Brexit hostility in contrast to welcome for those fleeing chinese crackdown
By SUNDER KATWALA, Director of British FutureFeb 07, 2024
THIS was a tale of two anniversaries.
As Big Ben chimed 11pm on January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom had formally left the European Union. Yet the fourth anniversary of that moment passed without a great deal of fanfare last week. The media sparring between the remnants of the referendum tribes of Leavers and Remainers has taken on an increasingly ritualistic feel.
Yet January 31 now marks another anniversary too – of the third year since the British National (Overseas) visa route was introduced to allow Hong Kongers to come to Britain.
The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, believes this is one of the most important things the government has done. “184,000 Hong Kongers have chosen to make the UK their home. I could not be prouder of the difference that you are making,” he told the many BN(O) visa holders who had gathered at the Lunar New Year reception hosted by the Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers to mark the anniversary.
Tugendhat’s pride in their contribution reflected how he had himself been first to propose inviting Hong Kongers to Britain in an article for The Atlantic in the summer of 2019.
He was a free-thinking backbencher, chairing the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. The appetite within government – focused almost entirely on the Brexit stalemate – was unclear. Once the general election resolved the question of Brexit, and as China’s crackdown on democratic expression in Hong Kong intensified, prime minister Boris Johnson’s government made a much broader offer to Hong Kongers than many had anticipated.
The visa route was a response to a new wave of repression in Hong Kong, though Tugendhat’s argument was that this should right a historic wrong – the downgrading of the Hong Kong Chinese to a new “second class citizenship” status of overseas citizens in 1981.
Lord Paddy Ashdown
One thing that has been forgotten about Norman Tebbit’s infamous “cricket test” intervention, in a Los Angeles Times interview in April 1990, was that the timing was motivated by Tebbit’s campaign against allowing Hong Kongers to come to Britain as the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China loomed. Former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown was the most prominent advocate of admitting Hong Kongers – but the political and public splits over this issue ran deep.
There is a dramatic contrast to how Hong Kongers have been welcomed in this generation. There has been unanimous support for the new Hong Kong visa in the House of Commons. Not a single MP spoke publicly against it. That breadth of support is striking, since the Hong Kong visa represents one of the largest voluntary expansions of immigration to the UK in recent decades.
Indeed, the anniversary dates coincide because the government – perhaps as much by coincidence as design – chose to mark the first anniversary of Brexit by opening up immigration in this way.
“Rue Brittania” was the Evening Standard’s Brexit anniversary front-page headline, reporting its polling showing that just 13 per cent of people feel that Brexit has been a success, while 57 per cent see it as a failure.
Immigration is one area where people debate whether anything has changed. Yet, Brexit did lead to the most significant overhaul of the UK immigration rules for decades. Freedom of movement ended. That ‘red line’ ruled out forms of Brexit, such as keeping single market membership in the European Economic Area, that would have maintained it. The new post-Brexit system no longer offered preferential treatment to European neighbours over those coming from the rest of the world.
Patterns of immigration changed dramatically, too. Seven out of ten migrants to the UK were coming from the EU up to June 2016. That has fallen to one in ten now.
But, overall immigration levels did not fall – because of the choices that governments made about making immigration from outside the European Union more open.
Johnson’s more liberal approach to post-study work visas for recent graduates, for NHS and social care visas, and the emergency response to the Ukraine war as well as the Hong Kong visa – commanded cross-party consensus even as they increased immigration to Britain.
Now both major parties say they agree the resulting peak levels of immigration are too high. Immigration looks set to provide one of the most rhetorically polarising issues of the election year. There is a substantive clash of both principle and policy over asylum and the Rwanda scheme.
On immigration visas, it remains rare to find any major substantive point of policy on which the Conservatives and Labour disagree. Home secretary James Cleverly was this week outlining more details of the government’s package of measures to reduce net migration, but there have been few cross-party clashes to date over specific proposals.
What this tale of two anniversaries illustrates is the dilemmas of control. A government that wants to bring immigration down remains proud of many of the choices that it made to increase it.
King Charles III, patron of the Royal Horticultural Society, walks through the RHS and BBC Radio 2 Dog Garden during a visit to the RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea on May 20, 2025 in London, England.
This particular year at the Royal Horticultural Society’s Chelsea Flower Show, there have been two members of the Royal Family who have had roses named after them.
‘The King’s Rose’, named after King Charles III, and ‘Catherine’s Rose’, named after Catherine, Princess of Wales. Both roses have been grown by two of the most well-known rose growers in the United Kingdom.
