Chanakya, also known as Kautilya, was a remarkable realist, strategist, and royal advisor living in ancient Bharat around 300 BCE. He was a teacher at Takshshila, the renowned old Bharatiya university. Alexander invaded the Kingdom of Magadha and Chanakya appealed to the Nanda dynasty king to save Bharat. The Nanda king criticized him for not knowing enough about military matters. Instead of succumbing to an emotional breakdown, Chanakya answered with the Arthashastra, which would become a classic and a true intellectual military planning masterpiece.
Kautilya saw the qualities of kingship in a young goatherd, adopted him, and provided him an education in science, the arts, military tactics, and geopolitics. Brought up as a warrior and a statesman, the two established Mauryan rule when the young boy reached adulthood. The young student was, of course, Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta would become a great ruler thanks to the Arthashastra, a practical manual for action.
Together, they overthrew the Nanda dynasty, halted the Greek invasion, and united Bharat into the renowned Mauryan Empire with the practical advice of ancient Bharat’s best military and political minds. In our history, Chandragupta Maurya played a significant role in establishing the first state that included most of modern Bharat and was bigger than the Mughal and British Empires. Chanakya deserves praise for bringing the nation together and forming such a vast empire.
It isn’t easy to believe that until an old manuscript was found in 1904, the English-speaking world had never heard of the Arthashastra. This text has become rooted in our discussions on politics, economics, and society. R. Shamasastry of the Mysore Oriental Research Institute translated and gave it to the world in Sanskrit in 1909 and English in 1915. Even today, the Arthashastra is not well-known outside Bharat despite its significance as a classic on foreign relations. Even among Bharat’s modern ‘historians’ and defense experts, its creator Kautilya is not recognized as the father of geopolitics.
Arthashastra’s discovery hurt the British ego. They propagated that history began when Alexander invaded Bharat. Europeans found it hard to accept that Arthashastra was written before Christ’s birth. Verses that a kingdom’s prosperity is its security incensed them. The impression that the colonized Hindus were uneducated was shattered. It served as a battlefield for opposing ideologies and viewpoints. Since then, the Arthashastra has been reborn, with its teachings mentioned in English.
Using the Kutil in Kautilya, the master tactician is frequently shown as dishonest and crooked. Saraswati, the Hindu goddess of learning, music, art, speech, and wisdom, is known as Kutila. Saraswati is also a worshipped river mentioned initially in the Rig Veda and later in Vedic and post-Vedic texts.
Italian diplomat, writer, philosopher, and historian Nicholas Machiavel is best known for his 1532 publication of the political treatise ‘The Prince.’ Otto Von Bismarck was a conservative, upper-class German statesman and diplomat who earned the title ‘The Iron Chancellor’ for his diplomacy and geopolitics in securing the unity of Germany. Many Europeans continue to regard them as the modern political philosophy’s founders. Many think they were horrible kings who employed evil tactics and gave dictators terrible advice so they could keep their power.
Comparisons to Bismarck and Machiavelli that weren’t required or suitable have hurt Arthasathra’s reputation. Arthasastra teaches us that pursuing wealth (one of the four fundamental goals in life) is anchored in Dharma, the values that push Hindus to act morally. Concepts like the king’s future lie in the subjects’ welfare were unknown to these Europeans. One can find thousands of pages that claim to be Chanakya quotes online with a quick search, most of which are unreliable.
The Arthashastra has two goals. Labha, or “acquisition of territory,” would also include foreign policy issues and Palana, or “management of the state.” In other words, it is the study of administration and geopolitics. This book was available to those aiming for high or royal positions and contained helpful suggestions on how to do so. The definitive book on this subject, published in 1965 by R.P. Kangle, is his translation and study of Arthashastra. It has examined and demonstrated the Indian geopolitical tradition in detail. Various fake theories have been floated after that too.
When human society plunged into chaos and anarchy from its pure state during the Satyuga, the gods sought Brahma (the Creator), who then composed a treatise on Niti Shastra (the science of politics). It had one lakh chapters and served as a manual for humanity that instructed kings in dharma for citizens’ happiness. Given man’s short life span, Bhagwan Shiva reduced this to 10,000 chapters as the Vaisalaksha Shastra. Bhagwan Indra abridged it to 5000 chapters as the Bahudantaka Shastra, and Brihaspati lowered it to 3,000 chapters as the Barhaspatya Shastra. Usanas reduced it to 1,000 chapters as the Asanas Shastra. Since the commoner had limited intelligence, Rishis have abridged and used it all over Bharat.
