top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger...

New Alliances, New Pressures, New Fault Lines

To its west, old relationships in the Gulf are acquiring new strategic and military dimensions. Across the Atlantic, Washington is increasingly using tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy. At the same time, India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and prepares to host its summit when the grouping is being watched in the West as a potential challenge to the American-dominated global financial order. Individually, these developments may appear unrelated. Put together, they reveal a larger geopolitical churn in which alliances, energy, trade, currencies and economic coercion are becoming interconnected. India finds itself almost at its centre. The emerging Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan security equation deserves particular attention. Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial and energy influence; Türkiye possesses considerable military strength, NATO experience and an expanding defence industry; Pakistan brings a large military establishment and nuclear capability with the open support of Washington. Any arrangement containing a collective-defence commitment naturally acquires significance beyond ordinary diplomatic cooperation. Alongside it, another strategic convergence has gradually developed among India, Israel and the UAE. It would be incorrect to describe this as a formal military alliance. Yet geopolitics does not operate through defence treaties alone. India's extensive defence and technology relationship with Israel, its rapidly expanding economic and strategic partnership with the UAE, and the UAE-Israel relationship following the Abraham Accords have created considerable common ground. I2U2—bringing together India, Israel, the UAE and the United States—added another institutional dimension. Thus, without necessarily becoming opposing military camps, two interesting strategic formations are visible across West Asia: Saudi Arabia–Türkiye–Pakistan and the looser India–UAE–Israel convergence. Balancing Challenge India faces a similar balancing challenge. The Gulf is not a distant geopolitical theatre for New Delhi. Nearly nine million Indians live and work there. India's energy security, investments, trade and remittance flows are closely connected with the region. The proposed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor also requires relative stability across this geography. Polarisation in West Asia can therefore rapidly become an Indian economic and strategic problem. There is another question Indian planners cannot ignore. If a future India-Pakistan confrontation escalates, how would any collective-defence commitment involving Pakistan be interpreted by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye? It would be alarmist to assume that either country would automatically enter a conflict against India. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has substantial economic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with New Delhi. Nevertheless, defence planners are paid to examine possibilities before they become crises. While these equations develop in India's neighbourhood, economic pressure is emerging from Washington. The US Senate has voted 86–11 for legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia by targeting major purchasers of Russian energy. The measure could authorise tariffs reaching 100 per cent against goods from countries continuing large-scale purchases of Russian oil and gas, with India among those potentially exposed. China is powerful enough to shrug off similar challenges from the West." However this does not mean that America has already imposed a 100 per cent tariff on India. Further legislative steps remain necessary, and presidential waiver provisions are important. But the overwhelming Senate vote carries a political message that New Delhi cannot dismiss. Tariffs are no longer merely tools of trade protection; they have become instruments of geopolitical coercion. Washington's argument is understandable: revenues from Russian petroleum help sustain Moscow's economy during the Ukraine war, and reducing those revenues increases pressure on Russia. But in that case what about European countries who too were/are customers of Russian oil? India's question is equally legitimate: who should determine where India purchases the energy required by more than 1.4 billion people? If Russian crude remains commercially advantageous and helps contain domestic energy costs, New Delhi cannot reasonably be expected to make every energy decision according to another country's geopolitical priorities. Strategic partnership cannot become strategic obedience. This is where BRICS enters the larger picture. India holds the BRICS presidency in 2026 and will host its leaders at an unusually sensitive moment. BRICS is no longer merely the original grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Its expansion has considerably increased its demographic, energy and geopolitical weight. More importantly, discussions around BRICS increasingly touch a sensitive nerve in Washington: alternative payment mechanisms, local-currency trade, development finance and the possibility of gradually reducing dependence upon the dollar-dominated international financial system. The BRICS Summit this time is poised to take some decisive steps which may affect western interests especially US. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Biomedical Waste: From Neglect to Regulation

The rise of HIV/AIDS and the 'Syringe Tide' of 1987 paved the way for global recognition of the biohazard threat and the need for regulation.

In the early days of healthcare, little attention was paid to the proper disposal of medical waste. Infectious materials, sharps, and other hazardous waste were often mixed with general waste, posing significant risks to both healthcare workers and the environment. The lack of awareness and regulations led to sporadic and unsafe practices.


However, during the 1980s, the rise of HIV/AIDS and other serious health concerns brought the issue into sharper focus. It is reported that, for the first time, the topic of medical waste management was discussed at a meeting convened by the World Health Organization’s regional office for Europe in Bergen, Norway, in 1983.


The ‘Syringe Tide’ episode of 1987, described in last week’s article, further heightened concerns. This incident underlined the urgent need for specialised medical waste management services and appropriate regulations.


In the United States, the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 categorised waste from hospitals as hazardous and required institutions to follow systematic guidelines for handling and disposal. As a result, a new industry of medical waste service providers emerged, offering comprehensive solutions for waste collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal.


The ‘Syringe Tide’ disaster also sent shockwaves across Europe and other Western countries. Eventually, stringent rules and regulations were introduced to govern the handling, transport from the source of generation, treatment, and disposal of medical waste.


Introduction of legislation for managing medical waste in India

In India, the first case of HIV was reported in 1986. At the time, there were no specific rules or regulations to manage medical waste. Due to the absence of legislation and a general lack of awareness among policymakers and other stakeholders, medical waste was not treated as hazardous. It was routinely mixed with general municipal solid waste and dumped in landfills or open dumping grounds.


To compound the growing burden of municipal and hospital waste, disposable plastic items were introduced into the healthcare sector in the 1970s. These items quickly gained popularity due to their convenience and durability. By the 1980s and 1990s, the use of disposable plastic items in hospitals had significantly increased, driven by the broader adoption of plastics in both daily life and medical practice.


The wake-up call: Dr B.L. Wadhera vs Union of India

In the 1990s, several NGOs and individuals in Delhi began drawing attention to the issue of unregulated medical waste management. In 1995, Dr B.L. Wadhera filed a writ petition in the Hon. Supreme Court of India, highlighting the neglected problem of medical waste disposal in Delhi. The petition pointed out that the government had failed to recognise the hazardous impact of openly dumped medical waste on public health and had not classified it appropriately as hazardous waste.


As a result, the Hon. Supreme Court directed the Government of India to appoint a committee of experts and develop a clear legislative framework for the classification and proper management of medical waste. This landmark judgement exposed major regulatory gaps and set the wheels in motion for the creation of medical waste management legislation in India. More on this in my next article. Till then, have a good weekend!


(The writer is an environmentalist.)

Comments

bottom of page