Firstly, ‘The King’s Rose’ was cultivated by David Austin. It took around 12 years for the rose to be exactly as he wanted. Austin was trying to propagate a rose that reflected the King’s values. It was created to help support the King’s Foundation, a charity founded by His Majesty King Charles III in 1990. The main purpose of this foundation is to help communities sustain their way of living and to improve lives.
The King’s Rose is the very first rose that Austin has bred that is variegated. It is a beautiful deep pink (fuchsia) and white striped rose. It has been bred to be resistant to modern-day diseases, and its semi-double bloom allows easy access for bees to pollinate the roses. The hips are said to be a warm orange colour that provides food for birds in the winter months.
‘Catherine’s Rose’ was bred by Harkness Roses. It was named for Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. The sale of this rose supports the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. Catherine’s Rose is a stunning floribunda, a dark rose-pink colour, with a heady scent of rose intermingled with the scent of mangoes. It gives an abundant number of blooms as well as being a great pollinator as the bloom opens.
This year, sustainability was high on the list of features in the show gardens. There seemed to be a common theme of restoration and looking at ways to re-use and recycle. Some of the exhibitors also had great products that re-used and recycled waste.
Sneeboer, a garden tool manufacturer, was one such business among many that stood out. They had managed to replace coal fires in their manufacturing process with solar power, also giving surplus back into the grid.
POTR was another business that uses plastic waste from the sea to make long-lasting, self-watering planters that are flat-packed. This means that the volume and weight are reduced, thereby reducing emissions during transit by up to 100 times.
There were, of course, many beautifully designed show gardens. Several that stood out from the norm for me personally were the following:
The Balcony Garden, which set out to show how even in the smallest amount of space available, you can support bees and biodiversity. They showed how, by just planning and planting vibrant, pollinator-friendly plants in planters repurposed from honey barrels, you can create a haven for these special bees. Also featured was the vertical planting of bee-friendly plants, which can be achieved in the smallest of spaces.
David Beckham wearing a David Austin Roses "King's Rose" speaks with King Charles III during a visit to the RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea on May 20, 2025Getty Images
A show garden close to my heart was the ‘Garden of Compassion’, which was designed by Thomas Hoblyn for Hospice UK. It featured a ‘together’ bench, which was made from steam-bent timber. It was woven through the garden like a meandering stream, and could be used to sit in nature, enabling the person to feel the healing power of nature. There was the gentle, soothing sound of flowing water to help calm through reflection.
If you missed this year’s RHS Chelsea Flower Show, then make a note of the dates for next year. It takes place from 19 May, 2026 (Tuesday) until 23 May, 2026 (Saturday) at the Royal Hospital Chelsea.
The next RHS flower show for this year is the Hampton Court Palace Garden Festival.
It takes place from 1 July, 2025 (Wednesday) to 6 July, 2025 (Monday). Members of the RHS can attend on members-only days, which are 1 July, 2025 (Wednesday) and 2 July, 2025 (Thursday).
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
The growing number of working-age adults not in jobs places a huge financial burden on Britain, according to recent reports
ECONOMIC inactivity is a major obstacle to the UK’s productivity and competitiveness.
As a business owner and employer with over 30 years of experience, I have seen firsthand how this challenge has intensified as the economically inactive population approaches 10 million nationally - almost one million more than pre-pandemic.
This includes nearly three million on long-term sick leave, an all-time high since records began in 1993, representing over a fifth of all 16-64 year-olds. The good news is that within these high numbers are hundreds of thousands who want to work and could do so with proper support.
But, for any government, these numbers are alarming. Economic inactivity acts as a drag on productivity and growth, as well as creates an unsustainable benefits burden for the nation, with the combined cost of working-age incapacity and disability benefits estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to hit £76 billion by the end of the parliament.
Recent national Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) reports highlight this significant increase in inactivity. They suggest a ‘Going Dutch’ decentralised approach that has seen the Netherlands reduce economic inactivity at three times the UK rate.
Government schemes here have shown mixed success thus far, often targeting only the most accessible cases rather than tackling the more challenging, but potentially more rewarding situations. I have repeatedly heard about thriving companies struggling to fill skilled positions while growing numbers of working-age adults remain disconnected from employment.
The CSJ highlights the enormous financial burden – £28bn annually in additional welfare payments, plus lost productivity and tax revenue. Equally concerning is the erosion of workplace skills among the long-term economically inactive, creating a downward spiral that worsens over time.
