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.)

Shardul Thakur: A Masterclass in Mediocrity

Shardul Thakur, the self-proclaimed “Lord” of Indian cricket, how you’ve blessed us with your dazzling display of utter incompetence in the first Test against England at Headingley in 2025. The Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy opener was a stage set for heroes, yet you, dear Shardul, chose to audition for the role of court jester. Your performance was a tragicomedy, a spectacular implosion that left Indian fans clutching their heads and England’s batsmen chuckling into their tea cups. Let’s dissect this masterpiece of misery, shall we?


India, under the fresh captaincy of Shubman Gill, arrived in Leeds with a squad brimming with promise. The retirements of Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli had ushered in a new era, and Thakur, the so-called all-rounder, was handed a golden ticket to prove his worth. After all, he’d smashed an unbeaten 122 in an intra-squad game, bamboozled a few top-order batsmen with his bowling, and strutted into the Test side as the lone pace-bowling all-rounder. The selectors must have thought they’d unearthed a diamond. Instead, they got a lump of coal.


Let’s start with the batting, shall we? India’s first innings was a run-fest, with Yashasvi Jaiswal, Shubman Gill, and Rishabh Pant piling on centuries to reach 471. Thakur, batting at No. 8, had the perfect platform to showcase his much-vaunted lower-order grit. What did he deliver? A princely 1 run off 8 balls, caught by Jamie Smith off Ben Stokes. Bravo, Shardul! A single run—truly the stuff of legends. Perhaps he was too busy admiring the Headingley clouds to bother with trivialities like scoring runs. In the second innings, with India aiming to set a daunting target, Thakur upped his game to a staggering 4 runs off 12 balls, nicking one to Joe Root off Josh Tongue. Four whole runs! One wonders if he was practicing for the village cricket league instead of a Test match. India’s lower order collapsed like a house of cards, losing 6 wickets for 31 runs, and Thakur’s contribution was as substantial as a puff of smoke.


Now, let’s turn to his bowling, the supposed “golden arm” that breaks partnerships and turns games. In England’s first innings, Thakur bowled 6 overs, conceding 38 runs without a single wicket. His economy rate was a generous 6.33, as if he were hosting a charity run-donation drive for England’s batsmen. Ollie Pope (106) and Harry Brook (99) must have sent him thank-you notes for the buffet of loose deliveries. In the second innings, with England chasing 371, Thakur finally struck, removing Ben Duckett (149) and Harry Brook (0) in quick succession. Two wickets for 51 runs in 10 overs sounds almost respectable—until you realize Duckett was already feasting at 149, and Brook’s dismissal was a fluke down the leg side. Oh, and let’s not forget the hat-trick ball to Ben Stokes, which was about as threatening as a feather duster. England romped home in 82 overs, winning by five wickets, while Thakur’s spells were as impactful as a whisper in a storm.


The irony is palpable. Thakur was picked for his all-round prowess, yet he was neither fish nor fowl. His batting was a non-event, his bowling a masterclass in mediocrity. Former India wicketkeeper Dinesh Karthik didn’t mince words, questioning why Thakur was even in the XI if Gill and coach Gautam Gambhir didn’t trust his bowling. He bowled a measly 16 overs across both innings, while Jasprit Bumrah and Prasidh Krishna toiled for over 20 each. Was Thakur’s run-up marked with an invisibility cloak? Social media was ablaze with fans calling his bowling “filthy” and “awful,” with one user lamenting his “pathetic fielding” and lack of pace. Even Ajinkya Rahane, usually a beacon of diplomacy, urged Gill to give Thakur more responsibility, perhaps out of pity.


The Headingley pitch, with its 9mm grass and early seam movement, was tailor-made for a bowler like Thakur, who’s supposed to swing the ball both ways and extract bounce. Instead, he served up wide deliveries and leg-side gifts, making England’s chase look like a leisurely Sunday drive. When Sunil Gavaskar and Monty Panesar called for Kuldeep Yadav to replace him for the second Test, it was clear Thakur’s Headingley horror show had sealed his fate. Thakur, at 33, is running out of excuses. His 11 Tests have yielded 31 wickets and 331 runs, but Headingley exposed his limitations in brutal fashion.


Here’s a toast to you, Shardul—may your next outing be less of a farce. But don’t hold your breath, folks. This “Lord” has no divine intervention left to offer.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

2 Comments


MaryJane
Oct 14, 2025

Man, reading that breakdown of Shardul’s Headingley show was painful but also kind of funny. I came across this site https://batery.pro.in/aviator/ the other day, it’s a game where you have to decide the exact right moment to cash out before everything crashes. And honestly, that’s what Thakur needed — timing and judgment. Instead of knowing when to attack or defend, he just let chances slip, and by the time he did anything, the match was already gone.

Edited
Like

billyy brown
billyy brown
Jul 02, 2025

It’s easy to be harsh on someone like Shardul Thakur, but I think calling him a “masterclass in mediocrity” oversimplifies his role. He’s not the star every time, sure, but he's delivered under pressure in ways stats don’t always capture—especially in crunch moments. As a cricket fan who follows both performance and odds, I’ve often found sites like https://bet365.pro.in/app/ helpful for understanding how players are valued by markets, not just fans. While you can't bet there, the data and form analysis give context beyond opinions. Thakur’s numbers might not dazzle, but his utility across formats is hard to ignore. He’s a player teams turn to when they need a bit of everything, and in modern cricket, that has real value—even if…

Like
bottom of page