Arthasastra, a treatise on Artha (prosperity), was penned around 2,300 years ago and is credited to Kautilya. It comprises 15 adhikaranas, or books, most of which are written in prose, and it has 380 shlokas after each chapter. It is stated in the first sutra that the Arthashastra was created by compiling all earlier treatises on the subject. Consequently, it is a compilation. One can find a description of its origins in the Mahabharata’s Shantiparvan. A dying Bhishma’s explanation to Yudhishthira of the principles of governance and the responsibilities of a leader.
When it comes to ancient Bharat, the Arthasastra can be compared to an encyclopedia. Its topics cover everything from kings to spies and ministers, foreign affairs to forts and towns, and justice and political management. Tantra, or the internal management of the state, is the subject of the first five volumes. The following eight relate to Avapa or the relations with surrounding states, and the next two are interconnected. The first volume covers the king’s preparation for leadership and his tools of the trade. Being the Kautilya King is a difficult job. He has a brutal schedule for the remaining 20 hours and can only sleep for a maximum of four hours each day.
Book Six specifies the seven essential elements of a state: the king, the ministry, the nation, the capital, the treasury, the army, and alliances. This section also deals with international relations. Another addresses the six Gunas or approaches to foreign policy that one can apply in various circumstances. The ultimate goal in terms of foreign policy is to conquer the world. Numerous methods are discussed to outsmart opponents through clever tactics or defeat by force. Other books cover war preparations and combat, which include descriptions of the army, battle formations, and different fighting styles. It teaches how a weaker nation can defeat a stronger one.
The Arthashastra devotes numerous chapters to discussing the necessity for, procedures, and objectives of secret services and how to set up and use a system of spies who work for the state. Double agents were used in the enemy’s country before military battles. These spies had to receive specific training in the study of interpreting marks, body touch, making up illusions, prophecies, and the skill of association with men. The spies should receive training in taking on roles and guises, using coded language to relay information, and being compensated according to how well they perform and what outcomes they produce.
The Arthashastra suggests that Vyanjana (appearance) agents assume the identities of drifters, chefs, merchants, doctors, entertainers, female agents, and other characters. It asserts that the state should seek people in these fields to join the secret service. According to the book, a conservative state must assume that its opponents are gathering intelligence, snooping inside its borders, and circulating propaganda. As a result, it must educate double agents about these hostile intelligence activities and conduct surveillance to pursue traitors and immoral individuals. The state should not respect such people.
According to Kautilya, women formed the best spies and were fully utilized in the network. Hindu and Buddhist wandering sannyasins, destitute and widowed Brahmin women, and women proficient in the arts were employed. For surveillance, the state was to enlist the help of actresses, authors, singers, performers, and servants. They were valuable state employees who received good pay. They could easily slip into the homes of the top officials and assume various guises, such as servants, spiritual mentors, or even just friends of the leaders’ wives.
Ganikas performed significant roles and secretly dealt with neighboring kingdoms. It is important to note how women played distinct societal roles during the period. The closest ring of the king’s security guards was also made up of female troops with specialized training. In certain situations, women were permitted to hold property, leave it to their heirs, and divorce their partners. By working as weavers, they also contributed to the state’s economy.
Arthashastra, the “science of politics,” outlines the proper methods of governance. It does not view any issue as immoral and leaves a lasting impression on every reader. Ancient verses provide solutions to moral and just concerns. The effects a political activity has on the state, and its citizens are the only factors Kautilya uses to assess political actions. As a result, Bharat’s practical tradition is the oldest globally, and Kautilya’s Arthashastra is the founding text of geopolitics. Moral standards or duties have little to do due to the Matsya Nyaya (‘the stronger fish devouring, the weaker’) theory of international politics. Every state, warns Kautilya, acts to increase power and self-welfare.
Bharat is the biggest and most powerful country in the subcontinent. We view it as a single geopolitical unit, and subcontinental concerns still define our strategic geopolitical ambitions.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Bharat’s first prime minister, read Kautilya’s Arthashastra and remarked in his Discovery of India that it is a component of modern political and cultural history. Thus, Nehru’s devotion to blocking foreign powers from South Asia has a Kautilya foundation. This strategy saved us from getting caught up in a permanent hostility or friendship. By doing this, Nehru hoped to free Bharat from the constraints of the Cold War alliance and allow it to act in its self-interest. However, our defeat against China in 1962 showed his inferior understanding of Arthasastra’s geopolitics.
