It's a wolf pack unleashed on India, and Peter Navarro is leading it. The week gone by has been critical for Indian diplomacy amid the tensions with the US.
On Douyin, many videos highlighted how Modi was all smiles during his China visit. Others focused on his handholding with Putin and Trump’s supposed irritation.
In Chinese discourse, Modi’s Tianjin visit is largely interpreted through the prism of Trump’s tariffs and India’s tentative outreach to China. Yet the limits of cooperation remain evident.
PM held a 45-odd minute bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping Sunday. It was the first bilateral meeting in China for the Indian leader since 2018.
Do India and China share a strategic or geopolitical alignment? Are there signs of improving relations in this aspect? Yet again, the evidence points in the other direction.
For Chinese commentators, India’s careful steps reveal a country navigating the rise of China cautiously and pragmatically, with its own interests firmly in mind.
Indian political leaders will have to prepare their public for the prospect of concessions India never really held—just as Chinese leaders must admit Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh were never theirs.
All of a sudden, the great game of diplomacy has taken a modified path for India. The burden to put the pressure back on Washington has fallen on New Delhi.
Against backdrop of Nepal registering protest over India-China trade announcement, ThePrint explains significance of Lipulekh Pass through prism of 1816 treaty, 1991 memorandum & 2019 map.
The Italian term sprezzatura—a studied nonchalance that conceals intention—best captures the spirit of Trump’s foreign policy so far. The pattern is unpredictability, transactionalism, and disruption as diplomacy.
With 20.2 percent of its total loans in default by the end of last year, Bangladesh had the weakest banking system in Asia. Despite reforms, it will take time to recover.
Bihar is blessed with a land more fertile for revolutions than any in India. Why has it fallen so far behind then? Constant obsession with politics is at the root of its destruction.
COMMENTS