Indian commentators found time to look longingly at New Zealand and ask: Why can’t we have her?

Rajdeep Sardesai of India Today asked his followers: “When will India get its Jacinda? Or are we stuck with our lot?”

Sumanth Raman tweeted: “Hey New Zealand, can you lend us @jacindaardern for a few months to help us deal with #COVID19?”

Rana Ayyub wrote an entire piece declaring: “New Zealand’s Prime Minister May Be the Most Effective Leader on the Planet,” gushing that “Jacinda Ardern’s leadership style, focused on empathy, isn’t just resonating with her people; it’s putting the country on track for success against the coronavirus.”

Ashok Swain thundered: “Jacinda Ardern’s moral clarity is inspiring the world – particularly when the world has been suffering from right-wing strongmen like Trump, Viktor Orban and Modi of India, whose careers thrive on illiberal, anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

William Dalrymple called her “the progressive antithesis to right-wing strongmen like Trump, Orban and Modi.”

Saba Naqvi called her “so special,” sharing images of Ardern wearing a headscarf.

Sayema wrote: “The reason why the PM of New Zealand and other voices of love wore a headscarf. And if anybody has a doubt still, you really need to first understand what love and compassion are all about.”

Prashant Bhushan connected her Labour party’s victory to a global trend, declaring: “No doubt it will soon happen in India too.”

Jacinda Arden destroyed New Zealand’s economy with her extended lockdown due to the mishandling of Covid19 crisis.
Today abandoned her own nation and fled from there.

And some journalists and intellectuals in India wanted her to replace Narendra Modi as PM of India https://t.co/vNftu1mvvu pic.twitter.com/nCOO2x6nDf

— Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) March 8, 2026

These people did not just admire Jacinda Ardern. They held her up as a living rebuke of Narendra Modi who in their view, was too backward and too right-wing to deserve.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

Jacinda Ardern has left New Zealand.

She and her family have relocated to Sydney, Australia – spotted house-hunting in the city’s affluent northern beaches. The woman India’s liberal elite wanted as their Prime Minister has voted with her feet against the country she governed.

She is not alone. Over the past four years, the number of New Zealanders aged 30-50 emigrating has more than doubled, from 18,000 to 43,000 annually. In the year ending November 2025, nearly 122,000 people emigrated from New Zealand. Nurses, teachers, police officers, engineers, the backbone of the country, are leaving in near-record numbers. Almost 60% are heading to Australia, where median weekly income is 37% higher than in New Zealand.

New Zealand’s housing market has crashed, with Wellington prices down nearly 30% since January 2022. Unemployment has hit a decade high. The economy recorded negative growth in the year to September 2025. The country’s population growth is at its slowest in 12 years.

This is the legacy of the woman Rajdeep Sardesai & Sumanth Raman wanted India to import.

The Silence Is Deafening

Rajdeep Sardesai, who asked “When will India get its Jacinda?” – does he have any questions about why Jacinda herself no longer wants to be in New Zealand?

Rana Ayyub, who called her “the most effective leader on the planet” – does she have any curiosity about what this most effective leader’s policies did to New Zealand’s economy?

Ashok Swain, who invoked her name to attack Modi – is he writing about the 43,000 mid-career New Zealanders who are fleeing annually?

Sumanth Raman, who asked New Zealand to lend her to India – does he want her now? She is available. She is, in fact, already looking for a new home.

The answer, of course, is no. None of them are writing about this. None of them are asking these questions. Because the Jacinda Ardern project was never about New Zealand. It was never about governance, or economic outcomes, or the welfare of actual citizens. It was a political weapon – assembled and aimed exclusively at Narendra Modi and the Indian electorate that kept returning him to power.

The moment she ceased to be useful as a weapon, she ceased to exist in their commentary.

What She Actually Left Behind

A CNN report that broke the news of Ardern’s move to Sydney also documented what Ardern’s New Zealand looks like today:

• A family relocated to Melbourne because the father’s data engineering salary jumped 50% in Australia
• Weekly groceries in Australia cost $267 vs $400 in New Zealand
• Fuel and public transport 40% cheaper in Australia
• GP visits 25% cheaper, with same-day appointments replacing week-long waits in New Zealand
• Unemployment at 5.4% in New Zealand vs 4.2% in Australia
• Median full-time weekly income: $912 in New Zealand vs $1,451 in Australia

This is the “most effective leadership on the planet” in action. Families selling everything they own to escape to Australia. A prime minister who governed with “empathy and moral clarity” now herself joining the exodus she presided over.

Every single leftist liberal used Ardern not to celebrate good governance, but to delegitimise Indian democracy and the Hindu nationalist voter.

They praised her headscarf. They praised her “empathy.” They praised her because she was not Modi. That was the entire content of their admiration.

And now the woman they wanted as India’s Prime Minister has abandoned the country she governed – quietly, without fanfare, without any of her Indian admirers marking the occasion with even a fraction of the energy they spent lionising her during lockdown.

India under Modi, the country these commentators called ungovernable, illiberal and anti-Muslim, is today one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world. Its citizens are not fleeing in record numbers. Its mid-career professionals are not selling their homes to move abroad for a 50% salary increase they cannot find at home.

New Zealand under Ardern, the country these same commentators held up as the ideal, is hemorrhaging its own people at near-record pace, its former Prime Minister included.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Leftists & Congressis Simped For New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern To Replace Modi, Today She Has Fled Her Own Country appeared first on The Commune.

The Indian Express published an opinion piece by DMK/I.N.D.I ally Samajwadi Party spokesperson Ghanshyam Tiwari that attempts to portray a hypothetical Middle East escalation as a “Black Swan event” that could bring down the BJP government. The piece frames a potential conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States not as a serious geopolitical crisis but as a possible political turning point in Indian domestic politics.

It reads less like geopolitical analysis and more like a political prayer that a regional crisis will become the BJP’s electoral undoing. Let us take it apart, claim by claim.

The Indian Express Deleted the Post On X But Left the Article Up

Before even engaging with the article’s content, there is a separate and pointed question of editorial conduct to address. The Indian Express published the op-ed and shared it on its official social media handles.

Then, following a wave of public backlash pointing out the op-ed’s wishful thinking and brazenly partisan framing, the newspaper quietly deleted its social media post promoting the piece. The article, however, remains live on its website.

This tells you everything about the editorial calculus at play. The newspaper knew, after the backlash hit, that the piece was indefensible in public. Deleting the tweet was an acknowledgment of that. Yet the article stayed up, meaning the retraction was not based on principle but on optics management.