Indra Gandhi then seemed to understand geopolitics better than her father, which led to South Asia gaining prominence as Bharat’s backyard for the first time. Bharat would safeguard its security and strategic interests in the region and be mindful of any events that might affect us. She demonstrated her understanding of Kautilya diplomacy in 1971 with the incorporation of Sikkim and Goa and the founding of Bangladesh. She also embraced the Soviet Union when the US and China allied themselves during the operation in Bangladesh. As a result, Bharat successfully stopped China from engaging in the 1971 war to support Pakistan. But under Rajiv Gandhi, Bharat used the same geopolitical strategy to settle the conflict in Sri Lanka on its terms, ending up a blunder.
Bharat began applying Arthashastra’s principles after the Cold War ended. We now fiercely claim South Asia as a region of Bharatiya supremacy. Our jealous and unfriendly neighbors opened the doors for China, Bharat’s geopolitical rival, to enter South Asia.
The Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA administration offered the nation nuclear weapons and recognized the geopolitics of avoiding war using deterrence. In 1999, Pakistani infiltrators were forced to retreat after they lost the Kargil War. During this time, we launched swift but minor offensives against Pakistan. Vajpayee showed his wisdom in understanding when to smile and be harsh. Vajpayee pushed Bharat into Central Asia to encircle Pakistan and create a strategic vacuum. China openly demonstrated Kautilya’s doctrine of concentric circles. When the conqueror assumes the role of an attacker in the rear, he must first create an ally there. He will then attack the enemy from behind to aid his ally.
As per Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a nation’s fate is related to its neighborhood. The government decided to improve relations and cooperate with our neighbors. He attempted to use the “circle of kings” technique by inviting all South Asian leaders to his swearing-in event. In addition, Modi and his foreign minister Sushma Swaraj chose South Asia as the location of their first international trips. They avoided intellectual talk in favor of practical action.
By paying a surprise visit to Pakistan on his way back from Kabul to meet Nawaz Sharif, PM Modi made an effort to create a new chapter in the strained relationship. The temporary arrangement ceased in January 2016 when the terrorists assaulted a military installation at Pathankot, close to the Pakistani border. Following the Uri incident in September 2016 by terrorists operating out of Pakistan, Modi announced that we would end all discussions with Pakistan.
On September 29, 2016, Bharat responded by carrying out surgical strikes in Pakistan across the Line of Control. PM Modi established new ideas for “SAARC minus one” (i.e., without Pakistan) and launched the BBIN trade bloc (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal). By extending the ‘neighborhood first’ approach outside of Pakistan, Modi promoted the Kautilya teachings of “plunging the finger in the cooler margins instead of the center of a hot dish.”
Bharat’s confidence grew when Narendra Modi rose to power. He adopted a practical foreign policy in line with Arthasastra tradition and gave foreign policy more attention than his predecessors. During his tours, PM Modi pushed Bharat’s economic and geopolitical interests. These steps transformed Bharat into a leading force.
According to Kautilya, there are three types of power: Mantra shakti (power of diplomacy), Prabhav Shakti (power of army), and Utsah Shakti (power of valor). It loosely translates to “hard,” “soft,” and “smart” power. While having military and economic might is essential, success depends on choosing the right foreign policy tool based on the situation. We require clever tactics that integrate the full range of soft and physical power. Situational intelligence, a natural ability that aids in forming tactics and goals using clever strategies, is required.
Having military force is necessary. At the same time, the effect of culture, religion, movies, literature, and other factors are used as tools for geopolitical gains. Referring to them as “soft” left behind a helpful term and now appears in international relations and academics.
Since taking office, Dr. S. Jaishankar, Bharat’s Ministry for External Affairs (MEA), has dominated the news. If Sushma Swaraj restored our foreign policy with self-confidence, this projection of a rising Bharat is now bold, confident, and assertive. A dramatic shift from the apologetic, uneasy Bharat of the previous several years to a mighty nation aware of its strength is evident if one pays attention to Dr. Jaishankar’s words in a global arena. That his vocabulary is good and his tactics are bluntly pro-Bharat has helped our country immensely.
