From Soil to Stadium: Haryana’s Sporting Gene Pool and the Politics of Neglect

How rural ecosystems of talent—like Chandwas, Balali, and Alakhpura—mirror the scientific idea of germplasm, and why India risks losing them to policy indifference

-Ramphal Kataria

There is something elemental about sport in Haryana. It does not emerge from polished infrastructure or imported expertise; it grows from the soil itself. Across villages, on uneven fields, dusty grounds, and earthen wrestling pits, sport is not merely an activity—it is a way of life, a cultural inheritance, and, for many, a pathway to survival.

Unlike metropolitan sporting cultures that rely on academies and curated talent pipelines, Haryana’s sporting ethos is deeply organic. It is rooted in community rhythms, shaped by agrarian discipline, and sustained by aspiration born out of necessity. In these landscapes, sport is not an extracurricular activity—it is an existential choice.

The story of Chandwas village in Charkhi Dadri exemplifies this phenomenon with striking clarity. For over four decades, volleyball has served not only as a recreational pursuit but as a structured pathway to livelihood. In a region where agriculture is constrained by sandy soils and a groundwater table that lies prohibitively deep, the sport has emerged as an alternative economy. Families that once depended on uncertain agricultural yields now invest their hopes in the disciplined training of their youth.

Nearly every household in Chandwas has produced a member of the armed forces, paramilitary services, or public sector employment—primarily through sporting merit in volleyball. This is not the result of a state-sponsored intervention but a self-sustaining ecosystem built over generations.

And Chandwas is not alone.

Across Haryana, one encounters a remarkable pattern—specific geographies aligning themselves with specific sports, almost as if guided by an invisible logic. Bhiwani has earned the moniker “Mini Cuba” for its extraordinary contribution to boxing. Balali disrupted patriarchal norms and redefined women’s wrestling through the Phogat sisters. Shahabad Markanda has consistently produced elite women hockey players who have carried India’s flag on the global stage. Sri Jeevan Nagar continues to serve as a cradle for men’s hockey, nurtured through community-led institutional frameworks. Alakhpura—often called “Mini Brazil”—has emerged as a powerhouse in women’s football, with hundreds of girls training daily. Districts such as Rohtak and Sonipat dominate kabaddi circuits, producing players who excel in national and international arenas.

These are not isolated anecdotes; they are systemic realities. They represent clusters of excellence, organically formed and socially sustained.

The Ecology of Talent

In these villages, sport is not a matter of individual choice; it is an outcome of collective conditioning. A child born in Balali does not need to be persuaded to take up wrestling; it is embedded in the environment. Similarly, a girl in Alakhpura grows up in a social milieu where football is not an anomaly but a norm.

This phenomenon aligns closely with what educational theorists describe as situated learning—a process where knowledge and skills are acquired within the context in which they are used. Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson’s concept of deliberate practice further underscores the importance of sustained, repetitive engagement in skill development. However, what distinguishes Haryana’s model is that such practice is not artificially structured; it is culturally embedded.

Children here accumulate what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would call habitus—a system of dispositions shaped by their environment. Their bodies adapt to the demands of the sport long before formal training begins. Muscle memory, reflexes, and endurance are cultivated not in laboratories but in lived spaces.

The implications of this are profound.

The Germplasm Analogy

To fully grasp the significance of these clusters, one must turn to the scientific concept of germplasm.

In biological sciences, germplasm refers to the genetic material that preserves the hereditary traits of organisms. It is the repository of diversity, resilience, and adaptability. Agricultural systems across the world depend on the conservation of germplasm to ensure food security and ecological balance. Once lost, these genetic resources cannot be recreated.

Haryana’s sporting clusters function as human analogues of germplasm.

They are reservoirs of talent—shaped by genetic predisposition, environmental exposure, and cultural reinforcement. Scientific studies increasingly validate this interaction. Research in the Journal of Sports Sciences highlights the role of gene-environment interplay in determining athletic performance. Traits such as muscle composition, aerobic capacity, and neuromuscular coordination are influenced by genetic factors but are optimized through environmental conditioning.

In simpler terms, talent is neither purely innate nor entirely acquired—it is cultivated at the intersection of biology and environment.

Haryana’s villages provide precisely such intersections.

“Haryana does not produce athletes by design; it produces them by inheritance—through soil, society, and sustained struggle.”

