Month: June 2025

US Veto Sparks Global Outcry Over Gaza Ceasefire

In the UN, where everyone is quiet, one raised hand is stronger than the cries of millions.

A UN Security Council resolution from June 4, 2025, called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and free entry for humanitarian aid. The United States was the only country to use its veto to block it. It was 14 to 1. A deal that everyone agreed to but one person broke because they said no.

The Lone Veto: Isolation or Strategy?

The U.S. justified its veto by claiming the resolution failed to condemn Hamas and did not condition the ceasefire on the release of Israeli hostages. “Any product that undermines our close ally Israel is a non-starter,” said U.S. Acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea. The resolution, she claimed, was “performative.”

But that framing didn’t sit well with the rest of the world. UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward pushed back, calling the humanitarian situation in Gaza “inhumane,” and stating the new U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza aid system had created chaos. China’s delegate labeled the U.S. position disappointing. Even traditionally aligned allies expressed discomfort.

Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: Aid or Agenda?

Central to the controversy is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a body supported by Washington and Tel Aviv to distribute aid in Gaza. It has been accused of mismanagement, militarization, and even endangering lives. Over 100 Palestinians have reportedly been killed near GHF aid distribution points, including in a chaotic scene in Rafah.

British Ambassador Woodward bluntly stated: “We are seeing starving children being shot at while trying to receive food. This is not humanitarian aid. This is inhumane.”

Further cracks emerged when Boston Consulting Group—the Foundation’s architect—abandoned the project. Its COO and director resigned just days before operations began, adding to suspicion and scandal.

Humanitarian Crisis Deepens

According to AP News, over 54,000 Palestinians have died since the October 2023 war began. Famine is widespread. The UN and most aid agencies have refused to work with the GHF, citing its lack of neutrality.

Instead of supporting existing UN-led distribution routes, the U.S. has doubled down on GHF. Critics say this amounts to politicizing food. Al Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara called the U.S. move “a shameless defense of the indefensible.”

What Power Does the UN Really Have?

The Security Council is often referred to as the world’s government. But as long as one permanent member uses veto power to block humanitarian action, its authority remains symbolic.

Some ask: if Washington weren’t shielding Israel, would Netanyahu’s war continue? Bishara argued that if President Trump told Netanyahu to stop, he likely would—within 24 hours. It’s not the UN that needs to act. It’s the United States.

Where Does This Leave Us?

The U.S. veto may protect an ally. But at what cost? Global trust erodes. Civilians starve. And Washington’s moral standing diminishes.

Do you believe humanitarian aid can ever be truly apolitical?
Should the UN veto power be limited during humanitarian crises?
What alternatives can the world pursue when consensus is blocked by one state?

If this post sparked a thought, share it—or better yet, start a conversation below. The silence around Gaza has been deafening. Maybe it’s time we all raised our hands.

What Has Elon Musk’s DOGE Actually Achieved?

Elon Musk’s stint as the face of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in 2025 was a lightning rod—hailed by some as a revolutionary gutting of bureaucracy, slammed by others as a chaotic overreach. Promising to slash a trillion dollars in federal spending, Musk and his team stormed Washington with tech-bro bravado. But four months later, as Musk stepped back, what did DOGE really accomplish? Let’s cut through the hype and haze, unpacking the numbers, the fallout, and the lingering questions.

Big Promises, Modest Cuts

Musk sold DOGE as a chainsaw for government waste, targeting a trillion dollars in annual savings. The reality? Far less dazzling. DOGE’s own estimates claim $175 billion in cuts—impressive until you dig deeper. Sources like The Guardian note its “wall of receipts” was riddled with errors, inflating savings. Independent analyses, like one from The Washington Post, call even the $175 billion figure exaggerated, with real savings closer to $140 billion. That’s a drop in the bucket for a $6.7 trillion federal budget.

What got cut? USAID programs took a hit, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were gutted, per Fox News. Mass layoffs targeted federal workers—over 2 million got “Fork in the road” emails pushing buyouts, says The Guardian. But these moves sparked legal battles and accusations of overreach. A federal judge ruled Musk’s role was “continuing and permanent,” not temporary, raising constitutional questions about his unchecked power. My take: the cuts were real but sloppy, more symbolic than systemic, and the trillion-dollar dream was always more Muskian hype than math.

Ripples of Chaos and Pushback

DOGE didn’t just cut—it disrupted. Musk’s team, mostly young engineers from his companies, swept through agencies like the General Services Administration, demanding data and access, per The Guardian. This aggressive approach rattled career bureaucrats, with some resigning under pressure. But it also bred resistance. Democrats, led by Elizabeth Warren, alleged DOGE staff held stocks in firms benefiting from their cuts—a “clear conflict of interest,” they argued. A lawsuit targeting Musk’s role gained traction, with courts questioning his appointment’s legality.

