Source: TIMES OF INDIA

I have no evidence to either substantiate or dismiss this claim and so I am asking for clarification here:

Abhijit Iyer Mitra (a research fellow at the ORF think tank) made a claim in a podcast that Chidambaram had significantly propped up the Baloch insurgency after 26/11 Mumbai attacks, but then as soon as Doval came to office, he immediately cut funding for Baloch rebels.

He called this one the biggest foreign policy failures of the Modi government, and said that this has permanently harmed India's ability to start insurgencies in the future

Now a claim made by someone on a podcast is hardly worth posting here but the reason that I'm posting this is because this fellow Abhijit, has always seemed very pro-government to me.

So is there any truth to this?

LINK: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1HB7rBGw8-Y

Submission statement:
I blog on the Ukraine war and in my interaction with people across the world, the most frequent comment about India's role is that we are `cosying up to Putin' by buying sanctioned oil, or are financing his war machine etc.
There has been no attempt in the mainstream media to put our all the facts around India's oil imports. In my blog article, I explain why, with the help of data, the current arrangement is best for all oil importers.

I show that sanctions have had no effect. If they were to have an effect, they would cause a significant price hike for all importers. Europe has benefitted from Indian imports of Russian oil, because a lot of it is refined and sold to Europe, so that Europe can maintain the facade of complying with sanctions. There are bigger sanctions busters like China or
Turkey when it comes to Russia oil.
The biggest gainer from oil (and gas) sanctions, has been the US.
https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/12/indias-russian-oil-imports-reality.html

Submission statement:
In my latest blog post I analyze from open source data, losses from terrorism in Kashmir vs two of Pakistan's provinces - Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

This post weas necessitated by a lot of defensiveness I come across w.r.t. Kashmir - namely that the situation is out of control, governance failure, army failure etc. I have analyzed that in some detail in a previous blog post on Kashmir, including being critical
of policy decisions and lapses in governance and concluded that the insurgency is under control and unsustainable for Pakistan (not India).
To the best of my knowledge however, while militancy in Pakistan is reported, the mainstream media has NOT done a simple comparison of data between Kashmir and militancy affected parts of Pak, so I did it.

In summary, Pak is far worse. Not just in the numbers killed, but the effectiveness of the
Pak army in controlling it (kill ratios). Even though they don't face state sponsored terrorism. I also point out discrepancies in numbers from Pak.
Even Karachi lost more people from terrorism than Kashmir.

The point is not to say, `they are worse off than us', but validates a post I made earlier, that financial compulsions and the need to have a large portion of the Pak army on counter insurgency had led the Pak army to agree to a ceasefire on the LOC in Jan 21, at a time when the Indian army was under pressure from China in Ladakh and militant groups needed the Pak army to revive terrorism in Kashmir after the abrogation of article 370.
Despite insurgency in Pakistan not being state sponsored, their losses are far worse and
their army more stretched in fighting it.

https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2024/12/pakistans-terrorism-problem.html

Hi I am an italian master student of international affairs, I am currently in the process of trying to find the right thesis subject, I wanted to write a thesis about Chinese use of military bases, semi-bases and dual use capability ports (as I am currently enrolled in PKU, China). Reading I found that India has a peculiar maritime strategy with the necklace of diamonds and has made accords to contrast China with naval post in Agalega access to Iran's chabahar port (even if I haven't still figured if it's also of naval access)and access agreements with the US, Singapore and Indonesia.

I would really appreciate any advice and opinions on this possible thesis subject and any papers, scholars, figures or topics to further my research. Thank you so much!

Adani Wind Power Projects in Sri Lanka have become a geopolitical issue, as the cost per kWh, set at 8.26 USD cents (₹7.02), is significantly higher than similar projects in India, where tariffs average around 3.2–3.3 USD cents (₹2.72–₹2.81) per kWh. Even the cost of generating electricity at the Lakvijaya Power Station using coal, at 6.53 USD cents (₹5.55) per kWh, highlights the cost disparity. This issue has even surfaced as a major talking point in election campaigns, sparking debates about energy sovereignty.

I was wondering if Sri Lanka risks losing control over its energy sector, potentially locking itself into higher energy costs under long-term agreements. With the connecting of electricity grids, how would that affect both countries? Could India use geopolitical leverage to switch off at their will and exploit Sri Lanka with higher costs?

What do Indian politicians and media aim to achieve? They are putting both Indian and Bangladeshi people at risk—ordinary individuals who simply want to live and struggle daily to secure their bread and butter. India has already created negative narratives in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives, not to mention its strained relationships with China and Pakistan. Thousands of fake stories about minority violence are surfacing, and India currently ranks as the top country in the world for spreading fake news.

It is high time for the Indian people to stand against the foreign policy decisions of their politicians and demand an end to the false narratives perpetuated by the media. This is not just a regional concern; it has become a national reputation issue for India. I urge my Indian friends and colleagues to raise their voices for the welfare of the common people in both India and Bangladesh! #StopPoliticiansWhoUseRaceAndReligionForPolitics

I feel this is an extreme gamble. Some may believe it could backfire on Sri Lanka’s industries and workforce. Even though Sri Lanka is economically struggling, its GDP is slightly higher than India’s, as are the salaries of its workforce. With high production costs in Sri Lanka, it might become easier for them to import goods from India rather than manufacturing locally, potentially widening the trade deficit between the two countries.

Some may also think Sri Lanka is getting most of the benefits while India gains little in return. However, others argue that the project’s value is more strategic than economic. India might be willing to lose billions to counter China’s growing influence in Sri Lanka.

As China’s presence in the region grows, does this project give India a strategic edge, or will it complicate Sri Lanka’s non-aligned stance? What might be the long-term geopolitical and economic impacts for both countries?