Historical Parallels: The Green Revolution

The failure to recognize and preserve these ecosystems mirrors a critical misstep in India’s agricultural history. During the Green Revolution, policy frameworks prioritized high-yielding varieties of crops, often imported or hybridized, at the expense of indigenous strains. While this led to a significant increase in agricultural output, it also resulted in the erosion of genetic diversity.

Traditional crop varieties—adapted to local climates, resistant to pests, and requiring fewer inputs—were gradually abandoned. Today, as the country grapples with soil degradation, water scarcity, and the adverse effects of chemical fertilizers, there is a renewed interest in organic farming. However, the very germplasm required for such a transition has been significantly diminished.

The lesson is clear: neglecting indigenous systems in favour of uniform, top-down models can yield short-term gains but long-term losses.

This lesson, unfortunately, has not been fully internalised in the domain of sports.

Policy Blind Spots

India’s sports policy remains largely reactive. It celebrates success but rarely invests in its origins. When athletes like Neeraj Chopra win Olympic gold, the state responds with financial rewards, accolades, and symbolic recognition. Similarly, icons like Saina Nehwal and Manu Bhaker are elevated as embodiments of national pride.

While such recognition is important, it does little to address the systemic gaps that precede success.

Infrastructure is often built without integration into local ecosystems. Academies are established but lack continuity. Talent identification programmes exist on paper but fail to penetrate rural realities. The result is a fragmented system that operates in silos.

“The state arrives at the finish line with rewards, but it is absent at the starting line where talent is born.”

Global Comparisons

In contrast, countries such as China and the former Soviet Union have historically adopted a proactive approach to sports development. Their systems integrate talent identification into schooling, employ scientific methods to assess aptitude, and provide structured pathways for progression.

China’s state-run sports schools, for instance, scout children at an early age and channel them into specialized training programmes. The Soviet model emphasized mass participation combined with elite training, ensuring a steady pipeline of talent.

Even Western nations, often associated with market-driven models, have developed robust grassroots systems. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands invest heavily in club-based structures that nurture talent from a young age. These systems are decentralized yet coordinated, allowing for both local autonomy and national oversight.

The common thread across these models is early identification and sustained support.

Haryana’s Paradox

Haryana presents a paradox. It is widely acknowledged as India’s “cradle of champions,” yet its success is largely organic. Athletes emerge from environments that are rich in practice but poor in resources.

The responsibility of nurturing talent falls on families, local coaches, and community institutions. These actors operate with limited financial means but immense social capital. Their efforts are often invisible, unrecognised, and unsupported.

This raises an urgent question: what happens if these ecosystems weaken?

Fragility of the System

The resilience of Haryana’s sporting clusters is undeniable, but it is not infinite. Economic pressures are increasing. Agricultural incomes are uncertain. Alternative career opportunities, though limited, are expanding. In such a context, the risk associated with pursuing sports becomes more pronounced.

Without institutional support—adequate coaching, nutrition, infrastructure, and assured employment—young athletes may choose more secure paths. The cultural continuity that sustains these ecosystems could be disrupted.

“These villages are not just producing players; they are preserving a living archive of human potential.”

Class and Inequality

Another critical dimension is the socio-economic profile of athletes. Most sportspersons from these regions come from modest, agrarian backgrounds. For them, sport is not a leisure activity but a strategic choice aimed at achieving economic stability.

In contrast, affluent sections of society often gravitate towards professions that offer predictable returns. This creates a structural imbalance where the burden of national sporting excellence falls disproportionately on those with the least resources.

This dynamic is both inspiring and troubling.

The Way Forward

Addressing this issue requires more than incremental reforms. It demands a paradigm shift.

First, there must be a systematic mapping of sporting clusters across Haryana. Villages like Chandwas, Balali, and Alakhpura should be recognized as specialized zones of excellence.

Second, infrastructure development must be context-sensitive. Instead of imposing standardised models, policy should strengthen existing ecosystems by providing targeted support—coaches, equipment, nutrition, and sports science inputs.

Third, long-term support systems must be established. Athletes need financial security during their training years and viable career pathways after retirement. Without such assurances, the risk associated with sports will continue to deter participation.

Finally, there must be a conceptual shift—from viewing talent as an output to understanding it as a process.

“If indigenous seeds once lost cannot be recovered, neither can the ecosystems that produce champions.”

Conclusion

Haryana’s villages have already done what policy has failed to imagine. They have created living systems of excellence—rooted in culture, sustained by community, and refined through practice.