The ‘Going Dutch’ approach would provide holistic, person-focused support – something difficult to deliver from Whitehall. It would devolve employment support and adult learning budgets to better respond to local needs, requiring central government to embrace the risks of devolution and engage with grassroots organisations who understand their communities best. In Norway, they have, for generations, developed what a job coach might look like to something they call a social worker, but who focuses on the need of the person, not the services of the state. And in Denmark, they have experimented with giving local areas full autonomy in service design and delivery.
Dr Nik Kotecha
The good news is these approaches would not require substantial new funding. As an advocate for local knowledge and networks, I have long supported greater devolution of skills and employment policies to regional authorities. Local authorities and councils understand our local labour markets in ways Westminster cannot. They know which sectors are growing, which communities face particular challenges and which interventions work in a local, grassroots context.
The CSJ’s recommendation to devolve responsibility for employment support and adult education makes sense from a business perspective. It would enable agile, responsive approaches that our dynamic regional economy demands, replacing one-size-fitsall national programmes with tailored interventions.
Perhaps the most crucial insight is recognising that health and employment are deeply interconnected. The growing number of people classified as long-term sick represents a failure to create appropriate pathways back to employment that accommodate health conditions. In my businesses over the years, we have found that flexible arrangements, graduated return-to-work programmes and workplace adjustments can enable many individuals with health challenges to contribute productively.
What is needed is a fundamental shift in how we view the relationship between health and work. The current system too often presents a binary choice of either ‘fully fit for work’ or ‘entirely incapable’ – when in reality, most people lie somewhere inbetween.
The skills gap in the UK is not just about worker numbers, it is about equipping people with capabilities which our evolving economy demands. In my experience, the most effective training programmes are those developed in partnership between employers and education providers. When businesses can directly shape curriculum content, specify skills needed and offer workplace experience, the results are transformative.
Economic inactivity is not just about monetary costs either, it is about community wellbeing and social cohesion. Employment provides not just income, but also purpose, structure and social connection. Companies are not just economic entities, they are social institutions that can directly strengthen their communities.
For business leaders, I call for greater engagement with local authorities and skills providers to help develop employment pathways for the economically inactive. Rather than lamenting skills shortages, we should be actively participating in creating the workforce we need.
For policymakers, I would urge bold implementation of the CSJ’s recommendations, particularly devolving employment and skills responsibilities to regional authorities.
And for our communities, I ask for a renewed recognition of work’s value, not just as a source of income and prosperity, but also as a foundation for individual dignity as well as collective prosperity.
The untapped potential represented by economic inactivity in the UK is not just a problem to solve, it is our greatest opportunity for future growth. By combining business innovation, policy reform and community engagement, we can create pathways back to employment that benefit us all.
So let’s try ‘Going Dutch’, or ‘Norwegian’, or ‘Danish’ as possible solutions to addressing our nation’s most pressing inactivity challenges.
(Dr Nik Kotecha OBE is an internationally renowned businessman, scientist, influencer and serial entrepreneur. He founded and led the inspirational growth of leading Midlands-based developer and manufacturer of generic medicines, Morningside Pharmaceuticals Ltd, and is founder and chairman of RandalSun Capital. His current global business portfolio is wide-ranging and includes investments from start-ups to patient capital, with retained interests in health, life sciences and high innovation, IPrich businesses.)
Keep ReadingShow less
Artistic depiction of Arjuna and Krishna with the chariot
Over 5,000 years ago, on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, two armies comprising tens of thousands of men were ready to begin a war. The Pandavs were led by Arjuna, a warrior whose archery skills were unbeatable. At the last minute, before the war was to commence, Arjuna put down his weapons and declared to Krishna his decision not to fight. He reasoned that the war would kill tens of thousands of people all for a kingdom. It took the whole of the Bhagavad Gita to convince Arjuna to fight.
Even after Krishna destroyed all his doubts, Arjuna asked to see Krishna in his form as a supreme God. In short, Arjuna wanted to avoid confrontation at any cost.
In 1191, Muhammad Ghouri from Afghanistan attacked the Hindu king Prithviraj Chouhan. He was defeated, but Prithviraj let him go free. Prithviraj was probably influenced in his decision by his Dharma of compassion, or in the hope that Ghouri would never attack again as his life was spared — a good example of avoiding confrontation.