The Indian Express wanted to limit the social media damage while keeping the search-engine-indexed article in place for continued circulation. That is not editorial courage. That is having it both ways. A publication with genuine editorial standards would either defend its decision to platform the piece publicly and fully, or issue a correction. Silently deleting the social media post and hoping no one notices is the behaviour of an outlet that knows it got caught, not one that stands behind its editorial choices.

It also reveals the asymmetry in how The Indian Express treats controversy: when backlash comes from the right, the post disappears. When backlash comes from the left, the full editorial apparatus mobilises in defence of the author. The standard is plainly political.

The “Silence” That Wasn’t Silent

The op-ed’s most glaring factual failure is its central charge: that the Modi government “did nothing” and that its “silence speaks volumes.” This is simply false. Within 48 hours of the conflict’s escalation, Prime Minister Modi chaired an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security specifically focused on the safety of India’s nearly 90 lakh Gulf expatriates. He then conducted a rapid diplomatic blitz: holding calls with the leaders of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other Gulf states, condemning the attacks and pressing for de-escalation. The Ministry of External Affairs had in fact issued travel advisories for Iran as early as January 5 and January 14, weeks before hostilities fully escalated, urging Indian nationals to leave by any available means. India issued one again on 23 February 2026.

For the UAE specifically, advisories were issued on February 28 and again on March 3. IndiGo and Air India added special flights to evacuate stranded Indians, and Etihad flights were already resuming operations from Dubai and Abu Dhabi at the time the op-ed was published.

Moreover, India has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to respond effectively during regional emergencies. From Operation Rahat in Yemen (2015) to Operation Ganga in Ukraine (2022) and evacuations during conflicts in West Asia, New Delhi has built a strong record of protecting its citizens abroad when crises unfold.

The insinuation that the government knowingly withheld warnings from expatriate Indians in the Gulf is not analysis; it is speculation bordering on political theatre.

The article either did not know these facts or chose to ignore them. The Indian Express published it either way.​

The IRIS Dena: Weaponising a Tragedy

The sinking of IRIS Dena, a genuine tragedy in which over 100 sailors remain missing, is deployed in the op-ed as evidence of India’s “submission” to the US and Israel. The IRIS Dena was sunk by a US Navy submarine in international waters approximately 20 nautical miles west of Galle within Sri Lanka’s Search and Rescue responsibility zone, not India’s.

India is not a military alliance partner of Iran, was not IRIS Dena’s escort, and has no operational obligation to intercept a US submarine strike in open ocean. Yes, India did invite Iran to participate in the MILAN 2026. Once a participating vessel departs Indian waters and re-enters the open ocean, it reverts fully to its own nation’s operational command and responsibility. India has zero legal, operational, or treaty-based obligation to escort it beyond Indian territorial or exclusive economic zone waters.

No navy in the world escorts foreign exercise participants back to their homeports. The US, UK, France – none of them escort Indian Navy ships back to Visakhapatnam after joint exercises. The obligation simply does not exist in any framework of international maritime law or naval protocol. Holding India responsible for IRIS Dena’s fate after it left Indian waters would be equivalent to holding a host country responsible for a visiting diplomat’s car accident after they crossed the border. The logic does not survive basic scrutiny.

The Indian Navy is, however, already conducting search and rescue operations, which is exactly what India can and should do.

The Strategic Autonomy India Is Actually Exercising

The deeper geopolitical reality the article deliberately ignores: India is the only major power talking to all sides simultaneously. Modi has engaged Netanyahu, Gulf Arab leaders, and kept Iranian diplomatic channels open. India abstained rather than aligned during relevant international deliberations. India has very little to gain by taking a hard stand in such a situation. This is not submission to the US-Israel axis, as the article implies. If it were, a nuclear-armed India with US-supplied technology would have been an active staging ground for strikes on Iran. It obviously is not.

India today is one of the few countries that maintains working relationships with every major power bloc in the Middle East. This diplomatic flexibility, often described as strategic autonomy or multi-alignment, allows New Delhi to protect its interests in an increasingly polarised world.

The region has faced crises before, and it will face them again. India’s response will continue to be guided not by partisan anxieties but by long-standing principles of pragmatic diplomacy, strategic balance, and the protection of Indian citizens worldwide.

That is not geopolitical analysis. It is partisan speculation masquerading as strategy.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK Ally SP Spokesperson’s Op-Ed In Indian Express Calls Iran War A ‘Black Swan’ For BJP; IE Deletes Post After Backlash, Keeps Article On Website appeared first on The Commune.

At a recent NDA rally, AMMK chief TTV Dhinakaran thundered: “Then it was the Pandya king who drove out the dark rulers, today it is Modi who will do the same.” The king he was referring to was Kadungon, the 6th-century Pandya monarch who ended nearly 300 years of oppressive foreign rule over Tamil Nadu. Here is the story of that remarkable king.

Tamil Nadu’s Forgotten Dark Age

Most people know Tamil history through its golden eras – the Sangam age of great poetry, the Chola empire of magnificent temples, the Pandya dynasty of maritime glory. But tucked between the Sangam age and the medieval period lies a chapter that Tamil history textbooks rarely dwell upon: the Kalabhra interregnum.​

Around the 3rd century CE, a mysterious dynasty called the Kalabhras swept through Tamil Nadu and overthrew all three crowned kings – the Cheras, the Cholas, and the Pandyas. Who exactly the Kalabhras were, remains debated among historians. Some believe they were a clan from the northern Deccan; others argue they were a local group that rose to power exploiting a political vacuum. What is clear, however, is what they did once they seized power.

The Kalabhras dismantled the existing social and religious order. Hindu temples were neglected or destroyed. The royal patronage that had sustained Tamil poets, scholars, and artists during the Sangam age dried up entirely. The magnificent courts that had once resonated with the verses of Thiruvalluvar, Ilango Adigal, and the Sangam poets fell silent. This dark period lasted not a decade, not a century, but nearly 300 years.

The Man Who Rose Against the Darkness

Around 560 CE, in the lineage of the ancient Pandyas, a king was born who would change the course of Tamil history. His name was Kadungon – a name that translates roughly as “the fierce one” or “the relentless one”. The name would prove fitting.

Kadungon understood something that many before him had not: that the Kalabhras could not be defeated by one kingdom alone. He forged a strategic alliance with Simhavishnu, the powerful Pallava king who ruled from Kanchipuram in the north. This was a masterstroke of political diplomacy. The Pallavas were expanding their influence southward anyway, and joining forces with the Pandyas gave them a powerful southern ally. For Kadungon, it meant a two-pronged military campaign that the Kalabhras could not withstand.​

From the north came the Pallava armies. From the south came Kadungon and his Pandya warriors. Caught between two powerful kingdoms, the Kalabhra grip over Tamil Nadu collapsed.