The bigger mess? DOGE’s cuts clashed with Trump’s agenda. Musk publicly criticized Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax bill, which The New York Times reports could add $2.3 trillion to the deficit—wiping out DOGE’s savings. This tension exposed a rift: Musk wanted lean government; Trump wanted splashy wins. A former DOGE staffer told Reuters the project might “fizzle out” without Musk’s star power. My view: DOGE’s legacy is less about efficiency and more about sowing uncertainty, leaving agencies gutted and morale in tatters.

What’s Next for Washington’s Wrecking Ball?

As Musk exits to focus on Tesla and SpaceX, DOGE’s future is murky. Trump insists it’ll continue, with Russ Vought, a Project 2025 figure, reportedly taking the reins, per The Guardian. But without Musk’s clout, can it sustain momentum? NPR notes DOGE faced “legal setbacks, overstated claims, and little evidence of efficiency.” Its public-facing website, meant to showcase wins, became a punching bag for errors. Meanwhile, Canada’s response to Trump’s tariffs—retaliatory tariffs and Project Arrow—shows how DOGE’s ripple effects could strain international ties, though it’s not directly tied to Musk’s cuts.

Here’s my read: DOGE was a bold experiment, but it overpromised and underdelivered, more spectacle than substance. It exposed real bloat but lacked the precision to fix it without breaking things. The real question is whether its ethos—a tech-driven, anti-bureaucratic “way of life,” as Musk called it—will stick or fade as Washington’s inertia reasserts itself. So, what do you think: Can government ever be “engineered” like a SpaceX rocket, or is DOGE proof it’s a messier beast?

Sources:

  • The Guardian: Trump praises Elon Musk for ‘colossal change’ as Doge adviser says farewell
  • Fox News: Elon Musk ends DOGE role after cutting estimated $175 billion
  • The Washington Post: Elon Musk, back at SpaceX, says DOGE repercussions were severe
  • Reuters: Without Musk, DOGE likely to fizzle out, says ex-staffer
  • The New York Times: Elon Musk, Distanced From Trump, Says He’s Exiting Washington
  • NPR: What’s next for DOGE after Elon Musk says he is leaving?
  • CNBC: Musk’s role leading DOGE qualifies as ‘continuing and permanent,’ judge says
  • The Guardian: Doge employees hold stock in firms set to benefit from cuts

Made in America: Why Congress Thinks This Is the Golden Age of Small Business

You might wonder if Main Street still stands a chance. This thought might occur if you’ve walked past a local bakery, hardware store, or repair shop lately. The answer from Capitol Hill is a loud yes.

The era of big-box dominance might just be ending. This is according to Congressman Roger Williams, Chair of the House Committee on Small Business. This could pave the way for a small business renaissance. At a recent stop on the SBA Made in America Roadshow, Williams unveiled his optimism. He promoted a bipartisan bill that’s catching attention in Washington. It is the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act.

The Mission: Unleashing American Industry

The bill, introduced last month, aims to revive American manufacturing by giving small businesses a fair shot at success. We’re talking:

  • Tax cuts
  • Regulatory rollbacks
  • 100% expensing for investments

Williams puts it simply:

“America is built on risk and reward. We’re back to a place where you can take a risk — and see a reward.”

Some stats to back him up:

  • 99% of U.S. businesses are small businesses
  • They generate 75% of the nation’s payroll and employment

That’s not just rhetoric — it’s infrastructure.

Real Stories from the Road

Take Ben’s Metalworks in Fort Worth, Texas — a small fabrication shop that nearly shut down in 2020. Ben expanded his product line last year. He had support from SBA loan guarantees and tax credits. He also hired four new employees.

Or Mira’s Craft Roasters, a woman-owned coffee business in Denton. This business scaled up operations thanks to expensing deductions. These deductions let her purchase new roasting equipment without going into debt.

“The new policies made the difference between closing shop or growing,” Mira says.

What About Tariffs?

Not everyone’s convinced. Critics argue that the Trump-era tariffs on steel, aluminum, and components have raised input costs for small manufacturers.

Articles like:

  • “Trump’s Tariffs Decimate Small Businesses” (Chicago Tribune)
  • “Unpredictable Trade Policies Hurt Main Street” (Washington Post)

…have painted a picture of rising costs and shrinking margins.

But Williams disagrees — and he speaks from experience as a 37-year car dealer.

“I’ve traveled the country. What business owners want isn’t tariff relief — it’s tax cuts, cash flow, and fewer obstacles to reinvest in their businesses.”

He argues that tariffs are a strategic tool — a wedge, not a wall — in renegotiating fairer trade.

Still, it’s a debate worth watching.

The Bigger Picture

Williams insists that this moment represents a turning point:

“This is the golden age of small business. Community banks are back. Regulation is being rethought. And the entrepreneurial spirit is rising.”

He’s not alone in that view. The Made in America Roadshow has drawn bipartisan support and enthusiastic crowds — from Iowa to Texas.