Other key players include our National Security Advisor (NSA), Ajith Doval. He used soft power to secure the return of nurses from the clutches of ISIS terrorists, withdrew special status to Kashmiris, brought back pilot Abinandan Varthaman from Pakistan territory, earned custody of militant leaders from Myanmar, and calmed down the Delhi riots. He has also used military tools to subdue Islamic terrorists in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and spearheaded the Balakot air strikes.
When asked about policy issues, diplomats acted like Arjuna. They hesitated not because we lacked ability but for fear of consequences. Bharat did not choose its neighbors, just like Arjuna couldn’t choose his family. We must decide our course of action after facing realities. According to the EAM, the term “soft state” refers to a country unable or unwilling to take the necessary action.
Bharat often finds itself in a similar situation as Arjuna, particularly when battling terrorism. Dr. Jaishankar points out that our inability to think creatively and fear of taking chances limit us. Bharat’s response to terrorism is beginning to change, but like Arjuna, we must show up as brave soldiers who are prepared to take risks and accept the consequences. Similar to the Sudarshan Chakra, military solutions always result in harm. We should only use them against repeat criminals and serious threats.
Out-of-the-box game-changing technologies such as artificial intelligence, surveillance, and robots are vital. The secret to modern geopolitics is understanding the value of the cards and skillfully playing them. Duryodhana failed in that crucial area because he underestimated Sri Krishna’s importance and trusted the Narayani Sena (military power) to support him.
Dr. Jaishankar often draws attention to the multiple cases of code-of-conduct violations in the Mahabharata and how they ultimately affected the characters. Both parties abandoned the rules and codes of conduct as the great war’s stakes rose. A strike below the belt killed Duryodhana. A woman was used to bring down Bheeshma. Unarmed and unprepared, Karna attempted to move his chariot and was killed. The murder of Abhimanyu was the worst of all.
Rules are particularly useful in international relations when they are followed and respected. Repeat offenders receive little credit or cooperation. A dependable power can always defend an occasional departure from the rules. Democracies and open societies frequently compete against less ethical opponents. Our enemies are forced to fight an unequal battle because of their Karma. Extreme circumstances occur when democracies built on rules must deal with state-sponsored terrorism. Strong nations do not allow foreign countries to evaluate their choices and interests, and Bharat no longer depends on foreign approval.
How do minor powers that are suicidal act? Arjuna once embarrassed the Trigarta kingdom’s King Susarma. The Trigarta warriors used the one incidence of humiliation as their motivation, putting all their efforts into getting revenge, even at the expense of self-destruction. They attempted to drag the Pandavas out of exile by continually encouraging trouble between the Kauravas and their Pandava cousins. They challenged Arjuna to fight to the death in the battle. Although Arjuna won the fight, it cost him dearly. Arjuna’s absence from the combat led to Abhimanyu’s death.
Immature beliefs that Bharat must engage in talks with Pakistan for a solution must be abandoned. Pakistan is our opponent that has gone to great lengths to harm Bharat. Such enemies with only a single agenda are rare but require a unique approach. Bharat cannot be Arjuna and hesitate. Ignoring terrorism can prove costly, and ensuring that there are no safety assurances for terrorists is one solution. We need to make Pakistani support for terrorism extremely expensive. Dr. Jaishankar is frank in stating that Pakistan can only be considered a regular neighbor once it begins acting like one.
During the Cold War, one side stressed social justice and the common good while the other pushed for democracy, individual freedom, and a free market. Though human rights are non-existent, as they became influential on the international stage, China has worked on its narrative of wealth and peace. Though they still create massive environmental problems, the West in general and the EU, in particular, have developed a false perception of themselves as nature carers. These are classic examples of soft geopolitical power with a negative vibe.
Bharat is an ancient civilization that will soon be the most populous and vital in terms of its economic scale. We cannot be without a message as we develop. In the past, indifference and the in-group mindset provided comfort, but those times are long gone. Our level of confidence will need to rise as we develop our capabilities. Our strengths lie in our diversity and its successful integration, just like the Pandavas, who were born to different mothers and had unique skill sets.
Kautilya used the state’s ability to recover from decline and economic growth as the measure for evaluating a foreign policy. Both securing territory and ensuring economic prosperity are essential to geopolitics, and they support one another. Therefore, Bharat’s approach to China and Pakistan should be generally defined by the potential roles they can play in achieving our geopolitical goals. Bharat’s national interests and Yogakshema (security and welfare) as its foreign policy objective are interconnected today. Our campaign creatively targets security and prosperity for rules-based world order.