It is believed by many that Ghouri had attacked many more times and had been defeated but was allowed to go free. Regarded as one of the costliest mistakes of history, Mohammad Ghouri returned with a stronger and much larger army in 1192 CE. Prithviraj was defeated. Ghouri had Prithviraj's eyes gouged out and killed him mercilessly. Islam got a foothold in India after the defeat of Prithviraj, and most of Punjab, parts of Bihar, Bengal and parts of Gujarat fell under the rule of Ghouri.
Going back to the Mahabharata, Asvathama, who fought for the Kauravas, killed all the children of the Pandavas. When he was caught by the Pandavas, they decided to let him go because he was a Brahmin. In fact, Asvathama was Brahmin only by birth. By Karma, he was a Kshatriya. The same Asvathama at a later stage fired a powerful nuclear arrow towards the pregnant Uttara.
Once again, Lord Krishna had to appear and protect Uttara. Had Asvathama succeeded, he would have obliterated all the future Pandava dynasty. Here we see the urge of the Pandavas to go by the rules of Dharma and follow a moral code. Lord Krishna himself insisted to Arjuna that in some cases, the moral rules would need to be ignored.
The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, believed that India did not need an army at all. He reasoned that India was a land of Ahimsa and so would not need to fight anyone. In 1962, China invaded India and has since occupied 38,000 km² of the Aksai Chin region in Kashmir, which is an extension of the Tibetan plateau. One can see here again a tendency to avoid any confrontation and naively believe the other party will play fair.
In 1965, Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar against India. It was designed to infiltrate soldiers into Jammu and Kashmir and cause an uprising. Under international pressure, the then PM Lal Bahadur Shastri went to Tashkent and signed a peace treaty with Pakistan. While there, he died mysteriously. The treaty called upon both sides not to interfere in each other's affairs. It was not worth the paper it was written on.
In 1971, another war broke out between India and Pakistan. India won the war, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Even though India won the war, it failed to grasp any long-term gains. Indeed, Bangladesh was quick to ask the Indian army to leave once they had been liberated.
The same Bangladesh today has turned against India and is persecuting Hindus. Following the 1971 war, the then PM Indira Gandhi and Pakistan PM Bhutto signed the Shimla Agreement. Both nations committed to establish peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. Again, an agreement not worth the piece of paper it was written on. Indian forces had captured around 15,010 km² (5,795 sq mi) of land during the war but returned it after the Shimla Agreement as a gesture of goodwill.
In 1984, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Army launched Operation Meghdoot, a military operation to seize control of the Siachen Glacier. This operation was a pre-emptive move as it was believed that Pakistan was also planning to take control of the glacier. In spite of the Pakistani attacks, India granted it MFN (Most Favoured Nation for trade purposes) status in 1996. However, Pakistan did not reciprocate. India withdrew its MFN status in February 2019 following the Pulwama attack.
On 20 February 1999, PM Vajpayee visited Pakistan and signed the Lahore Declaration. It was hailed as a turning point in relations between the two countries. However, in a classic case of treachery, just a few months later between May and July, under the leadership of Chief of Army Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan army occupied Indian territory in Kargil. Some Indian soldiers protecting the area had their eyes gouged out.
India successfully dislodged the Pakistani occupiers. In the conflict, 527 Indian soldiers were killed and 1,363 wounded. India's Jat Regiment managed to occupy a strategically important mountain peak on the Pakistani side of the LoC near Dras, Point 5070, and subsequently renamed it Balwan.
On 24 December 1999, Indian Airlines Flight 814, commonly known as IC 814, was hijacked by five members of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. A plan to send in commandos to neutralise the terrorists did not materialise. The then PM Vajpayee agreed to release three terrorists in exchange for the release of 160 passengers.
Of the terrorists released, Omar Sheikh went on to finance one of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks and the kidnap and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl. Maulana Masood Azhar formed Jaish-e-Mohammed, a United Nations-designated terrorist organisation. Maulana Masood was the mastermind behind the Parliament attacks in 2001, the 2016 attacks on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot, and the killing of CRPF jawans in 2019 in Pulwama. He is responsible for hundreds of Indian deaths.
After the attack on Parliament, the then PM Vajpayee mobilised the army to attack Pakistan. Once again, due to international pressure, PM Vajpayee stopped the army which was eager to launch an invasion. LeT, the other terrorist organisation co-founded by Hafiz Saeed, is also responsible for many attacks on India.
The blasts in Delhi in October 2005 killed four people. On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through trains in the evening rush hour in Mumbai. 189 people were killed and more than 800 were injured. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks in November 2008 claimed 166 lives. The terrorists held the whole country to ransom for three days.
