Vision 2040: A Future-Ready Defence Blueprint for India

 

Executive Summary: India is entering an era of heightened strategic competition, hybrid threats, and rapid technological disruption. To remain secure and assertive in this new world order, India must undertake bold, structural reforms across its armed forces. This white paper proposes a six-force structure, unified recruitment and assessment authority, and the rationalization of border and internal security forces. These reforms will transform India from a reactive power to a proactive strategic actor.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I. Introduction: The Need for Radical Reform

• The nature of warfare has changed. Kinetic battles are no longer the only decisive factor; space, cyberspace, narrative warfare, and covert operations now shape national outcomes.

• India’s current force structure and recruitment models are relics of the 20th century, unsuited for this multidomain, technology-driven battlefield.

• This paper recommends creating three new forces, unifying recruitment under a central authority, and reorganizing border/internal security commands.

II. Six-Force Military Architecture

1. Indian Army (Traditional Land Forces)

• Retained with modernization.

• Focus on conventional deterrence and integrated battlefield operations.

2. Indian Navy (Maritime Command)

• Expanded blue-water capability.

• Indo-Pacific-centric deterrence.

3. Indian Air Force (Aerospace Operations)

• Emphasis on precision, ISR, and joint command compatibility.

4. Optoelectronics Force (OEF)

• Technological backbone.

• Domains: Cyber, AI, quantum tech, drone/robotics, space-based ISR, electronic warfare.

• Supports all other branches.

5. Information Force (IF)

• Psychological operations, perception management, counter-narrative warfare.

• Offensive and defensive information operations.

6. Surgical Force (SF)

• Covert, precision-oriented, Pakistan-proxy centric force.

• Special operations, sabotage, deep penetration missions.

III. Recruitment Reform: A Unified National Defence Talent Commission

1. Dismantling the Legacy System

• Remove CDS, NDA, AFCAT, SSC-Tech, and other redundant entry routes.

2. Centralized Testing (6 Exams per Year)

• 2 x Engineering Graduate Tests.

• 2 x 12th (Science) Entry Tests.

• 2 x General Graduate Tests.

3. Unified SSB Board under IDS

• Centralized, AI-supported, psychologically advanced SSB system.

• Assesses cognitive fit, domain-specific aptitude, leadership under stress.

4. Force Allocation Post-Selection

• Based on aptitude + preference.

• Candidates matched to one of six forces.

IV. Border and Internal Security Command Reorganization

1. Unified Border Security Force (UBSF)

• Merger of BSF, ITBP, and SSB.

• Comes under Ministry of Defence.

• Wartime integration with Army Theatre Commands.

2. Unified Internal Security Command (UISC)

• Merges CRPF, CISF, NSG, and Assam Rifles.

• Comes under Ministry of Home Affairs.

• Handles internal counter-insurgency, riot control, VIP protection, and rapid crisis response.

V. Integration and Oversight

1. Theatre Command Integration

• Six forces feed into integrated theatre commands.

• Theatre-specific command structure replaces service-specific operations.

2. Legislative and Constitutional Backing

• National Security Act Amendment.

• Defines command responsibilities, recruitment authority, and civilian-military integration.

3. Optional Specialist Fast-Track Entry

• For AI experts, cyber researchers, physicists, and narrative specialists.

• Civilian-to-officer pipeline for strategic talent.

VI. Strategic Benefits

• Improved domain readiness and rapid force deployment.

• Enhanced psychological, cyber, and covert deterrence.

• Efficient manpower planning and cost-effective training.

• Strategic autonomy through indigenized tech force (OEF).

VII. Implementation Roadmap (10 Years)

Phase 1 (Years 1-3):

• Legal framework.

• NDTC formation.

• Begin SSB board overhaul.

Phase 2 (Years 4-6):

• Pilot new recruitment model.

• Raise Optoelectronics and Information Forces.

• Merge BSF, ITBP, and SSB into UBSF.

Phase 3 (Years 7-10):

• Full transition.

• Six-force structure.

• Theatre command operationalization.

VIII. Conclusion: Reforging the Sword India cannot prepare for tomorrow’s threats using yesterday’s structures. The time for administrative tinkering is over. This blueprint offers a bold, scalable, and modern path to turn India’s military into a force that not only defends but shapes the regional and global order.