The challenge is not to create talent but to recognize, preserve, and amplify it.

If ignored, these ecosystems risk fading away, much like the indigenous crop varieties lost during the Green Revolution. But if nurtured, they hold the potential to redefine India’s sporting future.

The soil has spoken. The question is whether policy will listen.

References

1. Ericsson, K. A., et al. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review.

2. Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). Sport Expertise and Influencing Factors. High Ability Studies.

3. Davids, K., et al. (2008). Skill Acquisition and Ecological Dynamics.

4. Journal of Sports Sciences (Gene-environment interaction studies).

5. Government of India. Green Revolution Policy Archives.

6. Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2012). Talent Development in Sport.

7. Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India.

8. International comparative sports policy literature (China, USSR, Europe).

Echoes of Life in an Unequal World

 An Inquiry into Happiness, Inequality, and the Human Condition in Contemporary India

-Ramphal Kataria

“Happiness is not merely a state of mind—it is a condition structured by material reality.”

I. Introduction: The Violence of a Gentle Idea

There is something deceptively gentle about the idea of happiness. It appears harmless, even comforting—an intimate aspiration that belongs to the private realm of the individual. We are told that happiness lies within, that it is a matter of perspective, of gratitude, of emotional discipline. In a world saturated with motivational rhetoric, the burden of happiness is placed squarely upon the individual psyche. If one is unhappy, it is implied, one has failed to cultivate the right attitude.

Yet this framing conceals a deeper violence. It erases the material conditions that shape human life and obscures the structural inequalities that define the limits of possibility. A Marxist lens unsettles this narrative by insisting that happiness is not simply an inner state but a social product. As Karl Marx famously wrote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” In other words, the capacity to feel, to aspire, and to experience happiness is fundamentally shaped by the conditions in which one lives.

To speak of happiness in an unequal world, therefore, is not to engage in abstract philosophy. It is to confront the material realities of class, labour, and power. It is to ask whether joy can exist in a system that systematically denies dignity to the many in order to sustain the privilege of the few.

II. Before Inequality: The Collective Rhythm of Early Life

In the earliest phases of human existence, before the emergence of surplus and private property, life unfolded within the framework of collective survival. Hunter-gatherer societies, though materially limited, were marked by a relative absence of hierarchy. Resources were shared, labour was cooperative, and the individual was inseparable from the community.

In such a world, happiness was not conceptualized as a goal to be pursued. It was embedded in the rhythms of life itself—in the act of gathering, in the sharing of food, in the intimacy of communal existence. There was no alienation because there was no division between the individual and the means of life.

This is not to romanticize primitive existence, but to recognize that the fragmentation of happiness is historically produced. As Friedrich Engels observed in his reflections on early societies, the emergence of private property marked “the world-historic defeat of the female sex” and, more broadly, the beginning of structured inequality. With this shift, the collective basis of life began to erode, and with it, the conditions for shared well-being.

“Before inequality fractured the world, happiness was not owned—it was lived.”

III. Surplus, Power, and the Fragmentation of Joy

The development of agriculture introduced a transformative element into human society: surplus. For the first time, it became possible to produce more than what was immediately necessary for survival. This surplus, however, did not lead to universal prosperity. Instead, it became the foundation of inequality.

Control over land translated into control over production, and control over production gave rise to class power. The division between those who laboured and those who appropriated the fruits of labour became the defining feature of social organization.

Happiness, once collective, became stratified. For the emerging ruling classes, it meant leisure, security, and the accumulation of wealth. For the labouring masses, it remained tied to survival, but now under conditions of domination.

The seeds of alienation were sown here—an alienation that would later be fully realized under capitalism.

IV. Feudalism: The Theology of Suffering

In the feudal order, inequality was not only material but also ideological. The suffering of the peasantry was justified through religious doctrine, which framed social hierarchy as divinely ordained. Happiness was displaced into the realm of the afterlife, while obedience and submission were elevated as virtues.

This ideological structure served to stabilize the system by transforming suffering into moral duty. As Antonio Gramsci would later argue, ruling classes maintain power not only through coercion but through hegemony—the ability to shape beliefs and values in ways that make domination appear natural and inevitable.

Under feudalism, happiness was not denied outright; it was deferred. The promise of future salvation functioned as a mechanism of control, ensuring that the oppressed internalized their own subjugation.

“When suffering is sanctified, happiness becomes a promise postponed to another world.”