India had to retaliate but PM Manmohan Singh and the Congress party decided against taking any action. One of the reasons given was that India would gain world sympathy — a classic case of avoiding confrontation at any cost.
LeT also masterminded the Uri army base attack, killing 19 soldiers in September 2016. For the first time under the Prime Ministership of Modi, India took offensive action. On 29 September 2016, teams of Indian Army Para (Special Forces) crossed the Line of Control into Pakistani-administered Kashmir to attack targets up to a kilometre within territory held by Pakistan. Around 35 to 40 Pakistani soldiers were killed or injured.
In 2010, a bomb blast in a crowded bakery in the city of Pune killed nine people and wounded 57. Through all this, ‘cultural’ exchanges were going on between the two countries. In December 2015, PM Modi made an impromptu visit to Lahore as a goodwill gesture and met PM Sharif. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, it is the military which calls the shots, not the governing parties.
After the Pulwama attack, PM Modi targeted the terrorists inside Pakistan with a missile attack. However, it seems to have had little impact on the terror groups. They carried out the dastardly act of killing 26 Hindus in Kashmir on 26 April 2025. PM Modi ordered attacks on nine terrorist hubs.
However, the mini conflict came to an abrupt end and both India and Pakistan declared a ceasefire. What assurances India received from Pakistan is not clear. Indeed, terrorists from Pakistan have already attempted two terror attacks but were neutralised by the Indian army. India could have demanded the release of Kulbushan Yadav, who has been incarcerated in Pakistan on spying charges for nine years.
Though India has always come out on top on the war front, on the negotiating table it seems to surrender all the gains with little in return. Pakistan-based terrorists have killed hundreds of Indian soldiers over the decades and got away with it.
India needs to revisit the great political master Chanakya and his treatise Arthashastra on war and peace.
(Nitin Mehta is a writer and commentator on Indian culture and philosophy. He has contributed extensively to discussions on Hinduism, spirituality, and the role of Gurus in modern society. You can find more of his work at www.nitinmehta.co.uk.)
Keep ReadingShow less
The mainstream print media in India, both in English and regional languages, has remained largely responsible and sober
MISINFORMATION and disinformation are not new in the age of social media, but India’s mainstream news channels peddling them during a time of war was a new low.
Hours after India launched Operation Sindoor, most channels went into overdrive with ‘breaking news’ meant to shock, or worse, excite.
Channels beamed blurry images of the Pakistan attack on Indian territory with nearly 400 drones last Thursday (8) night, on a loop, and news tickers announced an Indian advance into enemy territory.
They claimed a Pakistani fighter pilot had been captured alive in Punjab, only to revise it a while later to say that not one, but two were in India’s custody. Minutes later came reports of an aerial attack in Islamabad, right next to the house of Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and claims that he had taken shelter in a bunker.
Before one could process why India, known for its restraint, would escalate tensions at this scale on just the second day of attack, the next salvo of misinformation was launched – the Indian Navy had ‘destroyed’ the Karachi port, accompanied by images of a ravaged facility.
The next report claimed Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir had been ousted in a coup and was being held in ‘custody’ (by whom was anybody’s guess). These ‘news’ items painted a picture of unprecedented aggression by one nuclear state against another.
Except, none of these stories were true. The defence press briefing last Friday (9) made no mention of captured pilots, an attack on Karachi port, or any development concerning Munir.
Indian fact-checkers debunked the videos of the Karachi port attack aired by some channels as footage from a 2020 BBC report from Gaza.
Last Sunday (11), clarity emerged when India’s director general of naval operations said that Indian battleships were stationed “with full readiness and capacity to strike select targets, including Karachi,” laying to rest speculation of an attack on the port. The Indian defence establishment also confirmed it had ‘downed’ Pakistani fighter jets, but made no mention of any ‘captured’ pilots.
The Indian news channels’ false reporting was called out by social media users within hours, prompting many to backtrack and apologise. A few also faced criticism for their warmongering – one ‘expert’ on a channel declared mazaa (fun) would begin when Pakistan attacks India.
Another example of the channels’ insensitivity was the use of AI-generated images and graphics – one depicting an enraged Indian prime minister Narendra Modi trampling a cowering Sharif – which trivialised the conflict and framed it as little more than a high-stakes cricket match between the two nations.
Some Indian media houses reported that similar fake news was being broadcast by Pakistani outlets. However, for someone in India, where I live, it has become nearly impossible to verify what the media is reporting on the other side of the border, as the government has banned access to Pakistani news channels, including Dawn and Geo News.