The Liberation of Madurai

The single most important historical record of this victory is the Velvikudi Copper Plates – inscriptions commissioned by a later Pandya king, Parantaka Nedunchadaiyan, that look back and credit Kadungon as the founder of the revived Pandya dynasty. According to these inscriptions, the lands that had been seized and gifted away by the Kalabhras were reclaimed. The Pandyas were back – not as vassals, not as subordinates, but as the undisputed rulers of the Tamil south.​

Kadungon carried the grand title of Pandyadhiraja, meaning Emperor of the Pandyas. Madurai, the ancient city of temples and Tamil learning, was freed from foreign rule and restored as the glittering capital of a reborn kingdom.

More Than a Military Victory

What made Kadungon’s triumph truly historic was that it was not merely a change of ruler – it was a civilisational restoration:​

• Shaivite temples were reopened and reconstructed, with worship rituals revived after generations of suppression​
• Tamil poets and scholars once again found royal patronage and protection at the Madurai court​
• The ancient Pandya lineage, which traced itself back to the earliest Sangam-era kings, was formally re-established with all its ceremonial glory
• Trade routes, which had weakened during the Kalabhra period, were revitalised as Madurai reasserted its commercial dominance

​Kadungon was also a deeply religious king who personally championed Shaivism, helping lay the groundwork for the great Bhakti movement that would later produce saints like Thirugnana Sambandar and Sundarar – figures who would go on to transform the religious landscape of the entire subcontinent.

The Dynasty He Built

Kadungon did not just liberate Tamil Nadu – he founded an empire. His son Maravarman Avanisulamani consolidated the gains, and the kings who followed – Sendan, Arikesari Maravarman, and others, expanded Pandya power across South India.

The Pandya dynasty that Kadungon revived would go on to outlast the Pallavas, compete with the Cholas, and at its medieval peak under Maravarman Sundara Pandyan and Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan, become one of the wealthiest and most powerful dynasties in all of Asia – exporting pearls, cotton, and spices across the Indian Ocean world.​

• Before Kadungon: 300 years of darkness.
• After Kadungon: over 1,000 years of Pandya glory. That single fact captures the magnitude of what he achieved.​

​The Political Parallel TTV Drew

When TTV Dhinakaran invoked Kadungon at the NDA rally, comparing him to Prime Minister Modi ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections, he was reaching for one of Tamil history’s most resonant symbols – a king who ended 300 years of foreign domination and restored native rule to Madurai.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Kadungon: The Pandya King Who Ended Tamil Nadu’s 300-Year Dark Age appeared first on The Commune.

BJP leader K Annamalai showcased his trademark sharp wit on social media after actor Prakash Raj took a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s latest digital milestone.

The exchange began after Modi’s official Instagram account crossed the 100 million followers mark, a significant social media achievement for any global political leader. Celebrating the moment on X, Annamalai wrote that while others lose sleep trying to “crack the algorithm,” the Prime Minister “doesn’t crack it, he is the algorithm,” adding that Modi defines trends the world follows.

Others spend sleepless nights trying to crack the algorithm.

Our Hon PM Thiru @narendramodi avl doesn’t crack it, he is the algorithm.

He defines. The world follows.

100 MILLION followers on Instagram for our Hon PM! pic.twitter.com/1DZXdqZ9Jx

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) February 26, 2026

Soon after, radical leftist and DMK stooge who is also a known Modi hater, Prakash Raj responded with a terse remark: “Any use??? The Nation wants to know #justasking,” appearing to question the relevance of the follower milestone.

Any use ??? The Nation wants to know #justasking https://t.co/SFSxhLLzav

— Prakash Raj (@prakashraaj) February 26, 2026

Annamalai quickly fired back with a pointed and humorous retort. Addressing the actor as “Anna,” he posted what he called unsolicited advice, and said, “Anna. Unsolicited advice! Gelusil for the acidity and Burnol for the burns, both might come in handy right about now. #justsaying”

Anna. Unsolicited advice!

Gelusil for the acidity and Burnol for the burns, both might come in handy right about now. #justsaying https://t.co/n1ZjcnFCX7

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) February 27, 2026

Prime Minister Modi remains one of the most-followed political leaders globally on social media platforms, and the latest milestone has once again highlighted the growing role of digital reach in contemporary political messaging.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘Gelusil For Acidity, Burnol For Burns’: BJP’s Annamalai Gives Sharp Reply To Modi Hater Prakash Raj’s ‘Unsolicited Advice’ appeared first on The Commune.

Moving beyond the traditional confines of the Delhi Durbar and the bureaucratic fortress of the ‘South Block’, India’s foreign policy has definitively reached a new dimension today. For several decades, whenever foreign heads of state visited India, their itinerary was remarkably predictable and confined to a very narrow geographic and cultural circle. This standard diplomatic route usually began at the airport, moved to the Rashtrapati Bhavan, continued to Hyderabad House for official dialogues, and concluded with a customary photo opportunity at the Taj Mahal.

However, since the geopolitical shift in 2014, this stagnant situation has been completely turned upside down.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government has strategically diverted its high-stakes diplomatic meetings. These engagements have been moved out of the air-conditioned, sterile rooms of New Delhi and decentralized into India’s vibrant cultural and commercial centers.

Today, every major city in India has evolved into an important piece on the global political chessboard. This is evidenced by events such as the roadshow with the Japanese Prime Minister in Ahmedabad, the beach stroll with the Chinese President in Mamallapuram, the spiritual Ganga Aarti worship in Varanasi, and the signing of critical defense agreements with the French President in Mumbai.

This deliberate structural shift in statecraft is termed ‘Para-Diplomacy’ or ‘City Diplomacy’. What exactly is the political, economic, and cultural strategy operating behind this framework? Let us examine it in detail.

Decentralization of Power: India Beyond Delhi

For a very long time, the mere mention of India brought only the political power of Delhi and the historical monument of Agra to the minds of foreign observers. But India is by no means a single monoculture. It is a vast, diverse subcontinent. Every individual state within this union possesses a highly unique economic profile and a distinct cultural identity.

Prime Minister Modi’s decentralized approach to hosting international leaders is a fundamental part of the “Cooperative Federalism” philosophy. By physically taking foreign leaders out to various states, the government ensures that the specific investment opportunities of those respective regions are taken directly to world leaders. Therefore, this city-hopping approach is not merely tourism; it is a calculated and highly effective economic strategy.