The Decline of Fundamental Physics: A Civilizational and Ideological Analysis

 

Introduction

The early 20th century marked a golden era in the history of physics. Within the span of a few decades, humanity witnessed the birth of relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and the foundations of cosmology—an intellectual upheaval that reshaped our understanding of the universe. In contrast, the 21st century has seen little comparable in terms of paradigm-shifting discoveries, despite greater investments, technological capability, and academic institutionalization. Why?

This paper proposes that the stagnation in fundamental physics is not merely a result of scientific exhaustion or technical difficulty, but rather a reflection of deeper civilizational, cultural, and ideological shifts—particularly in Western societies where most modern scientific infrastructure resides.

---

1. Historical Momentum and the Heroic Age of Physics

The scientific breakthroughs of the early 20th century were not produced in a vacuum. They emerged from societies that, despite their flaws, still believed deeply in truth as an objective pursuit, civilizational advancement, and the value of individual genius.

• Institutions such as the Institute for Advanced Study or Los Alamos Laboratory functioned as intellectual crucibles, attracting bold thinkers willing to question foundational assumptions.

• There was political will, driven by existential threats—World Wars and the Cold War—to fund and legitimize high-risk scientific ventures.

• Figures like Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, and Dirac became not just scientists, but cultural icons, representing humanity’s attempt to understand the cosmos.

This era of “heroic science” was underpinned by a culture that respected merit, rewarded risk, and saw discovery as a civilizational virtue.

---

2. The Institutionalization and Stagnation of Physics

In contrast, today’s scientific landscape is marked by bureaucratization, hyper-specialization, and an often risk-averse academic culture.

• The grant system, while necessary, now acts as a gatekeeping mechanism that prioritizes safe, fundable research over disruptive, paradigm-challenging ideas.

• Peer review, once a tool of quality control, can function as an ideological and methodological filter, rewarding conformity over originality.

• Fields like string theory have dominated theoretical physics for decades without producing falsifiable predictions, creating a sense of intellectual inertia.

The result is a physics community that is technically competent but philosophically cautious, focused more on career survival than scientific revolution.

---

3. Ideological Pressures and the Politicization of Science

Perhaps most critically, the modern academy—especially in the West—has become increasingly entangled with social and ideological expectations that, while well-intentioned, risk compromising the epistemic neutrality that science demands.

• Discussions of “decolonizing science,” while important in historical contexts, can sometimes drift into cultural relativism, undermining the universality of mathematical and physical laws.

• Meritocratic excellence is increasingly seen as potentially “exclusionary,” leading to pressures for representation over competence in hiring, funding, and recognition.

• The broader intellectual climate often discourages bold or controversial thought, particularly if it challenges accepted narratives.

This shift in institutional culture—from the pursuit of truth to the management of perception—has dulled the edge of scientific inquiry.

---

4. Civilizational Confidence and the Loss of Cosmic Ambition

Underlying these developments is a deeper civilizational change. The societies that once looked to the stars now increasingly turn inward, preoccupied with identity, guilt, and equity rather than exploration, excellence, and expansion.

• The Apollo Program, once a symbol of American vision and technical audacity, would likely be politically and culturally impossible today.

• Cosmological research now competes for attention and funding with issues framed as more urgent and socially relevant.

• Science is no longer seen as a sacred civilizational mission, but as a bureaucratic sector among many.

Without existential threats, civilizational clarity, or philosophical ambition, the motivation for radical discovery weakens.

---

Conclusion: Toward a New Scientific Renaissance

The stagnation in fundamental physics is not just a problem of equations and experiments—it is a symptom of civilizational drift. To revive the spirit of great science, we must re-instill values that transcend academic safety:

• Merit over moral signaling

• Truth over consensus

• Wonder over ideological rigidity

A society that wishes to explore the stars must be willing to tolerate discomfort, fund uncertainty, and honor the pursuit of truth without compromise.

In short, if we want a new era of Einstein-level discovery, we must first rebuild the civilizational imagination that made such breakthroughs possible.

The Strategic Architecture of the Contemporary World Order: A Realist Interpretation

 

Introduction

The global order in 2025 is not evolving toward greater cooperation, justice, or equality as often claimed by liberal internationalists. Instead, it is characterized by increasing strategic competition, narrative warfare, and ideological manipulation. This paper offers a realist interpretation of the current geopolitical landscape, stripping away idealistic rhetoric to assess the actual motives and behaviors of major powers and global institutions.