Several Indian news websites, including The Wire – co-founded by a former editor of The Hindu – also faced bans (in this case, the restriction was lifted a day later).
Amid all this, the mainstream print media, both in English and regional languages, has remained largely responsible and sober, refraining from whipping up passions. Many news websites have done the same.
If the ceasefire doesn’t hold, this could become the first major war that Indians witness in the age of private news channels and social media. Whether the screens will make the proverbial fog of war even thicker remains to be seen.
Keep ReadingShow less
A vivid depiction of the Kurukshetra battlefield, where Arjuna and Krishna stand amidst the chaos, embodying the eternal conflict between duty and morality
War and peace have exercised the minds of human beings for as far back as history goes. It is no wonder then that the Mahabharata war, which took place over 5,000 years ago, became a moment of intense discussion between Lord Krishna and Arjuna.
Hundreds of thousands of people on either side were ready to begin battle on the site of Kurukshetra. Seeing the armies and his near and dear combatants, Arjuna lost the will to fight. How could he fight his grandfather Bhisma and his guru Dronacharya? He asked Krishna what all the bloodshed would achieve.
Krishna replied that every effort to resolve the conflict had been blocked by Duryodhana. Duryodhana had refused to give the Pandavas even a needlepoint of land, despite Lord Krishna's peace proposal that they accept just five villages. Krishna urged and convinced Arjuna that it was his dharma to fight a righteous war, even if it came with painful consequences.
While war is characterised by violence and destruction, it can also be a catalyst for peace negotiations and treaties.
Charles Minard's iconic flow map illustrating Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Russia, highlighting the vast distances and severe lossesAge of Revolution
The great political master Chanakya (350–275 BCE), guru of Chandragupta of the mighty Maurya empire, wrote the famous treatise Arthashastra. In it, he describes in detail the steps one must take to wage war. Kautilya suggested four policies: conciliation (sama), compensation (dana, or gifts to adversaries to pacify them), dissension (bheda, creating divisions within adversaries), and force (danda, attack). These could be used singly or in combination, depending on the context.
However, like Krishna, Chanakya advocated war only when all other alternatives were exhausted.
According to Von Clausewitz, a military theorist (1780–1831), “War is merely continuation of a policy by other means.” He believed military objectives that support political aims fall into two broad types: wars to achieve limited goals, and wars to disarm the enemy—rendering them politically helpless or militarily impotent.
After suffering years of terrorist violence and the recent brutal killings of Hindus in Kashmir, India feels it has exhausted all avenues of peace with Pakistan.
There has also been a school of thought which rejects war altogether. Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace, had strong anti-war sentiments, expressed through his writings and personal life. In his book, he chronicled the French invasion of Russia in 1812, led by Napoleon Bonaparte.
Vivid depiction of the Kurukshetra battlefield, showcasing Arjuna and Krishna in the chariot amidst the chaos of warAmazon
Tolstoy himself fought in the Crimean War (1853–1856), a conflict between the Russian Empire and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, the Second French Empire, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont. Sardinia is an island and autonomous region of Italy.
Tolstoy believed war was inherently unjust and a product of government actions, rather than the people's interests. He emphasised the importance of love—both human and divine—as a force for peace and against the brutality of conflict.
Christians have a concept called a Just War, taken up only as a last resort. They also had the doctrine of holy wars called the Crusades, meant to recapture occupied territories. This idea is now considered a shibboleth.
The current Russia-Ukraine war has brought some interesting observations, according to Benjamin Jensen, director of the Futures Lab and senior fellow for the Defence and Security Department at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
He points out that the war has shown the rise of drone warfare and electronic warfare as defining features of modern conflict. Long-range attack drones have played a crucial role.
After the Russian invasion in February 2022, then-Ukrainian ambassador to India, Igor Polikha, urged PM Modi to help stop the war. He said India had qualified in diplomacy through Kautilya several thousand years ago, when Europe had no civilisation.
Unfortunately, President Zelensky of Ukraine has presided over the destruction of his country, having failed on both diplomatic and military fronts.
(Nitin Mehta is a writer and commentator on Indian culture and philosophy. He has contributed extensively to discussions on Hinduism, spirituality, and the role of Gurus in modern society. You can find more of his work at www.nitinmehta.co.uk.)
Hong Kong visa exposes immigration dichotomy
Brexit hostility in contrast to welcome for those fleeing chinese crackdown