What Can You Do?

Here’s how you can be part of this shift:

  • Shop small: Support local businesses instead of big-box chains.
  • Engage locally: Ask your city council or chamber of commerce how they’re supporting small business.
  • Voice your view: Contact your representative about the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act. Whether you support it or question it, civic engagement matters.
  • Stay informed: Follow the SBA Roadshow or the House Small Business Committee’s updates online.

Final Thoughts

Policies alone don’t build economies — people do. But when the tools are right, entrepreneurs can rise again. These tools include tax breaks, access to capital, and smart deregulation.

The Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act may not be a magic bullet. But for now, it’s a rallying cry: risk is back, and reward is on the table.

India’s Hidden War: Why Manipur’s Ethnic Conflict Is Ignored

Manipur is on fire in the northeast corner of India. Since May 2023, violence between the Meitei majority and the Kuki-Zo tribes has killed more than 258 people, forced 60,000 people to leave their homes, and destroyed thousands of homes. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi hasn’t said anything, and the crisis isn’t getting much attention in India’s national conversation. Why doesn’t this conflict, which doesn’t have the Hindu-Muslim framing that is common in Indian politics, make people angry? Why do you care? This is not just a tragedy for Manipur; it is also a test of India’s democratic spirit and a warning for the rest of the world.

The Roots of a Broken Land
Manipur is home to 39 different ethnic groups, including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and followers of the native Sanamahi religion. The hills are home to the Christian Kuki-Zo and Naga tribes, while the Imphal Valley is home to the Hindu Meitei, who make up 57% of the population. This split goes back to British colonial policies, which tightly controlled the valley but let local chiefs run the hill tribes. Many tribes didn’t want India to merge with Manipur in 1949, which caused distrust. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958) made people angry because it gave the military too much power. The violence we see today is the result of past ethnic conflicts, such as the Naga-Kuki conflict in 1992, which forced 114,300 people to leave their homes.

In May 2023, a Manipur High Court order suggested that Meiteis should have Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, which threatened Kuki-Zo land rights in the hills. Thangkhanlal Ngaihte, a Manipuri political scientist, says, “The court’s decision was like a match to dry tinder.” “It brought back fears of Meitei rule.” Protests broke out, and within days they turned deadly. It’s not just about land; it’s also about identity and staying alive in a place where history never sleeps.

A Fire That Never Goes Out
The violence got out of hand very quickly. By July 2023, 5,000 people had to leave their homes in 48 hours. By November 2024, that number had grown to 60,000. Armed militias stole more than 3,000 guns from police stations. Homes, churches, and temples were turned to ash. Even when the internet went down, social media spread hate. Sexual violence, like the terrible case of two Kuki women being paraded naked, shocked the whole country. Official numbers say that 258 people died, 1,000 were hurt, and 4,786 homes were destroyed, but people in the area say it was worse.

People have said that Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, who is a Meitei and a BJP leader, is biassed. His policies, like evicting people from Kuki villages, waging a “war on drugs” in hill districts, and calling Kukis “illegal immigrants,” make things worse. Militias like Arambai Tenggol do well when people talk like this. Lalam Hangshing, a Kuki community leader who has been forced to move to Churachandpur, says, “The government’s actions feel like a betrayal.” What did Modi say? A single speech in July 2023, inspired by the viral video, promised justice but didn’t deliver much. Troops, curfews, and cutting off the internet have not brought back peace.

Why India Doesn’t Care
India’s political script doesn’t include the conflict in Manipur. The BJP’s story is based on the divide between Hindus and Muslims, which gets voters to vote against what they see as an Islamic threat. Muslims make up only 8% of Manipur, so they aren’t very important here. Without this context, the Meitei-Kuki conflict doesn’t have the emotional pull to make headlines. It’s a crisis that shows how badly the BJP runs things without giving them an easy way out.

Things are more complicated because of geopolitics. Manipur is next to Myanmar, where a junta is fighting rebels. India supports the junta to protect trade routes like the India-Myanmar-Thailand highway because it is worried about China’s power. Recognising that Manipur is in chaos could make this plan less stable and hurt India’s reputation around the world. In India, Manipur only has two Lok Sabha seats, while Uttar Pradesh has 80. In New Delhi’s view, Manipur is not important.

The Absence of Muslims and Its Irony
The conflict in Manipur, which is based on ethnic differences rather than religious ones, shows a blind spot. Hindu-Muslim tensions, which are made worse by the media and politics, are often the cause of communal violence in India. The fact that there are no Muslims as main characters here should make you think: how does India deal with conflicts that aren’t seen through a polarised lens? But communal ideas still exist. A fake ANI report from 2023 linked a Muslim man to the parade video, which shows how stories change to fit what we already know. The BJP’s “illegal immigrant” talk about Kukis is just a rehash of its anti-Muslim playbook. This isn’t progress; it’s a lack of growth.