---

United States: Hegemony Through Managed Disorder

Despite signs of internal decline, the United States remains the dominant global actor due to its control over financial systems, international narratives, and hard power projection capabilities. The U.S. no longer maintains global dominance through positive leadership, but rather by sustaining controlled instability in strategic regions.

• Its key tools include the dollar as a weapon, NGOs as soft-power vectors, and media-driven legitimacy framing.

• Strategic interventions (military, economic, ideological) are used not to stabilize but to prevent the emergence of alternative poles of power.

Though internally polarized and economically imbalanced, the U.S. remains unmatched in global reach due to its forward military presence and strategic alliances.

---

China: Discipline Without Soft Power

China’s rise is disciplined, methodical, and primarily economic in nature. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, digital infrastructure, and supply chain dominance, it seeks to replace the West’s material grip on the developing world.

• However, it suffers from a lack of cultural appeal, alliances, and transparent communication, making its ascent more fragile than it appears.

• Its civilizational model, though confident, is tightly centralized, with little room for ideological exports.

In realist terms, China is a revisionist power pursuing systemic change via economic entrenchment rather than military aggression.

---

Russia: Strategic Disruption as Survival

Russia remains a major strategic player despite economic limitations. It compensates through disruption strategies, including hybrid warfare, energy politics, cyber operations, and geopolitical diversification.

• Russia’s survival logic is zero-sum: a multipolar world is existential, while Western expansionism is seen as a direct threat.

• Its identity relies heavily on Orthodox nationalism, historical grievance, and Eurasian sovereignty.

Though in decline relative to its Soviet past, Russia still retains unique resilience, driven by its willingness to embrace realpolitik without moral constraints.

---

India: The Strategic Puzzle

India holds immense potential as a civilizational state with a strong demographic and technological base. Yet, it lacks a cohesive strategic doctrine and suffers from internal fragmentation and elite ideological confusion.

• Foreign-funded NGOs, identity politics, and narrative warfare weaken India’s internal cohesion.

• Its geopolitical stance often oscillates between non-alignment and strategic hedging, with no clear doctrine for asserting global influence.

India risks being used as a balancing power in others’ strategies rather than emerging as an independent pole.

---

European Union: Civilization Without Coherence

The European Union, despite its wealth and historical depth, is declining in strategic significance due to demographic decay, political fragmentation, and excessive dependence on U.S. security guarantees.

• Its commitment to open borders and liberal values often conflicts with the hard realities of national security and cultural survival.

• Despite its economic weight, the EU lacks military will, narrative confidence, and civilizational cohesion.

In realist terms, the EU functions more as a bureaucratic buffer zone than as a geopolitical actor with agency.

---

Strategic Themes of the Current World Order

1. Ideology as Instrument, Not Belief

Modern geopolitical actors use ideology tactically. "Democracy," "human rights," and "rule of law" are employed selectively, often to justify interventions or delegitimize adversaries.

• The U.S. and Western institutions have weaponized liberal values to enforce a global order that ultimately protects their own supremacy.

• China and Russia, meanwhile, adopt nationalism and sovereignty rhetoric not out of ideological purity but as shields against Western interference.

2. Narrative Control Is the New Battlefield

The most effective empires today rule not through conquest but through control of language, perception, and discourse. Media, academia, and entertainment are used to shape how populations interpret legitimacy, power, and morality.

• Whoever controls global narratives influences elections, public opinion, and international legitimacy.

3. Digital Surveillance as Geopolitical Infrastructure

Surveillance systems, big data, and artificial intelligence are the new pillars of strategic dominance. Nations with access to global data flows and predictive modeling can influence not only events but decisions themselves.

4. Cultural and Demographic Power Supersedes Raw Military Strength

Future power will not solely depend on military might but on civilizational vitality—culture, values, fertility rates, and the ability to withstand ideological subversion.

---

Conclusion: Strategic Clarity in an Age of Managed Disorder

What we are witnessing is not a battle between good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, or freedom and tyranny. We are witnessing a contest between systems of power—each trying to preserve, expand, or reassert dominance using whatever tools are effective.

A truly realist lens acknowledges:

• There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

• Ideologies are narratives. Power is reality.