Under present geopolitical circumstances, China’s significance as a recognized regional power and a vital component of the world economic system exceeds Pakistan in Bharat’s strategic calculations. Supposedly arch-enemies, the US and Japan are China’s two biggest trading partners outside Asia. Does that make China the most refined role model for Bharat to follow?
From Arthasastra’s perspective, Pakistan may be considered unreasonable and foolish. It has persisted in giving Danda (military force) precedence over Janpada (people and territory). The military handles politics in that country. Their army’s employment of radical Islamist terrorist groups to destabilize Kashmir has affected Pakistan more than Bharat. Such groups have indulged in several terrorist acts in the recent past. Interestingly, Pakistan opposes Bharat even on issues that would be advantageous to Pakistan, such as regional connectivity and cross-border trade.
Its refusal to deepen economic connections with Asia’s third-largest economy reflects a decision made using Islamist ideologies and misplaced objectives. General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s assertion that the Kashmir issue is at the heart of the conflict between the two countries guarantees that peace and settlement are impossible. It is unlikely that South Asia’s long-overdue unification of the sub-continent will advance. According to Arthasastra, Pakistan is Bharat’s ‘inborn enemy.’ Without a fundamental change to the current regime, the wretched country will remain Bharat’s geopolitical opponent.
From Bharat’s point of view, there isn’t much that even a reformed Pakistan could do to help our advance. The economy of Pakistan, which is the least competitive in South Asia, is smaller than Maharashtra’s. It has a low sovereign risk rating, which indicates significant political and economic risks. In a sense, even Pakistan’s alleged capacity to open up Central Asia and facilitate its connection with South Asia is overstated. Afghanistan connects Pakistan to central Asia, and both are considered unstable. Therefore, a reconciliation between Bharat and Pakistan cannot be considered a geopolitical win. In other words, as far as Bharat is concerned, Pakistan is dispensable.
Bharat’s role in achieving its foreign policy goals is comparable with Kautilya principles. China is both a strategic rival and an accidental opponent. We must expect military threats from Pakistan and China. Kautilya’s renowned dual policy strategy suggests we make peace with one neighbor while at war with the other. This principle may not help in our current situation because China and Pakistan are interested in surrounding Bharat militarily and strategically.
We have adopted new strategies for both neighbors. We have used a quick, decisive military clash with our weaker neighbor Pakistan to prevent terrorist threats. Bharat collaborates with China in areas advantageous for us. Kautilya advocated a strategy involving trade partnerships and a silent military buildup.
Chinese propaganda keeps constantly changing. The communists claimed Tibet belonged to China in the seventh century and was passed down to them through several dynasties. Because they lacked any historical support, all of these false and fabrications assertions were debunked by none other than Chinese historians. After more than 70 years of occupation, the Chinese have not subdued or won over the Tibetan people. Today, China frequently repeats the lie that it freed Tibet from its feudal lords to advance the region’s development. Bharat could make a dent in Chinese geopolitics if it wants since we have had relations with Tibet since time immemorable.
The border between China and Bharat, known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC), is ill-defined. China is illegitimately occupying our land. Numerous wars and diplomatic initiatives have failed to resolve the problem. China is attempting to weaponize water and is building dams in Tibet. When Bharat expressed its concerns, China retaliated violently.
Chinese soldiers encroached on important border points in Ladakh about the same time China revealed plans to dam the Yarlung river. Our Army not only held its ground but also stopped the invasion by the People’s Liberation Army. Conflicts resulted in deaths, including the first combatant deaths in China in many years.
Bharat then test-fired the AGNI V, a nuclear-enabled intercontinental ballistic missile. Trucks can be used to move these missiles, and canisters are used to launch them. Our current political opposition that often sulks regarding action against China was forced to join hands with the government. Circumstances worsened for the Chinese. An alarmed Beijing acknowledged that the missile could travel 8,000 kilometers, quickly eliminating any Chinese metropolis. Our military resolve made the Chinese pull out from their forward positions from Bharat’s northern borders. Our missile tests served as a warning shot.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the only Wahhabi countries in the world. Qatari geopolitics is based on its Islamic peninsular monarchy, and Islamism is its official state policy. No country played a more important role during the Arab Spring and gained influence or used soft power relative to its size than Qatar. Qatar is charged with supporting and protecting terrorist organizations in the Arab world. It has established itself as a safe house for international terrorists, through the ideological roots of modern Qatari society in the Muslim Brotherhood or by supporting US-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas. Qatar’s government has relied on foreigners due to their limited human resources but ample financial resources.