V. Capitalism and the Marketization of Desire

The transition to capitalism shattered the feudal order but replaced it with a new form of domination. The worker was no longer bound to the land but was compelled to sell labour in a market governed by capital. Production became oriented toward profit, and human needs were subordinated to the logic of accumulation.

In this system, happiness undergoes a radical transformation. It becomes commodified. It is no longer a condition of being but an object of consumption. The market does not merely respond to human desires; it actively produces them.

Marx’s concept of alienation captures the depth of this transformation. The worker is alienated from the product of labour, from the process of production, from fellow human beings, and ultimately from the self. Labour, which should be a source of creativity and fulfillment, becomes a means of survival devoid of intrinsic meaning.

As Marx wrote in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, “The worker feels himself only when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel himself.” This inversion of life—where existence outside labour becomes the only space for selfhood—reveals the profound distortion of happiness under capitalism.

“Capitalism does not eliminate happiness; it fragments it into commodities and sells it back to the alienated self.”

VI. The Common Man: Between Survival and Silent Despair

For the working classes, the pursuit of happiness is inseparable from the struggle for survival. Economic insecurity, precarious employment, and the absence of social safety nets create a condition of chronic stress. In such a context, happiness is not a sustained state but a fleeting interruption—a momentary respite from the pressures of life.

The inability to meet basic needs erodes not only physical well-being but also dignity. The worker, burdened by responsibility and constrained by limited resources, often sacrifices personal fulfillment for familial survival. This sacrifice is frequently moralized as virtue, masking the structural conditions that necessitate it.

Here, the insights of B. R. Ambedkar become crucial. Ambedkar argued that political democracy without social and economic democracy is inherently unstable. “On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions,” he warned, “In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”

This contradiction defines the lived experience of millions in contemporary India. The formal promise of equality coexists with deep structural disparities, limiting the capacity of individuals to experience genuine well-being.

“For those denied dignity, happiness is not a destination—it is a fragile pause in an ongoing struggle.”

VII. India and the Paradox of Growth Without Happiness

India’s contemporary trajectory illustrates the critique with striking clarity. Despite significant economic growth and rising global stature, the country continues to rank low on global happiness indices. This paradox reveals the limits of growth-centric development models.

The determinants of happiness—income security, social support, health, and freedom—remain unevenly distributed. Economic gains are concentrated, while large sections of the population continue to face deprivation.

This disjuncture between growth and well-being underscores a fundamental Marxist insight: the accumulation of wealth does not necessarily translate into the distribution of happiness. When the benefits of growth are not equitably shared, they fail to enhance the lived experience of the majority.

“A rising economy does not guarantee a rising life; without justice, growth becomes an empty statistic.”

VIII. Ideology, False Consciousness, and the Myth of Happiness

In capitalist societies, the idea of happiness is deeply ideological. It is presented as universally attainable, provided one works hard enough or adopts the right mindset. This narrative obscures structural barriers and individualizes failure.

Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony is particularly relevant here. The dominant ideology shapes not only what people think, but what they consider possible. Happiness becomes a personal responsibility rather than a social condition.

The result is a form of false consciousness, where individuals internalize systemic failures as personal shortcomings. They are encouraged to adapt rather than question, to cope rather than resist.

“When the system defines happiness, dissatisfaction becomes a personal failure rather than a political question.”

IX. Contentment, Resistance, and the Ethics of Living

The individual in an unequal world faces a profound ethical dilemma. Should one seek contentment within existing conditions, or challenge the structures that produce inequality?

Contentment offers psychological stability. It allows individuals to endure hardship without being consumed by despair. Yet it also risks legitimizing injustice by normalizing it.

Resistance, on the other hand, seeks transformation. It asserts that the conditions limiting happiness are neither natural nor inevitable. It reclaims agency and envisions a different future.

Ambedkar’s call to “educate, agitate, organize” embodies this ethos of resistance. It is a reminder that dignity and happiness are not gifts to be received, but rights to be claimed.

“Contentment may soothe the soul, but resistance restores dignity.”

X. The Possibility of Happiness: Fragments of Hope

Despite structural constraints, happiness is not entirely extinguished. It persists in the interstices of everyday life—in relationships, in acts of solidarity, in moments of collective struggle.

These forms of happiness are not mediated by the market. They arise from human connection and shared experience. They are fragile, often fleeting, but deeply meaningful.

They point toward a different vision of happiness—one that is not rooted in consumption, but in community; not in accumulation, but in dignity.