For rising powers like India and others in the Global South, the key lies in rejecting imported ideological confusion and crafting their own strategic doctrines rooted in cultural confidence, national interest, and civilizational memory.

How Foreign Elites Use Leftist Ideologies to Influence India and the Global South

 

Introduction

In today’s world, ideas travel across borders faster than ever. But not all ideas are neutral. Some are promoted by powerful people and institutions for specific reasons. This essay looks at how rich and powerful people, especially in the West, use modern communist or leftist ideas to influence developing countries like India. These ideas often enter through NGOs, universities, and social media, and are funded by foreign foundations. While they appear helpful on the surface, they can also be used to break national unity and stop true development.

---

Why Foreign Elites Promote Leftist Ideas

At first, it may seem strange that rich people would support ideologies like communism, which speak against wealth and power. But many of them don’t support old-style communism (like violent revolutions). Instead, they support a newer, softer version called “woke leftism” or “soft communism.”

They do this for a few reasons:

1. To control the story: If they shape what people think is right or wrong, they can control how societies behave.

2. To prevent strong nationalism: A united country with cultural pride is harder to manipulate. Leftist ideas often attack traditional values and national identity.

3. To divide people: These ideas focus on identity—like caste, gender, and religion. This creates fights among people, which makes it easier to weaken the government or society.

4. To stop rising powers: Countries like India and others in the Global South are growing stronger. Leftist confusion inside the country can slow this down.

---

How This Happens in India

India is a perfect example of how foreign-funded ideas can be used to cause internal confusion. Here’s how it works:

1. Foreign Funding of NGOs

Big foundations like Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation (by George Soros), and others from Europe and the U.S. give money to Indian NGOs. These NGOs often talk about:

• Human rights

• Environmental justice

• Minority protection

• Gender identity

These issues are important—but the way they’re handled often blames India, its traditions, or its government unfairly. Sometimes they block development projects like dams, roads, or nuclear plants in the name of “saving the environment.”

2. University Influence

Many Indian universities, especially some central ones like JNU and parts of Ashoka University or TISS, have teachers and students influenced by Western academic ideas. These ideas teach people to:

• Criticize Indian traditions (like Hinduism or family systems)

• View Indian history as full of oppression

• Compare India with apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany

These comparisons are extreme and create hate among communities instead of unity.

3. Media and Social Media Narratives

Many journalists and influencers trained or funded by the West promote content that divides Indian society. They often talk about:

• Hindu majoritarianism

• Brahmin privilege

• Dalit-Muslim-Christian victimhood

• “Fascism” or “intolerance” in India

This makes India look bad globally and weakens the trust of Indians in their own country.

4. Legal Disruption

Some NGOs file Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in court to stop government policies. For example:

• Blocking national security laws

• Stopping infrastructure projects

• Challenging citizenship rules like CAA or NRC

They often use the law to slow down India’s plans by creating a negative image.

---

The Strategy Behind This

These elites don’t want to destroy India. They just want to keep it busy with internal problems, so it never becomes a strong competitor globally. If India becomes a confident, culturally united and economically powerful nation, it can resist Western dominance.

That’s why these groups promote "safe rebellion"—like protesting against caste or gender injustice, but never against big banks, global corporations, or NATO countries. They support a "fake revolution" that helps the elite look good, while keeping control over developing nations.

---

What Happens in Other Developing Countries

India is not alone. The same strategy is used in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America:

• In Africa, they talk about human rights but ignore Western companies that take their natural resources.

• In Latin America, they support local protests but don’t speak against U.S. interference.

• In Southeast Asia, they talk about diversity but oppose strong nationalist governments.

These are all ways to keep these countries unstable and dependent on the West.

---

Conclusion: What Should India Do?

India must be alert. It should not ban all foreign ideas, but it must protect its core identity and filter outside influence carefully. Here’s what can be done:

1. Track foreign funding in sensitive areas like education, media, and NGOs.

2. Promote Indian thought and civilizational values in schools and universities.

3. Support home-grown intellectuals who understand India’s realities, not just copy Western theories.

4. Build cultural and economic confidence so that Indians don’t feel inferior to foreign models.

True development comes from within. Real justice must respect the nation’s culture, economy, and strategic needs.