Ahmedabad: The Center of Personal Chemistry

Guests: Friedrich Merz (Germany – 2026), Shinzo Abe (Japan – 2017), Xi Jinping (China – 2014), Donald Trump (USA – 2020)

Gujarat’s commercial hub, Ahmedabad, has today transformed into the second capital of India’s diplomacy. The recent visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Ahmedabad serves as an excellent contemporary example of this shift. When the Chancellor was seen spinning Gandhi’s charkha at the Sabarmati Ashram, it was not just a historical symbol. It was a deliberate attempt to convey to the world that Gujarat is an excellent, ready-made platform for investments from Germany’s ‘Mittelstand’ (medium-sized enterprises).

Furthermore, since Gujarat is Prime Minister Modi’s home state, the relationships forged with leaders visiting here easily transcend stiff political formalities. They naturally blossom into genuine personal friendships.

Shinzo Abe (2017): Taking the Japanese Prime Minister to Ahmedabad and conducting a massive roadshow in an open vehicle prominently showcased the closeness and trust between the two leaders. As a direct result of this deep bilateral trust, India’s first high-speed bullet train project (connecting Mumbai and Ahmedabad) became possible.

Xi Jinping (2014): The iconic scene of Prime Minister Modi sitting and talking on a traditional swing with the Chinese President on the banks of the Sabarmati River was a pivotal moment. It represented an attempt to normalize and stabilize relations between the two great powers of Asia.

This is precisely where the concept of “Personal Diplomacy” works best. Stripped of the rigid protocols of Delhi, this relaxed environment inherently helps global leaders to converse more naturally and openly.

Chennai (Mamallapuram): Dravidian Architecture and the Chinese Connection

Guest: Xi Jinping (China – 2019)

The location carefully chosen by Prime Minister Modi for the second Informal Summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2019 was Mamallapuram, situated near Chennai. This specific selection held immense historical significance.

Historical Message: The ancient Pallava kings, who ruled during the 7th century AD, maintained extensive maritime trade and deep diplomatic ties with China. Furthermore, the revered monk Bodhidharma traveled to China originating from Kanchipuram. By actively recalling this deep historical bond, Modi subtly yet firmly conveyed to Beijing that India is an ancient civilization entirely on par with China.

Dhoti Diplomacy: The visual optics of Prime Minister Modi welcoming the Chinese President while wearing the traditional Tamil attire of a dhoti and shirt boldly proclaimed India’s rich cultural diversity on the world stage.

Maritime Dominance: Geographically, Mamallapuram is located directly on the shores of the Bay of Bengal. This location choice was also viewed as a geopolitical strategy to signify and assert India’s paramount importance to China within the broader “Indian Ocean Region”.

Varanasi (Kashi): Spiritual Soft Power

Guests: Shinzo Abe (Japan – 2015), Emmanuel Macron (France – 2018), Pravind Jugnauth (Mauritius)

Varanasi stands out as one of the world’s oldest living cities, and it notably serves as the parliamentary constituency of Prime Minister Modi. The strategic purpose of taking foreign leaders to this sacred geography is to prominently showcase India’s “Spiritual Leadership” to the globe.

Ganga Aarti: Sitting on the revered banks of the river Ganges alongside Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and collectively watching the evening Aarti rituals created a remarkably deep cultural bond.

Buddhist Connection: Because Japan is inherently a Buddhist nation, the profound spiritual connection with Kashi and nearby Sarnath emotionally linked both countries on a civilizational level.

Cultural Foundation: While many Western nations primarily project their economic or military strength, India confidently projects its cultural antiquity as a pillar of its foreign policy. A diplomatic visit to Varanasi effectively conveys to global leaders that forging a relationship with India is not just an entry into a massive consumer market but is fundamentally a civilizational connection.

Mumbai: The Economic and Defence Hub

Guest: Emmanuel Macron (France – 2026)

If New Delhi operates as the political capital, Mumbai undoubtedly reigns as India’s economic capital. French President Emmanuel Macron recently landing in Mumbai sends a very clear and pragmatic message to the world: “We are ready to do business”.

Defense Agreements: When highly complex, billion-dollar defense pacts such as those involving Rafale fighter jets and Scorpene-class submarines are being negotiated and discussed, Mumbai is the most appropriate arena. This is because it is the home turf of India’s preeminent corporate leaders, including the heads of Tata, Reliance, and Mahindra.

Investment Gateway: Moreover, Mumbai serves as the primary gateway for European capital investments and ‘FinTech’ (Financial Technology) partnerships. President Macron’s visit officially confirms that both France and the wider European Union increasingly view India as a highly capable, alternative manufacturing hub.

Bengaluru: The Future of Technology

Guests: Friedrich Merz (2026), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel – 2018), Angela Merkel (Germany – 2015)

Bengaluru is globally recognized as India’s Silicon Valley. The underlying purpose of world leaders visiting this southern metropolis is completely different from other cities, it is strictly focused on “Future Tech”.

Research and Development: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently conducted focused visits to the ‘Bosch’ company facilities and the IISc (Indian Institute of Science) in Bengaluru. Through this engagement, he effectively proved to the global market that India is no longer just a country that writes software codes in a “Back office” capacity. Rather, it has evolved into a formidable superpower in high-tech research (R&D) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Israel Relationship: Similarly, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Bengaluru, the event served as a powerful convergence of two globally recognized “Startup Nations”. During this visit, a wide array of future-focused topics ranging from advanced agricultural technology to critical cyber security frameworks were extensively discussed.

Delhi: The Strategic Fortress

Guest: Vladimir Putin (Russia – 2025)

Even after actively decentralizing diplomatic power to so many regional cities, New Delhi still resolutely remains India’s primary “Strategic Fortress”. Specifically, bilateral relations with global powers like Russia remain highly sensitive and require a traditional setting.

Consequently, when Russian President Vladimir Putin visits India, these engagements mostly happen strictly within Delhi. Delhi’s secure “Hyderabad House” remains the most suited venue for highly crucial yet confidential negotiations, such as those regarding S-400 missile defense systems, sensitive nuclear energy agreements, and complex United Nations reforms. Simultaneously, Delhi has now also risen as an essential global center capable of hosting massive multilateral conferences, effectively demonstrated by the G-20 Summit and the AI Summit.

The New Era of Diplomacy: What are the Benefits?

Prime Minister Modi’s innovative “City Diplomacy” has brought several tangible benefits to India:

Inter-state Competition: Now, major states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Karnataka are actively engaging in healthy, robust competition amongst themselves to aggressively attract foreign investments. In this new paradigm, State Chief Ministers have also rightfully gained a proactive role in shaping foreign policy outcomes.