Voices From the Ground
The numbers—258 dead and 60,000 people displaced—don’t tell the whole story. Ningthoujam Devi, a Meitei mother now in a relief camp, says, “We ran away with nothing but our lives.” “Our neighbours became our enemies overnight.” Kuki student Paolienlal Haokip says, “Our schools are gone, our future stolen,” on the other side of the divide. These voices, which are not often heard in Delhi, show what happens when you don’t do anything. Meenakshi Ganguly of Human Rights Watch and other international observers say, “India can’t ignore the violence in Manipur. It’s a humanitarian crisis.”

A world is watching, but not enough.
The world’s attention comes and goes. The European Parliament’s 2023 resolution said that India’s “divisive policies” were bad. The U.S. ambassador said the violence was a “human” problem. But India’s diplomatic power, which is boosted by Modi’s trips around the world and smart lobbying, makes criticism less loud. The crisis in Manipur puts India’s morals to the test. A country that wants to be a world leader can’t ignore its own problems. The conflict’s effects on the region, like refugees, arms trafficking, and Myanmar’s instability, are a threat to security. China, always on the lookout, could take advantage of these cracks.

Do it now, before it’s too late.
We need to act quickly to help Manipur’s wounds. It is important for Meiteis and Kukis to talk to each other, but it is unlikely to happen while Singh is in charge. Getting rid of policies that cause division, like the ST demand or anti-Kuki evictions, might help calm things down. Accountability means going after militia leaders, not just foot soldiers. India needs to find a balance between its Myanmar strategy and its humanitarian goals. But time is running out. The violence in Manipur isn’t just a tragedy for the people who live there; it’s a warning of what can happen when a democracy doesn’t respect its differences.

You can change things. Share this story to give more power to the voices of people in Manipur who have been silenced. Help groups like the Manipur Relief Fund (manipurrelief.org) that help families who have lost their homes. Make India’s leaders responsible. The first step to change is to be aware. For more information, check out reports from Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) or local news sources like The Imphal Free Press (ifp.co.in). The people of Manipur deserve more than silence. Do something now.

India’s Hidden War: Why Manipur’s Ethnic Conflict Is Ignored

In India’s northeastern corner, Manipur burns. Since May 2023, ethnic violence between the Meitei majority and Kuki-Zo tribes has claimed over 258 lives, displaced 60,000 people, and razed thousands of homes. Yet, Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains silent, and India’s national discourse barely registers the crisis. Why does this conflict, devoid of the Hindu-Muslim framing that dominates India’s politics, fail to stir outrage? Why should you care? This is not just Manipur’s tragedy—it’s a test of India’s democratic soul and a warning for the world.

Roots of a Fractured Land

Manipur, a state of 2.8 million, is a mosaic of 39 ethnic groups—Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and indigenous Sanamahi followers. The Imphal Valley, home to the Hindu Meitei (57% of the population), contrasts with the hills, where Christian Kuki-Zo and Naga tribes dominate. This divide traces back to British colonial policies, which governed the valley tightly but left hill tribes under local chiefs. India’s 1949 merger of Manipur, resisted by many tribes, planted seeds of distrust. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958) fueled resentment with its sweeping military powers. Past ethnic clashes, like the 1992 Naga-Kuki conflict displacing 114,300, set the stage for today’s violence.

The spark came in May 2023, when a Manipur High Court order recommended Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for Meiteis, threatening Kuki-Zo land rights in the hills. “The court’s decision was a match to dry tinder,” says Thangkhanlal Ngaihte, a Manipuri political scientist. “It revived fears of Meitei domination.” Protests erupted, turning deadly within days. This isn’t just about land—it’s about identity and survival in a state where history never sleeps.

Map of Manipur

Map showing Manipur’s ethnic divide: Meitei-dominated valley and Kuki-Zo hill regions.

A Fire That Keeps Burning

The violence exploded rapidly. By July 2023, 5,000 were displaced in 48 hours; by November 2024, 60,000. Over 3,000 weapons looted from police stations armed militias. Homes, churches, and temples were reduced to ash. Social media, despite internet blackouts, spread hate. Sexual violence, including a horrific case of two Kuki women paraded naked, shocked the nation. Official tallies report 258 deaths, 1,000 injuries, and 4,786 homes destroyed, but local accounts suggest worse.

Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, a Meitei and BJP leader, has been accused of bias. His policies—evictions in Kuki villages, a “war on drugs” targeting hill districts, and labeling Kukis as “illegal immigrants”—inflame tensions. Meitei militias like Arambai Tenggol thrive under this rhetoric. “The government’s actions feel like a betrayal,” says Lalam Hangshing, a Kuki community leader displaced in Churachandpur. Modi’s response? A single speech in July 2023, prompted by the viral video, promising justice but delivering little. Troops, curfews, and internet cuts have failed to restore peace.