India should welcome global learning—but not at the cost of its own unity and strength.

Strategic Triangulation: Navigating the India–U.S.–Pakistan Equation in the 21st Century

 In the complex theatre of global geopolitics, the triangular relationship between India, the United States, and Pakistan remains one of the most sensitive and dynamic. This axis, rooted in the legacy of Cold War politics and evolving through modern strategic compulsions, continues to test the limits of diplomacy, restraint, and realpolitik. In this context, India and the U.S. find themselves both indispensable to each other and inevitably entangled in difficult regional dynamics—especially concerning Pakistan and China.

This essay explores why India has taken certain strategic decisions (such as not procuring F‑35s), why the U.S. continues engagement with Pakistan despite its duplicity, and why both nations must recognize each other’s constraints rather than interpret them as betrayals.

India’s Calculated Refusal of the F‑35: Not a Rejection, but a Realist Move

India’s decision not to acquire the F‑35 stealth fighter from the U.S. should not be seen as a rejection of bilateral defense ties. Rather, it reflects a strategic calculus born out of India’s geographical realities, military constraints, and geopolitical posture. Accepting the F‑35 would significantly provoke China, making India appear as a frontline ally in Washington’s Indo‑Pacific military grid. India currently faces a significant capability and technological gap with China and cannot afford to trigger a direct military escalation, especially along the volatile Line of Actual Control (LAC). The F‑35 comes with operational restrictions, limited tech transfer, and dependence on U.S. military infrastructure—clashing with India’s long‑standing commitment to strategic autonomy. India’s refusal is thus a defensive posture, not anti‑Americanism—a mature recognition that joining a direct containment ring around China, at this point, could be strategically premature.

U.S.–Pakistan Relations: A Relationship of Compulsion, Not Trust

Many wonder: Why does the United States continue engaging with Pakistan, despite evidence of duplicity (such as hosting Osama bin Laden), ISI’s support for jihadist elements, and strategic drift toward China? The answer lies not in shared values, but in tactical utility and risk management. Pakistan is too dangerous to ignore: a fragile nuclear‑armed state with internal instability, cross‑border terrorism, and proximity to hotspots like Iran and Afghanistan. The U.S. sees Pakistan as a manageable mess—not a trusted ally, but a potential source of regional chaos that must be kept under partial control. ISI, despite its double games, still provides intelligence value in regional matters such as Taliban politics, smuggling routes, or jihadi networks. The U.S. avoids complete rupture with Pakistan out of fear of China filling the vacuum—thereby gaining exclusive control over Pakistan’s military and nuclear posture. This is not affection or loyalty—it’s strategic containment through reluctant engagement.

India’s Strategic Maturity: Understanding the U.S.–Pakistan Equation

India must recognize—as it often does—that great powers sometimes engage rogue actors not out of preference, but out of necessity. Just as the U.S. maintains a cautious relationship with Pakistan, India too manages its ties with China carefully, avoiding overt provocations while building long‑term deterrence. It would be hypocritical for the U.S. to criticize India’s neutrality on Russia or cautious diplomacy with China, while simultaneously flirting with Pakistan under the guise of necessity. Similarly, India should not over‑react emotionally when the U.S. engages Pakistan on limited terms—as long as there is strategic transparency.

The Missing Link: Strategic Communication and Transparency

Here lies the true weakness in India–U.S. diplomacy: perception management. When the U.S. makes symbolic gestures toward Pakistan (military parades, minor aid, visits), Indian observers often interpret this as betrayal. When India refuses to toe the U.S. line (on Russia, CAATSA, F‑35), American observers misread this as resistance or unreliability.

What both sides need is more honest dialogue and strategic empathy.

The U.S. must consult and brief India before taking steps with Pakistan. Likewise, India should explain its security compulsions to the U.S., rather than assume Washington will always understand.

The Inevitable Alliance: Why the 21st Century Belongs to India–U.S. Partnership

Despite all friction points, it is clear that India and the United States need each other more than any other bilateral pair in the 21st century.

Conclusion: Strategic Autonomy Does Not Mean Strategic Hostility

India will continue to protect its sovereignty and autonomy, just as the U.S. will pursue tactical hedging in South Asia. But these actions need not be seen as betrayals. Instead, both countries must learn to respect each other’s red lines while reinforcing the long‑term direction of partnership. If America wants to keep Pakistan on life support, it must do so without alienating India. And if India avoids sensitive military deals, it must reassure the U.S. of its long‑term reliability.