Brand India: The outdated international image of India merely as a “country of the poor” has been thoroughly shattered. In its place, a powerful new image of a “diverse economic superpower” has been systematically built.

Tourism Growth: Whenever world leaders visit a specific regional location, that place immediately grabs the intense attention of global media networks. Unsurprisingly, the tourism sectors of Mamallapuram and Varanasi have grown tremendously following the highly publicized visits of Xi Jinping and Shinzo Abe.

To Sum-up

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has successfully transformed Indian foreign policy from being merely a sterile “topic of discussion for the elites” into a vibrant “celebration of the people”. A German leader flying a kite in the skies of Ahmedabad, a Japanese leader actively performing a traditional pooja in Varanasi, and a French president casually sipping tea in Mumbai are by no means ordinary events.

These are, in fact, incredibly powerful diplomatic messages conveying to the entire world that India is fully ready to join hands with the modern global economy while fiercely preserving its deep cultural roots.

In the coming times, it is clear that India’s foreign policy trajectory will not be decided solely within the corridors of Delhi’s ‘South Block’. It will also be actively decided on the coastal beaches of Chennai, within the cutting-edge tech parks of Bengaluru, and upon the sacred ghats of Varanasi. This beautifully decentralized and deeply rooted approach is the true face of the New India.

Ganesh Kumar is a geo-political analyst.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Not Just Photo-Ops: The Hard Strategy Behind Modi’s City Diplomacy Push appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and DMK scion Udhayanidhi Stalin has sparked a political controversy after his sharp remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a recent address, drawing strong reactions ahead of the Assembly elections.

Speaking at a party event, Udhayanidhi criticised the Union government’s policies and leadership style. He said, “Union Prime Minister Mr. Modi appears on television from time to time. Whenever he appears on TV, people become anxious – wondering what he is going to say this time.”

Referring to past decisions of the Centre, he added, “In 2020, you will remember, one day he suddenly appeared on television and said coronavirus was coming and that the only way to handle it was for everyone to go inside their homes and remain shut in for a month.”

He added, “In 2016, in the same way, he suddenly came on TV and announced demonetisation, saying the ₹500 and ₹1000 notes people had would no longer be valid.” He further alleged that “so many people, hundreds of people died standing in queues under the sun.”

Contrasting the Centre with the state government, Udhayanidhi said the BJP-led Union government was “a government that snatches from the people,” while the DMK’s Dravidian Model government “always gives to the people.”

He also accused the Centre of attempting to undermine Tamil Nadu’s growth and rights, alleging efforts to impose Hindi and Sanskrit through the New Education Policy and claiming that the Union Budget had not allocated schemes for the state. He said, “The Union BJP government is now planning how to obstruct that progress. They are trying to take away every right – language rights, education rights, financial rights. By bringing the New Education Policy, they are trying to bring Hindi and Sanskrit into Tamil Nadu. Mr. Amit Shah and Mr. Modi, who never used to even look towards Tamil Nadu, have started coming frequently now that elections are approaching. Only they will come, but no funds will come to Tamil Nadu, no schemes will come.”

He added, “Recently the Union government presented its Budget. If you look at that Budget, no scheme was allotted to Tamil Nadu. But even before they finished reading the Budget fully, praise came from Tamil Nadu – from the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Edappadi Palaniswami. That is why today Edappadi Palaniswami is praising the Budget.”

Targeting AIADMK leader Edappadi K. Palaniswami, Udhayanidhi said, “We have seen many extreme devotees (murattu bhaktar)in politics; we have seen extreme party workers (murattu thondar). But today, Mr. Edappadi Palaniswami has become an “extreme slave” to Mr. Modi.” He further alleged that Palaniswami had progressively surrendered the AIADMK to the BJP between 2019 and 2026.

The Deputy Chief Minister’s most controversial remark came when he asserted, “Today across India they are trying to threaten movements using agencies like the ED and CBI. To all this, our leader gave a clear reply yesterday in Madurai – What cases will you file? Are these cases that DMK cadres have not seen before? The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is a movement that stood up even against the Army during the language struggle; it is a movement that faced MISA. Even if our lives go, we will never give up our self-respect. We will never give up Tamil Nadu’s rights.”

He added, “That is why I keep saying – we are not afraid of the ED, we are not afraid of Modi. Even if not Modi, even if Modi’s daddy comes, we are ready to face them.”

BJP’s Shehzad Poonawalla Hits Back At Udhayanidhi Stalin

Following this, the BJP launched a sharp attack on the DMK, with party leaders accusing the ruling party of lowering political discourse.

BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla criticised both the DMK and its ally Congress, referring to last week’s protest at the India AI Impact Summit and Udhayanidhi’s earlier comments on Sanatan Dharma.

“Congress went shirtless, topless, and characterless in the way it protested at the AI Summit. Actually, it was not a protest; it was a disruption. And now the DMK, its ally, has gone senseless, ethicless, and moralless,” Poonawalla told news agency ANI.

Escalating his attack, Poonawalla alleged that Udhayanidhi Stalin had repeatedly made objectionable remarks.

“Udhayanidhi Stalin, who has given death threats to Hindus and called for the genocide of Hindus, is now targeting the Prime Minister’s late father. Imagine. In the Bihar elections, the I.N.D.I. Alliance targeted and abused his mother. They have used more than 150 abusive words, especially against his mother and father, particularly because he comes from the OBC community,” he said.

“They have abused his family and his background. They have abused him for being a chaiwala. They have said, “Modi, teri kabar khudegi,” and threatened that he would die or be killed, using violent language like “lathi dande.” Now Udhayanidhi Stalin, who has said that he wants to exterminate Hindus and eradicate Sanatan, and for which the High Court has come down heavily on him, has delivered such hate speech. And now he is abusing the Prime Minister’s late father. This shows the journey from shirtless to shameless, from characterless to senseless. This is the directionless I.N.D.I. Alliance. They talk about the Constitution, but they are an ‘abuse ki dukaan’,” Poonawalla added.

VIDEO | Delhi: On Tamil Nadu Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on PM Narendra Modi’s father, BJP leader Shehzad Poonawalla says, “Congress went shirtless, topless, and characterless with the way it protested at the AI Summit. It was not protest, it was disruption. Now DMK,… pic.twitter.com/21nnMXLo5J

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) February 23, 2026

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Even If Modi’s Daddy Comes, We’re Ready”, Says DMK Scion Udhayanidhi Stalin; BJP Hits Back appeared first on The Commune.