Why India Looks Away

Manipur’s conflict doesn’t fit India’s political script. The BJP’s narrative thrives on Hindu-Muslim divides, rallying voters against a perceived Islamic threat. Here, Muslims (8% of Manipur) are peripheral. Without this framing, the Meitei-Kuki clash lacks the emotional pull to dominate headlines. It’s a crisis that exposes the BJP’s governance flaws without offering a convenient scapegoat.

Geopolitics complicates matters. Manipur borders Myanmar, where a junta battles rebels. India, eyeing China’s influence, backs the junta to secure trade routes like the India-Myanmar-Thailand highway. Acknowledging Manipur’s chaos risks destabilizing this strategy and tarnishing India’s global image. Domestically, Manipur’s two Lok Sabha seats pale against Uttar Pradesh’s 80. In New Delhi’s calculus, Manipur is a footnote.

The Muslim Absence and Its Irony

Manipur’s conflict, rooted in ethnic rather than religious divides, reveals a blind spot. India’s communal violence often hinges on Hindu-Muslim tensions, amplified by media and politics. Here, the absence of Muslims as primary actors should force reflection: how does India address conflicts outside its polarized lens? Yet, communal tropes persist. A false 2023 ANI report linked a Muslim man to the parade video, showing how narratives bend to fit familiar patterns. The BJP’s “illegal immigrant” rhetoric against Kukis echoes its anti-Muslim playbook, just repurposed. This isn’t progress—it’s a failure to evolve.

Burned village in Manipur

Remains of a Kuki village torched in 2023, symbolizing the conflict’s devastation.

Voices From the Ground

The numbers—258 dead, 60,000 displaced—hide human stories. “We fled with nothing but our lives,” says Ningthoujam Devi, a Meitei mother now in a relief camp. “Our neighbors turned into enemies overnight.” Across the divide, Kuki student Paolienlal Haokip laments, “Our schools are gone, our future stolen.” These voices, rarely heard in Delhi, reveal the cost of inaction. International observers, like Human Rights Watch’s Meenakshi Ganguly, warn: “Manipur’s violence is a humanitarian crisis India can’t ignore.”

A World Watching, But Not Enough

Global attention flickers but fades. The European Parliament’s 2023 resolution criticized India’s “divisive policies.” The U.S. ambassador called the violence a “human” issue. But India’s diplomatic clout—bolstered by Modi’s global tours and strategic lobbying—mutes criticism. Manipur’s crisis tests India’s moral standing. A nation eyeing global leadership can’t afford to ignore its own fractures. The conflict’s spillover—refugees, arms trafficking, Myanmar’s instability—threatens regional security. China, ever-watchful, could exploit these cracks.

Act Now, Before It’s Too Late

Manipur’s wounds demand urgent action. Dialogue between Meiteis and Kukis, mediated neutrally, is critical but unlikely under Singh’s leadership. Repealing divisive policies, like the ST demand or anti-Kuki evictions, could ease tensions. Accountability—prosecuting militia leaders, not just foot soldiers—is non-negotiable. India must balance its Myanmar strategy with humanitarian priorities. But time is running out. Manipur’s violence isn’t just a local tragedy—it’s a warning of what happens when a democracy ignores its diversity.

You can make a difference. Share this story to amplify Manipur’s silenced voices. Support organizations like the Manipur Relief Fund (manipurrelief.org) aiding displaced families. Demand accountability from India’s leaders. Awareness is the first step to change. For deeper insight, explore reports from Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) or local outlets like The Imphal Free Press (ifp.co.in). Manipur’s people deserve more than silence—act now.

India’s Role in the Mukti Bahini: Freedom or a License to Kill?

“India gave us more than just weapons; it gave us hope. If they hadn’t helped us, our fight against Pakistan’s genocide might have been a whisper in the wind. — Lt. Col. Quazi Sajjad Ali Zahir, a Bangladeshi war veteran, 2020

The Bangladesh Liberation War started in 1971. The Bengali people of East Pakistan fought for freedom from the harsh rule of West Pakistan. The Mukti Bahini led the way in this fight. They were a group of Bengali soldiers, paramilitary, and civilians who fought as guerrillas. India’s involvement—giving training, weapons, and a safe place to stay—was key to Pakistan’s surrender on December 16, 1971. But was India’s help an act of selfless humanitarian intervention, or did it start a rebellion that killed innocent people? This study looks into the moral and strategic issues and asks whether India’s help led to freedom or chaos.