XI. Conclusion: Toward a Collective Reimagining

Happiness, in a Marxist framework, cannot be understood as a purely individual pursuit. It is a social condition, shaped by material realities and historical processes. In a world marked by deep inequality, it remains unevenly distributed and often structurally constrained.

Yet it is not a mere illusion. It exists, albeit in fragmented forms, sustained by human resilience and collective bonds. The challenge, therefore, is not simply to find happiness within the system, but to transform the conditions that limit its possibility.

As Marx envisioned, the goal is not merely to interpret the world, but to change it. Only in a society where resources are equitably distributed, where labour is meaningful, and where dignity is universal, can happiness transcend its fragmented existence and become a shared human reality.

“Happiness is not a private escape from reality—it is a collective horizon that emerges when justice becomes the foundation of life.”

Iran and the Violence of Empire: How War Manufactures Consent and Buries Revolutions

 From Mossadegh to Khamenei—Why Imperialism Needs Theocracy More Than Democracy

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

Iran’s modern history is not a story of isolated incidents but of systematic interruption—where every democratic impulse has been destabilized, redirected, or crushed by imperialist intervention and internal ideological capture. This essay argues that the present war-like confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States is not an aberration but a continuation of a long historical pattern: imperialism does not merely confront regimes—it produces and stabilizes them. Through a Marxist lens, the essay examines how the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the rise of Ruhollah Khomeini, and the consolidation of clerical authority under Ali Khamenei represent successive moments in which popular sovereignty was displaced. It further interrogates India’s shifting posture under Narendra Modi, arguing that strategic alignment with the US-Israel axis risks eroding a historically grounded relationship with Iran. The central thesis is stark: war does not weaken authoritarian regimes—it manufactures their legitimacy.

I. Introduction: Empire’s Long Shadow

To understand contemporary Iran is to understand interruption. Not evolution, not linear development—but rupture. Every time Iran has approached a democratic horizon, it has been violently pulled back—either by imperial intervention or by internal forces that thrive in the vacuum created by it.

As Karl Marx wrote,

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please.”

Iran’s tragedy lies precisely here: its people have made history, but never under conditions of their own choosing.

II. 1953: The Original Sin of Modern Iran

The overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 remains the decisive fracture in Iran’s modern history.

Mossadegh’s nationalization of oil was not radical—it was sovereign. Yet sovereignty itself was intolerable to empire. The intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency was not an anomaly; it was policy.

Noam Chomsky has consistently argued:

“What the United States supports is not democracy, but obedience.”

Iran obeyed—and democracy was restored to dictatorship.

III. The Shah: Authoritarian Modernity as Imperial Design

The regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi represents a familiar model in the Global South: development without democracy.

Industrial growth, urban expansion, and Western lifestyles masked a deeper reality—political suffocation. The Shah’s Iran was not modern; it was managed.

This is where Marx’s base-superstructure dialectic becomes visible: economic transformation without corresponding political emancipation produces instability—not progress.

IV. 1979: Revolution or Counter-Revolution?

The Iranian Revolution is often celebrated as a triumph of people’s power. It was—but only momentarily.

The revolution was not defeated from outside; it was appropriated from within.

Under Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolutionary coalition fractured. Clerical authority emerged as the dominant force, marginalizing leftists, liberals, and workers.

Frantz Fanon warned us:

“The national bourgeoisie… turns its back more and more on the interior and on the real problems of the country.”

In Iran, the clerical class performed a similar function—replacing monarchy not with democracy, but with divine authority.

V. The Islamic Republic: Institutionalizing Control

Under Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic has perfected the art of controlled dissent.

Elections exist, but power does not circulate. Opposition exists, but does not govern.

The repression of women—justified through culture—is not incidental. It is structural. It is a means of disciplining society itself.

Yet resistance persists. Women removing hijabs. Students defying authority. Workers protesting inequality.

The revolution is not dead—it is contained.

VI. War as Political Technology

The ongoing confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel axis is often framed as security or ideology.

It is neither.

It is political technology.

War performs a function: it reorganizes internal politics.

As soon as external aggression becomes real or imminent:

· The regime becomes the nation

· Dissent becomes treason

· Protest becomes silence

This is not accidental—it is structural.

VII. The Paradox: Imperialism as the Regime’s Ally

Here lies the most uncomfortable truth:

Imperialism does not weaken regimes like Iran—it sustains them.