In the cacophony of modern geopolitics, where leaders often govern by tweet and diplomacy is frequently conducted through megaphone posturing, silence has become a rare commodity. It is often mistaken for weakness, indecision, or submission. However, a deeper analysis of the last decade of Indian governance under Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggests the emergence of a counter-intuitive doctrine: the weaponization of strategic silence and strategic tolerance.

The premise is provocative but compelling: had India adopted the aggressive, “Wolf Warrior” stance favoured by some of its neighbours, it might have found itself isolated, sanctioned, or embroiled in exhausting conflicts. Instead, by absorbing short-term criticism and tolerating the geopolitical eccentricities of allies and adversaries alike, India has not only survived but thrived. As the late Singaporean visionary Lee Kuan Yew famously remarked, statecraft often involves navigating not just the malice of enemies, but the “bloody stupidity of friends.”

This article argues that Modi’s calculated restraint, his refusal to engage in every fight invited upon him, has been the cornerstone of India’s rise, effectively putting the nation on the map in a way that aggression never could.

The Anatomy of Strategic Silence

To understand Modi’s silence, one must distinguish between passive silence (born of helplessness) and active silence (born of strategy). The former is the silence of a victim; the latter is the silence of a predator waiting for the dust to settle.

In the early years of his tenure, critics and opponents frequently baited the Prime Minister to respond to every domestic controversy, every scathing editorial in the Western press, and every provocation from across the border. The expectation was a gladiatorial combat of words. Modi’s refusal to engage in this “noise” was often misread as avoidance. In hindsight, it appears to be a disciplined preservation of political capital.

The Trump Trade War Case Study

A prime example of this occurred during the Donald Trump presidency. Trump, known for his transactional and often abrasive style, frequently publicly harangued India over tariffs, famously dubbing India the “tariff king” and threatening consequences. An aggressive leader might have clapped back, citing US protectionism or initiating a public trade spat.

Instead, New Delhi adopted a posture of strategic silence. There were no angry tweets from the PMO. The response was bureaucratic, dull, and quiet. Behind the scenes, India negotiated, bought American oil to balance the trade deficit, and waited. The result? The relationship survived the volatility of the Trump era intact, and when the administration changed, India was not left with the baggage of burnt bridges. As recent analysis suggests, this silence forced the other side to blink, realizing that India could not be goaded into a disadvantageous public negotiation.

Denying the Oxygen of Publicity

Strategic silence also functions as a denial of legitimacy. When international bodies or celebrity activists criticize India’s internal matters, be it the revocation of Article 370 or the CAA, the Indian state’s highest levels often refrain from direct engagement. By delegating the rebuttal to lower-level functionaries or simply ignoring the critique, the leadership denies the critics the “oxygen” of a Prime Ministerial response. This reduces a potential diplomatic crisis to a mere news cycle, which eventually fades.

Strategic Tolerance: The “Lee Kuan Yew” Protocol

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the founding father of modern Singapore, was a pragmatist who understood that a nation, especially a developing one, cannot afford the luxury of emotional foreign policy. His observation that “We have to remember all the time that we are not dealing with an enemy, but the bloody stupidity of a friend” is perhaps the most accurate summary of India’s current diplomatic challenges.

India is surrounded by friends and partners who often act against India’s interests, not out of malice, but out of short-sightedness or internal political compulsion (“stupidity”).

The Maldives and Bangladesh Paradox

Consider India’s neighbourhood. In recent years, regimes in the Maldives and Bangladesh have oscillated between “India First” policies and anti-India rhetoric. When the Maldives recently elected a leader who campaigned on an “India Out” platform, the clamour in Indian social media was for aggression – sanctions, tourism boycotts, or muscular intervention.

Modi’s government, however, chose strategic tolerance. It quietly withdrew military personnel as requested but kept the lines of development aid and trade open. It tolerated the “stupidity” of the anti-India rhetoric, betting that geography and economics would eventually force reality to dawn on Malé.

Had India aggressively punished the Maldives; it would have pushed them permanently into China’s embrace. By tolerating the insult, India remained the “first responder” and the inevitable partner when the political winds shifted.

The Russian Tightrope

The war in Ukraine presented the ultimate test of tolerance. India’s Western “friends”, the US and Europe, exerted immense pressure on New Delhi to condemn Russia. They failed to understand India’s defense dependence and historical ties. This was the “stupidity of friends” in action: demanding India sacrifice its national security for a European war.

An aggressive India might have publicly lashed out at Western hypocrisy (pointing to Iraq or Afghanistan). While External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did deliver sharp reality checks, the Prime Minister maintained a stoic, leader-to-leader tolerance. He told President Putin, “This is not an era of war,” appeasing the West, yet refused to sanction Russia, protecting India’s interests. This tolerance of Western pressure, absorbing the lectures without snapping the alliance, allowed India to emerge as one of the few powers capable of talking to both Washington and Moscow.

Why Aggression Would Have Failed

Had Modi taken aggressive stand, India could have been in “great trouble.” Let us try to do a counterfactual analysis:

What if India had adopted the “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy of China?

Economic Isolation: Aggression scares capital. India’s primary goal is economic growth ($5 Trillion economy). Had India aggressively retaliated against every negative report from the US or UK, or militarily engaged in every border skirmish, the risk premium on investing in India would have skyrocketed. Strategic silence projects stability; aggression projects volatility.

The China Trap: China wants India to be aggressive. If India reacts impulsively to border provocations, it plays into a game where China has the military and economic upper hand. By refusing to escalate on the enemy’s timeline (e.g., the quiet but firm mirror-deployment in Ladakh without declaring all-out war), India denied China the casus belli it might have sought.

Loss of the “Vishwaguru” Moral High Ground: India aspires to be a Vishwaguru (Teacher to the World) and a voice for the Global South. Aggression is the language of imperialists; tolerance is the language of civilizational wisdom. By sending vaccines (Vaccine Maitri) even to nations that criticized it, India displayed a strategic tolerance that bought goodwill money cannot buy.

The Domestic Dimension: Silence as Governance

This doctrine applies internally as well. India is a noisy democracy. The “stupidity of friends” also applies to domestic allies and the electorate’s volatile nature.

Modi has often been criticized for not holding press conferences. However, in the age of gotcha-journalism, a press conference is rarely an exchange of information; it is a theatre of conflict. By bypassing this mechanism and communicating directly with the people (via Mann Ki Baat or social media), the leader avoids the trap of having his words twisted to fuel the 24-hour outrage cycle.

Furthermore, strategic silence has allowed the administration to push through contentious reforms. When reforms face backlash (like the Farm Laws), the government’s eventual withdrawal was not a sign of weakness, but a form of tolerance, acknowledging that the social fabric was being stretched too thin, and that preserving internal peace was more strategic than enforcing a specific policy at that moment.