A Crisis on India’s Doorstep: Humanitarian and Strategic Reasons

The war started on March 25, 1971. Pakistan initiated Operation Searchlight with a brutal attack on Bengali civilians. They also targeted intellectuals and supporters of the Awami League. The International Commission of Jurists reported that between 300,000 and 3 million people died. Furthermore, 200,000 to 400,000 women were raped. Additionally, up to 10 million people fled to India. This was not a far-off war for India. Refugees flooded into West Bengal and Assam, putting a strain on resources and raising fears of communal unrest.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led India’s quick response. By April 1971, India let refugees in and started helping the Mukti Bahini, which means “freedom fighters” in Bengali. This group was made up of soldiers who had left the army and civilian volunteers led by Colonel M.A.G. Osmani. India’s Eastern Command trained fighters in camps in Assam, West Bengal, and Tripura. They gave them rifles, carbines, and artillery that had been taken from Pakistan. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Special Security Bureau (SSB) secretly aided by teaching guerrilla tactics. They also taught how to gather intelligence. By November, the Mukti Bahini had 70,000 regular soldiers and 50,000 guerrillas, all of which were paid for by India.

India’s reasons were a mix of caring and planning. The refugee crisis needed action, but it was a smart move to weaken Pakistan, which has been a rival since 1947. If Pakistan were split up, it would be less of a threat to India’s western border. It would also counter China’s support for Islamabad. As historian Gary Bass wrote in The Blood Telegram, India was also afraid of a Bengali resistance. This resistance, led by communists, could join forces with Naxalite rebels inside its borders. India made sure that Bangladesh was pro-India by supporting the Awami League’s temporary government. Gandhi said the intervention was for humanitarian reasons, but geopolitics shaped the plan.

Summary: India helped the Mukti Bahini because of a refugee crisis and its own strategic interests. It did this by giving them humanitarian aid while also trying to weaken Pakistan. This dual motive creates confusion. It is hard to determine if India cared more about Bengali lives or its own power in the region.

The Mukti Bahini’s Campaign: Successes and Mistakes

The Mukti Bahini fought a never-ending guerrilla war against Pakistani military bases, bridges, and supply lines. Operation Jackpot was a naval commando mission. It sank more than 100,000 tonnes of Pakistani ships. This made it hard for them to move goods. By December, when India officially joined the war, the Mukti Bahini had freed 80% of Bangladesh’s land, making victory possible.

But the campaign had a bad side. Some Mukti Bahini units attacked Bihari communities. These are Urdu-speaking Muslims who moved to Pakistan from India during the partition in 1947. Biharis, who were often thought to be loyal to Pakistan, were brutally punished. Lawrence Lifschultz’s 1974 book Bangladesh: The Unfinished Revolution says that between 1,000 and 150,000 Biharis died. Massacres happened in places like Jessore and Khulna. The Razakars were militias made up of pro-Pakistan Bengalis and Biharis. They perpetuated the violence by killing Bengalis in horrible ways. An example is the Dhaka University killings. Survivors’ stories reveal the brutality. For instance, in a 2001 Dawn interview, Noor Jahan shared that Mukti Bahini fighters burned down Bihari homes. Families were inside these homes.

Did India pay for these terrible things? There is no proof that India told its troops to attack civilians. General Manekshaw’s memoirs discuss Indian training logs. These logs were mostly about military goals like ambushes, sabotage, and battles such as Gazipur. But India’s weapons and open borders gave the Mukti Bahini freedom. In an uncontrollable war, rogue units acted on their own. Susan Brownmiller’s book Against Our Will talks about rape by all sides, including Mukti Bahini fighters, against Bihari women. This is similar to what the Pakistani army did.

Some Pakistani historians, like Yasmin Saikia, claim that India intentionally stoked ethnic violence. She discusses this in Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh. They suggest it was done to make Pakistan even less stable. This ignores the fact that the war started because of Pakistan’s genocide. The Mukti Bahini was made up of ordinary people. This made it unlikely that India would be able to control everything from one place. Still, India’s failure to stop excesses makes it indirectly responsible.

Proxy wars and what happened after them in the past

India’s backing of the Mukti Bahini is similar to other proxy wars. The U.S. gave $5 billion to the Afghan mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. This led to the rise of groups like al-Qaeda. India’s support for the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka in the 1980s made the rebels stronger. Later, the rebels attacked Indian peacekeepers. India’s help in Bangladesh led to independence, but it also destroyed Bihari communities. This is similar to what happened in Syria, where U.S.-backed rebels killed Alawite civilians, according to Human Rights Watch in 2013.

In Rwanda after 1994, on the other hand, World Bank aid was linked to changes in how the government worked. This made militia violence go down. In 1971: A Global History of the Creation of Bangladesh, Srinath Raghavan says that India’s support didn’t have these kinds of conditions. The crisis was so urgent. Additionally, Pakistan was being aggressive. The result was a strategic win, but a moral mess.

Summary: Historical proxy wars show that giving weapons to rebels often causes civilians to suffer in ways that weren’t planned. India’s experience in 1971 shows how hard it is to find a balance between taking quick action and being responsible.

The Moral and Strategic Reckoning

Did India help the Mukti Bahini do bad things? Yes, in a way. India triggered a wave it couldn’t fully control by distributing weapons to a wide range of people. This included soldiers, students, and civilians. But Bass says that Pakistan’s genocide was the main cause of the war. Ninety thousand troops killed Bengalis without regard for their lives. Without India’s intervention, the death toll could have been higher, and Bangladesh’s independence delayed or denied.