In geopolitics, there are no perfect allies—only enduring interests. The India–U.S. relationship, if navigated with trust, realism, and restraint, can become one of the defining pillars of 21st‑century order.

The Hollow Warriors of ‘Social Justice’: A Nation Betrayed, A Decade Lost

 India's politics often feels like a broken record, full of promises that never come true. The INDI Alliance talks a big game about "social justice," like they care about everyone, but really, they're just pretending. They use names like Ambedkar and Lohia to sound good, but when they get power, they forget all about those ideas. They're not helping people; they're actually making things worse.

The Past: When They Didn't Do Much (1990s - Early 2010s)

Back in the 1990s, something called the Mandal Commission changed things by giving reservations. But after that, what did these so-called social justice parties actually do for the people they said they represented? Not much, really.

Here’s what they failed at:

 * Bad Schools and Hospitals: Even though they ruled many states for a long time, they didn't fix our broken government schools or hospitals. They just let them get worse. Poor kids were stuck in bad schools while politicians' kids went to fancy private schools.

 * No Jobs or Training: They didn't help young people get jobs or new skills. Big cities got fancy tech parks, but poor people in villages had to move to dirty city slums to find work. Even MGNREGA (a job scheme) came much later and was just a small fix for a much bigger problem they created.

 * Politicians Becoming Criminals: Many of these leaders, like Lalu Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav, made politics about gangs and crime. They turned running the government into fighting between families and castes, and it became all about getting revenge.

 * Just for Show: They treated people from SCs, STs, and OBCs like they were just votes. Every good thing they did was just to get votes, not because they truly wanted to help people as citizens.

 * Ruining Good Systems: They filled important jobs in universities, government, and police with people based on their caste, not because they were good at the job. This led to lots of corruption and bad choices.

Revenge Politics: A Big Mistake for India

The 1990s and early 2000s weren't just about missing chances; it was about "revenge politics." Parties that promised to end the power of upper castes didn't create a fair society. Instead, they just flipped things around and made people angry at each other. They didn't bring people together; they made the divisions between castes and communities even deeper.

They didn't share power; they just made their own little kingdoms. Because of all this chaos, India lost a lot of important years when it could have grown and changed for the better. We had a lot of young people who could have done great things, but we wasted that chance. Our roads and buildings got worse, crime went up, and people from other countries didn't want to invest here.

Now What? The Same Old Story in 2024

Now, in 2024-25, they're back, calling themselves the INDI Alliance. But it's the same old people, the same families, the same criminal records, and the same idea that they deserve power without actually doing a good job. Now they're pretending to be the protectors of the Constitution and "secularism."

What's even worse is that now they're asking for more than 85% reservation without even knowing how many people are in each caste. This isn't about good policy; it's just because they're desperate to win elections. This demand is like a time bomb for India's future.

Why This Is Dangerous:

 * Caste Survey Without a Real Plan: If they do a caste survey without a clear plan to help people, it will just be a way to keep adding more reservations forever. This means reservations might become more about getting freebies than truly helping people stand on their own feet.

 * Killing Merit: In important areas like AI, manufacturing, defense, and healthcare, India needs the best people. We can't afford to lower our quality for caste quotas. Smart people are already leaving India because of this.

 * Scaring Away Investors: No one from other countries will put their money in India if our rules are based on caste fights instead of good governance.

 * No Desire to Improve: If young people see that their identity is more important than how well they perform, they won't want to work hard. It creates a group of people who always feel like victims and have no reason to try and improve.

We Can't Afford to Lose This Decade

India is at a very important point right now. We have a lot of young people. China is getting old, and Western countries aren't growing much. This should be our moment to shine.

But if this decade is ruined again by the same political games played in the name of social justice—without actually doing anything good or fixing problems—then India's rise will just be a tiny note in history. We'll become a messy, angry country where everyone demands rights but no one takes responsibility.

Let's not be fooled. Social justice is a good idea. But when the INDI Alliance uses it, it's just an empty slogan to hide their many years of failure, corruption, and betrayal.

This time, India cannot afford to be tricked again.

Do you think these politicians really care about social justice, or are they just saying it for votes?