The Power of Pause

Lee Kuan Yew built Singapore by swallowing his pride when necessary and striking only when the iron was hot. He understood that for a nation to rise, it must sometimes endure the indignity of being misunderstood.

Modi’s India seems to have internalized this. The silence is not empty; it is pregnant with intent. The tolerance is not submission; it is the patience of a civilization that thinks in centuries, not news cycles.

• Aggression makes headlines.
• Tolerance makes history.
• Silence makes space for results.

In a world full of noise, the man who speaks less but does more holds the cards. By tolerating the “stupidity of friends” and the “provocations of enemies,” India has avoided the traps that have ensnared other rising powers. It has placed itself on the map not as a disruptor, but as a stabilizer – a “safe harbour” in a geopolitical storm. And in the long game of nations, that is the only victory that counts.

Ganesh Kumar is a geo-political analyst.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Modi’s Doctrine Of Silence: How Strategic Restraint Became India’s Sharpest Weapon appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, while delivering the keynote address at the India Today Tamil Nadu Roundtable, highlighted his government’s welfare initiatives and claimed that several states were studying and adopting schemes implemented under the “Dravidian model.”

Referring specifically to women’s welfare infrastructure, Stalin said that multiple states had sent officials to study Tamil Nadu’s initiatives and added that even the Union Government had drawn inspiration from the State’s “Thozhi Hostel” model while announcing a nationwide scheme for working women.

Speaking at the event, he said, “Looking at the Dravidian model govt schemes, several states are keen to adopt those schemes and send officers to do case study. Even now, taking our Thozhi hostel as a model, the union government announced a scheme in the budget.”

However, the Chief Minister’s remarks and claims misrepresent both the historical record and the funding structure behind such hostels in Tamil Nadu.

கடந்த 2022 ஆம் ஆண்டு நிதியாண்டு தொடக்க நாளான ஏப்ரல் மாதம் 1 அன்று, மத்திய அரசு கொண்டு வந்த பணிபுரியும் மகளிருக்கான சக்தி நிவாஸ் திட்டத்தின் கீழ் வழங்கப்பட்ட நிதியில், 2023 ஆம் ஜூலை 13 அன்று தொடங்கப்பட்டதே தோழி விடுதி. இதற்காக, தமிழகத்துக்கு மத்திய அரசு ₹223 கோடி நிதி ஒதுக்கீடு… pic.twitter.com/oTj3ZgmmfQ

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) February 11, 2026

On 1 February 2026, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced in the Union Budget that working women’s hostels would be established in every district across India. Following the announcement, Dravidianist voices, DMK spokespersons, and aligned media platforms amplified the narrative that Tamil Nadu had already implemented such a model as early as 2010 under the “Dravidian model.”

However, available records indicate that working women’s hostels in Tamil Nadu significantly predate 2010 and that a substantial portion of the existing infrastructure was created under previous administrations.

Government data shows that as early as 1980–81, during AIADMK rule, government-run working women’s hostels were established in several districts of the state. Of the 24 such hostels functioning in Tamil Nadu as of 2024, 20 were started during AIADMK tenures.

Sticker alert!!!
Please see the screenshot. Out of 21 such hostels functioning in the State until 2024, 20 were started during AIADMK rule. https://t.co/Q6aapVTQ6y pic.twitter.com/n7gCHwZFcZ

— Sumanth Raman (@sumanthraman) February 2, 2026

Funding details further complicate the narrative being projected. According to official documents, the Central Government provides the majority share of funds for the construction of working women’s hostels in Tamil Nadu. Under the centrally sponsored “Sakhi Niwas” initiative for working women on 1 April 2022, the Centre contributes 60% of the project cost, with the Tamil Nadu government contributing the remaining 40%. These hostels are implemented nationwide, including in Tamil Nadu, where the DMK government branded them as “Thozhi hostels”/ Thozhi Viduthi initiative was launched on 13 July 2023.

Financial data shows that the Union Government allocated ₹223 crore to Tamil Nadu under the scheme and released ₹147.18 crore toward its implementation.

In the Union Budget 2024–25, presented in July 2024, Sitharaman announced that the Centre would establish working women’s hostels in collaboration with industries and create crèches to improve women’s workforce participation.

Earlier documentation from August 2021, released by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, shows that the Centre sanctioned funds to the Tamil Nadu government for a working women’s hostel with a daycare facility in Tambaram district. The project, executed by the Tamil Nadu Working Women Hostel Corporation Limited, received a non-recurring central grant of ₹7.005 crore, representing 60 per cent of the total approved project cost of ₹11.675 crore. The first instalment released amounted to ₹3.5025 crore, accounting for 50 per cent of the Centre’s share.

The documents also clarify that the Working Women Hostel scheme functions as a sub-scheme under the Centrally Sponsored Umbrella Scheme Mission for Protection & Empowerment for Women, with the Centre–State funding ratio fixed at 60:40.

Good Joke. தோழி Hostel in itself is a Modi Govt. introduced 60:40 scheme where’s 60% funding is borne by Central Govt…

கூச்சமே இல்லையா @Kalaignarnews ?? https://t.co/CJ8E4os4cP pic.twitter.com/wEXJfYUxwa

— Dr.SG Suryah (@SuryahSG) July 23, 2024

So whichever way it is looked at, the Dravidianists have been peddling a lie for the past 2 years and repeating it to push the “Dravidian Model” narrative once again.

And they continue to peddle the same lie even at several big platforms like those of India Today.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post TN CM Stalin Once Again Pastes ‘Dravidian Model’ Sticker On Women’s Hostel Initiative Funded By Modi Govt appeared first on The Commune.

Actor Kishore, whose latest film Mellisai recently hit theatres, has stirred political debate following remarks he made against PM Modi during an interview with a YouTube channel while promoting the film.

When asked what he would change if given an opportunity, Kishore responded with a sharply political answer.

“I don’t know if you’ll telecast it, but I’ll say it anyway. I’ll go back to 2014 and change the Prime Minister. Will you telecast this? Go ahead, let’s see. India itself would have been different. So the amount of hatred we see today, oh, it’s very dangerous. It will take decades to change this. If it continues like this, very dangerous people.”

He went on to link what he described as rising hatred to global political trends.

“No, now even in this movie we are promoting, we talk about that love/affection. Without love, nothing exists. Humans can’t even live together without it. So, if you hate each other, how can you live together? That hatred is what they invest in to, and one man comes to power. So, they are very dangerous people. For any community, whether a small community, a country, or the whole world, very dangerous. Such people are in power now. Everywhere, majority it is them. Look at Trump, look at him (Modi), everyone’s like that. So, it’s quite dangerous for social animals like human beings.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Indiaglitz Tamil (@indiaglitz_tamil)

Speaking about the Jana Nayagan issue and political participation, Kishore said he had not been able to take part in protests physically.