The Bihari tragedy needs people to be held responsible. A 2023 UNHCR report says that 300,000 Biharis are still stateless in Bangladeshi camps today. Dhaka’s story of liberation ignores their situation. India didn’t push for justice for Mukti Bahini crimes because it wanted to protect Bangladesh’s independence. The Awami League in Bangladesh didn’t either. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission recorded a 1972 testimony from Bihari survivor Mohammad Alam. In his testimony, he said that Mukti Bahini fighters killed his brothers. This story is similar to many other undocumented accounts.

Counterargument: People who support India, like retired General Jacob in Surrender at Dacca, claim it was unrealistic for India to monitor every Mukti Bahini unit. Monitoring every Mukti Bahini unit was deemed unrealistic. This was especially true during a genocide. India’s top priority was to stop Pakistan’s killing, not to micromanage a resistance. This point of view is useful, but it ignores the human cost of giving too much aid.

Summary: India had to help stop genocide for moral reasons, but it didn’t do anything about the Mukti Bahini’s wrongdoings, which left a legacy of unresolved complaints. The Bihari question is still a problem with the war’s victory.

What’s at stake in South Asia right now?

The war in 1971 is still a hot topic. Veterans in Bangladesh, like Commodore Abdul Wahed Chowdhury, who was quoted in a 2021 Daily Star op-ed, say that India is a “great neighbour.” Stories of Indian subversion in Pakistan help shape policies like the country’s nuclear buildup after 1971. Raghavan says that India’s role solidified its dominance in the region, but it also left a complicated legacy: a humanitarian victory marred by the chaos of proxy wars.

The bigger question is whether any country can support a rebellion without getting blood on its hands. The problems in South Asia right now, like Kashmir and Afghanistan, are similar to what happened in 1971. If India or other powerful countries give money to insurgents today, will they have the same successes and failures as the Mukti Bahini? What happens when the line between liberator and enabler gets blurry? The stakes are lives, borders, and a region that is always on edge.

Important Dates in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War

Pakistan starts Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971, and kills thousands.

In April 1971, India lets refugees in, and the Mukti Bahini group forms.

Operation Jackpot by Mukti Bahini messes up Pakistani logistics from July to November 1971.

December 3–16, 1971: India enters the war, and Pakistan gives up.

After the war, the Bihari massacres killed between 1,000 and 150,000 people, and 300,000 people are still without a country.
Sources: Gary Bass, the International Commission of Jurists, and the UNHCR

India’s Tech Giants in Crisis: Can They Rise Again?

India’s tech industry, led by giants like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro, has been a global success story, driving economic growth and creating millions of jobs. But the shine is fading. Revenue growth is stalling, stocks are tumbling, and layoffs loom large. TCS reported its weakest expansion in four years. Infosys profits fell 12%. Wipro’s earnings have reached a low not seen since the pandemic in 2020. Is automation putting pressure on the sector? Are U.S. trade policies from the Trump administration to blame? The reality is a combination of global challenges and internal missteps. India’s leading technology company is at a crossroads, but it’s not too late to forge a new path forward.

A Financial Wake-Up Call

The numbers paint a grim picture. TCS, the industry leader, posted just 2.3% revenue growth in 2024, its lowest in four years. Infosys saw profits drop 12% year-over-year, projecting a meager 1-3% rise for 2026. Wipro’s revenue fell 4.5%, its worst performance outside the COVID slump. In Q2 2025, the top five Indian IT firms collectively lost $10 billion in market capitalization, according to BSE data. Hiring has stalled, with entry-level roles nearly nonexistent. New graduates face onboarding delays of up to six months. Salary hikes? TCS and Infosys have deferred them indefinitely.

This isn’t just belt-tightening. The U.S., which generates 60% of India’s tech revenue, saw $5.1 billion in IT contracts canceled or delayed in 2024. American firms, wary of economic uncertainty, are scaling back. Trump’s 2025 tariffs on foreign tech goods—adding 10-20% duties—have raised costs, making Indian outsourcing less attractive. A Nasscom report estimates these tariffs could shave 2% off Indian IT exports by 2026. The financial hit is real, but it’s amplifying deeper flaws.

Automation Upends the Old Model

Technology is moving fast, and India’s tech firms are scrambling to catch up. In 2025, U.S. tech giants cut 32,000 jobs, per Layoffs.fyi, with firms like Google and Amazon replacing workers with automation tools. Indian companies, built on large teams managing legacy systems, face the same challenge. Clients now demand solutions powered by machine learning or cloud platforms, not armies of coders. For example, JPMorgan Chase reduced its reliance on Indian vendors by 15% in 2024, opting for in-house AI tools, per Bloomberg.