Qatar’s leadership is a secretive entity that spreads Islamist teachings wherever possible. The country routinely invites the Islamic State’s (ISIS) leadership and a long list of organizations from Syria and Libya to the Taliban for ‘talks’ and negotiations with major world powers. The Muslim Brotherhood helped Qatar establish extensive and sophisticated international ties. Qatar’s elite (unlike many in the region) views the Brotherhood as a respectable organization. The Brotherhood serves as a branch of Qatar’s Islamist soft power that is highly conservative and dangerous for Bharat.
Qatar is a key U.S. partner and houses the Pentagon’s Central Command regional headquarters at the ever-expanding al-Udeid Air Base. Thanks to the U.S. military presence in Qatar, Qatar’s foreign policy has been (and still is) firmly rooted in the American sphere. Al Udeid is still the current forward regional command for the U.S. military, with jurisdiction over Pakistan, Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Horn of Africa. As part of NATO Operation Unified Protector, Qatar sent its fighter jets to Libya to support the larger action. Although the operation was supposedly intended to protect people, it ultimately led to the toppling of Libyan leader Gadhafi. Ali Al Sallaby, an exiled Libyan living in Doha, was instrumental in supplying funds and weapons to Islamist organizations in Benghazi, and the fighting continues.
One must not underestimate Qatar’s location and small population. The state is in a volatile area where there is at least one major conflict every few years. Qatari politicians have long been concerned about its main borders on the land with Saudi Arabia and across the oceans with Iran, the two regional giants. As a result, Qatar’s leaders have pursued a dual strategy to safeguard the state. First, Qatar has U.S. security by hosting two important American military sites. Second, Qatari leaders have sought broader support worldwide to develop soft power. They maintain about a hundred missions, consulates, and embassies, including several in Bharat.
Qatar’s military intelligence collaborated closely with Turkish, British, and American intelligence in Syria and backed factions opposed to President Assad. Qatar is funding establishments of Western universities in Doha that feature mixed-sex classrooms and ‘secularism.’ Alcohol and pork products are easily accessible in Qatar.
It makes no sense to criticize Qatar’s Islamist” agenda for cooperating with groups like the Taliban or Hamas. It only acts as an American government’s broker with radical Islamic forces. Qatar launched peace talks with such Islamists with both US and German governments’ open support. Such contraindications must be considered when assessing Qatar’s intentions.
How does a small country like Qatar exert influence? They use unofficial contacts or spies. Qatar’s royal family supports Islamist organizations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) to spread Wahabi beliefs throughout Bharat. However, in the wake of the recent Nupur Sharma issue, the FATF grey list holder mustered the guts to lecture Bharat on the rights of religious minorities.
Qatar manages a network of “humanitarian” groups that finance terrorism. The Sheikh Eid Bin Mohammad Al Thani Charitable Association, popularly known as “Eid Charity,” has sponsored Wahhabi organizations with millions for the past many decades. This severe issue was highlighted by the Usanas Foundation, a geopolitical think tank based in Bharat. The group discovered more than 1,200 transactions sent straight to Bharat through Eid charity, and several organizations received crores in funding.
These recipients of Eid charity in Bharat are institutions dedicated to propagating extreme ideologies like burqa-wearing and Wahabi doctrine through madrasa education. Through the “game of narratives,” Qatar promotes extremism through its state-run news network Al Jazeera, promoting Hinduphobia through its regional channels to advance pan-Islamism.
This book will take a closer look at how geopolitics uses soft and hard power. We will study how false narratives are set and jihadi crimes are coated with secularism. We will discuss the tools used to propagate lies against our ancient Sanatani way of life. Politics has twisted our movies and education. Harmful words like Kafir and suitable history have been inserted. Other popular tools include climate change, trade/ currency wars, NATO diplomacy, and reverse planning.
Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows when so-called developed nations copy our traditions but refuse to give us credit. The youth have begun to understand, and change is in the air. We cannot undo our past, but our future can improve. Many challenges lie ahead, and several strategies are being implemented, but will they be sufficient?
Nostrud aliquip exrcitation laboris
nisiut temp duis autey. Lorem unt
ipsum sit amet elit dolor.