“I did not have time to go on the ground and protest so we only indulge in online activism. But everyone must have a chance. Anybody who wants to enter public life, politics isn’t a power position; it’s a job serving people. They are working for the people, servant.”

Drawing comparisons with past leaders, he added: “Jawaharlal Nehru said the same thing. He said he was the Pratham Sevak – the first servant. Modi said ‘Pradhan Sevak’ – when you say Pradhan, it indicates you are the main one. Jawaharlal Nehru said otherwise, in the socialist movement that is what happened.”

Kishore further spoke about democratic participation and institutional functioning.

“Everyone must have a chance. Anybody who wants to serve the people must have a chance. Politics that is curbing that is on the rise these days. Be it misusing democratic institutions, all this is there.”

He concluded by reiterating that his film’s core message of love and coexistence also applied to politics.

“Mainly the biggest damage they are doing is manufacturing hatred between people. We are living in one country, we cannot live without each other, we cannot sideline/exclude anyone, we have to live together and see each other daily, like a family. That is how we relate to the film Mellisai and the politics, how love and affection are important and if we destroy that, it is like destroying a house. All politicians are doing only that.”

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Very Dangerous, Makes Hate As Investment”: Two-Bit Actor Kishore Derogates PM Modi Who Has Been Elected Thrice Consecutively appeared first on The Commune.

The United States has agreed to sharply reduce tariffs on Indian goods to 18% from the earlier 50%, following a trade understanding announced by US President Donald Trump after a phone conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Trump announced the agreement on social media, stating that India would scale back purchases of Russian oil and lower trade and non-trade barriers, while increasing imports of American energy and other products. Modi welcomed the development, stating that reduced tariffs on Indian goods would benefit both economies and deepen cooperation between the world’s two largest democracies.

Prime Minister Modi also posted on his X handle stating, “Wonderful to speak with my dear friend President Trump today. Delighted that Made in India products will now have a reduced tariff of 18%. Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India for this wonderful announcement. When two large economies and the world’s largest democracies work together, it benefits our people and unlocks immense opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation. President Trump’s leadership is vital for global peace, stability, and prosperity. India fully supports his efforts for peace. I look forward to working closely with him to take our partnership to unprecedented heights.”

Wonderful to speak with my dear friend President Trump today. Delighted that Made in India products will now have a reduced tariff of 18%. Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India for this wonderful announcement.

When two large economies and the…

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) February 2, 2026

With the revised rate, India now faces one of the lowest tariff regimes among major Asian economies trading with the US. Countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand continue to face tariffs ranging from 19-20%, while China remains subject to duties as high as 37%. Several countries, including Brazil and South Africa, continue to face even steeper tariffs.

The announcement comes months after comments by former Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan sparked debate online.

In November 2025, at a discussion conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Raghuram Rajan reignited debate over India’s trade relationship and trust deficit with the United States, citing the sharp disparity in tariffs imposed by Washington on Indian and Pakistani goods.

Referring to the US decision to levy a 50% tariff on Indian goods while imposing only a 19% tariff on Pakistan, Rajan questioned the nature of the much-publicised personal rapport between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former US President Donald Trump. “Where is the friendship between Modi and Trump?” he asked.

Rajan said the tariff decision amounted to a betrayal of India’s faith in the US partnership, describing it as “a slap in the face for Modi.” He cautioned that the United States “cannot be trusted,” drawing a historical parallel to the Nixon administration’s support for Pakistan during the 1971 India–Pakistan war.

Highlighting the domestic impact of the tariff regime, Rajan said India’s small and medium enterprises were bearing the brunt of the decision. He argued that smaller firms were unable to survive in a trade environment where large multinational corporations such as Apple received waivers and exemptions.

According to Rajan, the issue extended beyond trade policy to a deeper question of trust between the two countries. He said the sense of disappointment was not limited to economic considerations but reflected broader concerns about the reliability of strategic partnerships.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Indian Compass (@indian.compass)

Once again he made similar comments when he spoke at an academic event in Zurich in December 2025. Rajan had suggested that the Trump administration’s earlier decision to impose a 50% tariff on Indian goods was not primarily linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil.

“Russian oil wasn’t the issue… I think the central issue was more personalities, especially a personality in the White House and how they treated certain comments made by India after Trump claimed credit for stopping a conflict between India and Pakistan… Pakistan played it right…said that it was all because of Trump,” Rajan said, referring to the military standoff between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s subsequent Operation Sindoor.

India had launched Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan, leading to a brief military confrontation before hostilities subsided.

“India tried to argue that the two countries had reached an agreement without Trump … the truth is probably somewhere in between … But the net effect was that India got 50% tariffs, and Pakistan got 19%. I understand that there was some comment about how your leader in Switzerland tried to explain the tariffs to Trump and that didn’t go well… so we don’t know what really happened between India and the US, but hopefully in the longer run sanity prevails on all sides and we all reach reasonable deals,” Rajan said.

He reiterated the point later in the same discussion, stating:
“I don’t think that that was the central issue. I think the central issue was more personalities. And uh especially a personality in the White House and how they treated certain comments uh made by India after uh you know, um Mr. Trump claimed credit for stopping a conflict between India and Pakistan. Pakistan played it the right way, said that it was all because of Mr. Trump. India tried to argue that the two countries had reached an agreement without Mr. Trump. Uh the truth is probably somewhere in between, but uh you know, uh net effect was India got uh 50 tariffs, Pakistan got 19.”

REPORTER : India got 50% tariffs for buying Russian oil.

RAGHURAM RAJAN : “Russian oil wasn’t the issue. Pakistan credited Trump for the ceasefire, India didn’t. Pakistan has a 19% tariff, India 50%”

India chose National Interest and didn’t bend pic.twitter.com/1vhipIVBFb

— News Algebra (@NewsAlgebraIND) December 8, 2025

According to a Reuters report, the US decision involves rescinding an additional 25% punitive duty imposed earlier over India’s Russian oil imports, which had been levied on top of a reciprocal tariff. However, key aspects of the agreement remain unclear, including timelines, enforcement mechanisms, and the scope of India’s commitments on energy purchases and market access.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Pakistan Played It Right, Slap On The Face Of Modi”: Raghuram Rajan’s Words Come Back To Haunt Him As India-US Strike Trade Deal With Lower Tariffs appeared first on The Commune.