India’s tech model—scaling workforces to handle routine tasks—is under siege. The sector employs 5.4 million people, but automation threatens 20% of these roles by 2030, according to McKinsey. To compete, firms must retrain workers for advanced skills like AI development. Automation isn’t the only issue, but it’s exposing a failure to adapt.

Trump’s Tariffs: A Sting, Not a Knockout

In 2025, Trump’s trade policies were reintroduced and had a significant impact. His tariffs on technology imports are designed to support U.S. industries; however, they also increase costs for American companies that outsource to India. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that these tariffs could lead to a $20 billion annual reduction in IT spending, with India experiencing 30% of the consequences. As budgets become tighter, U.S. firms are postponing projects or looking for cheaper alternatives.

But tariffs aren’t the root cause. India’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market—60% of revenue—left it vulnerable. Nandan Nilekani, Infosys co-founder, noted in a 2025 CNBC interview that the industry’s failure to diversify markets over decades is now a “strategic liability.” Tariffs are a hurdle, but the sector’s lack of foresight set the stage.

Complacency Built a Fragile Empire

Sridhar Vembu, CEO of Zoho, delivers a sharp diagnosis: India’s tech industry rode a bubble for too long. It thrived on low-cost services—fixing software, running call centers, maintaining old systems. These generated billions but added little unique value. Vembu argues the sector absorbed India’s brightest minds, who could have built infrastructure or pioneered new technologies, only to churn out repetitive work.

Vembu’s view echoes Goldman Sachs analyst Priya Sharma, who told Reuters in 2025 that Indian IT firms “over-invested in headcount while under-investing in innovation.” Bloated teams and outdated models have left companies exposed. For instance, TCS’s employee count grew 10% from 2020 to 2024, but revenue per employee dropped 8%, per company filings. Startups now offer nimbler solutions, and countries like Vietnam are gaining as cheaper outsourcing hubs. The Philippines captured 12% of global IT outsourcing in 2024, up from 7% in 2020, according to Gartner. Vembu sees this as the start of a painful correction.

Global Headwinds and New Rivals

The global economy is unforgiving. U.S. recession fears, fueled by 4% inflation and 5% interest rates, have cut IT budgets by 8% in 2025, per IDC. American tech giants are laying off workers and freezing projects, hitting Indian vendors hard. Microsoft, for example, slashed $2 billion in outsourcing contracts, 40% of which were with Indian firms, per The Economic Times.

Competition is more intense than ever. Startups are disrupting the market with agile, cloud-based services. Indian startup Freshworks, valued at $6 billion in 2025, has doubled its U.S. client base by offering AI-driven customer support tools. Other countries are narrowing the gap, with Vietnam’s IT exports growing by 15% in 2024. lower costs and government incentives helped in achieving this, according to Statista. India’s dominance as the outsourcing hub is diminishing.

Reinvention: A Roadmap Forward

India’s tech giants must act decisively. Cost-cutting and retraining are underway, but they’re not enough. Here are three actionable steps to reclaim relevance:

  • Build Products, Not Just Services: Move beyond “code for hire.” Wipro’s $250 million investment in AI-driven healthcare platforms in 2025 is a model—its AI diagnostics tool now serves 50 U.S. hospitals, per company reports. Firms should develop proprietary software or platforms to compete globally.
  • Diversify Markets: Focus on Europe and Asia. Reduce reliance in US market. TCS’s 2025 expansion into Japan, which includes securing $1 billion in contracts with Toyota and Sony, shows promise according to Nikkei Asia. Additionally, India’s domestic market, growing at 10% annually, represents another untapped opportunity.
  • Invest in Future Tech: Embrace AI, cloud computing, and quantum tech. Infosys’s partnership with Google Cloud to train 20,000 engineers in AI by 2026 is a step forward, per a 2025 press release. This builds skills and signals innovation to clients.

Keeping talent is critical. Layoffs risk long-term skill gaps. TCS’s 2025 reskilling program, training 50,000 workers in cloud tech, balances cost control with growth, per Mint. Diversifying and innovating aren’t just buzzwords—they’re survival tactics.

A Call to Reclaim the Future

India’s tech giants face a brutal truth: their old model—built on cheap labor and U.S. contracts—is broken. Automation, tariffs, and global competition have exposed weaknesses, but complacency dug the hole. Blaming external forces won’t help. As Debjani Ghosh, Nasscom president, said in a 2025 Forbes interview, “This is India’s chance to lead, not follow. We must create, not just execute.”

The sector still has strengths: 5.4 million skilled workers, a global reputation, and deep experience. But time is short. By 2030, India could lose 15% of its IT market share to rivals if it doesn’t act, per EY. This crisis is a chance to rebuild smarter—focusing on innovation, new markets, and cutting-edge tech. India’s tech industry must seize this moment. The world needs solutions, and India can deliver—if it dares to lead. Let’s not just save the crown jewel. Let’s forge a new one.