Every threat from the United States
Every escalation involving Israel

Strengthens the legitimacy of the Iranian state.

The masses, even when oppressed, cannot side with the aggressor.

Thus, they rally—not for the regime, but for sovereignty.

And in doing so, they reinforce the regime.

VIII. The Failure of Regime Change Fantasies

The idea—popularized during the era of Donald Trump—that internal dissent can be weaponised by external pressure is fundamentally flawed.

It misunderstands the psychology of nations under attack.

Fanon again:

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot…”

But when imperialism is present—not residual—it becomes the primary enemy.

The people postpone their struggle.

And the regime survives.

IX. After War: The Counter-Revolution Consolidates

When conflict subsides, the damage is already done:

· The regime has gained legitimacy

· The opposition has lost momentum

· Fear replaces political imagination

This is how revolutions die—not in defeat, but in delay.

Iran’s liberal movement does not vanish—but it is pushed back into history.

X. India and Iran: A History Now at Risk

The relationship between India and Iran is not recent—it is civilizational.

From the cultural flows of the Mughal Empire to diplomatic cooperation in the post-colonial era, Iran has been one of India’s most consistent partners in the Islamic world.

Notably, Iran maintained a nuanced stance on Kashmir—rarely aligning with hostile narratives against India.

This mattered.

XI. The Modi Doctrine: Alignment and Alienation

Under Narendra Modi, India’s foreign policy has undergone a decisive shift.

Closer to Washington.
Closer to Tel Aviv.
More distant from Tehran.

This is not ideological—it is strategic.

But strategy has consequences.

India risks losing:

· A historical ally

· A strategic partner in West Asia

· A balancing force in Islamic geopolitics

XII. The Indian Contradiction

Here too, the Marxist contradiction emerges:

· The Indian state aligns with global capital and power

· The Indian people expresses anti-imperialist sentiment

Two trajectories. One nation.

Conclusion: The Dialectic of Defeat

Iran today stands as a lesson—not just for itself, but for the world.

A people who resisted monarchy…
Now contained by theocracy…
And forced to defend it against empire.

This is not failure.
This is contradiction.

And contradiction, as Marx teaches us, is not the end of history—but its engine.

Footnotes

1. The 1953 coup against Mohammad Mossadegh was orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence to protect oil interests .

2. The coup reinstated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule lasted until the 1979 revolution.

3. The Iranian Revolution led to the establishment of a theocratic state under Ruhollah Khomeini.

4. India and Iran established diplomatic relations in 1950 and have deep historical ties .

5. The alliance between the United States and Israel shapes the geopolitical dynamics of West Asia.

 

Epitaph of Non-Alignment: India’s Strategic Drift in the Shadow of the Iran–US–Israel War

A critique of imperial power, civilisational resistance, and the quiet erosion of India’s sovereign foreign policy

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The Iran–US–Israel war, culminating in a fragile two-week truce, marks a watershed in global politics—the most systemically disruptive conflict since World War II. The war has exposed not only the limits of American hegemony but also the enduring resilience of Iran’s ideological state structure. At the same time, it has revealed a profound transformation in India’s foreign policy. Departing from its historic commitment to non-alignment, India appears to have aligned itself with the US–Israel axis, sacrificing strategic autonomy at the altar of geopolitical expediency. This essay interrogates the class character of global power, the imperialist logic underpinning the war, and India’s subordination within this order under Narendra Modi. It argues that India’s current trajectory represents not strategic pragmatism but ideological capitulation, with far-reaching consequences for its sovereignty, regional standing, and historical identity.

Keywords

Imperialism, Non-Alignment, Strategic Autonomy, Iran–US War, Indian Foreign Policy, Marxist Analysis, Global Capitalism, West Asia, Modi Doctrine

I. War, Capital, and the Global Order After 1945

The Iran–US–Israel war must be understood not as an isolated geopolitical rupture but as a manifestation of the contradictions of late-stage global capitalism. Since World War II, wars have largely remained regionally contained, serving as instruments for maintaining spheres of influence. However, this conflict has shattered that containment by directly threatening the arteries of global capital—most notably through Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.

By effectively choking a route responsible for nearly one-fifth of global hydrocarbon flows, Iran transformed a regional war into a systemic crisis. Energy markets trembled, global supply chains wavered, and the myth of insulated Western prosperity was momentarily punctured. Iran struck not merely at military targets but at the material base of imperial power.

II. Iran’s Defiance: Resistance Beyond Material Loss

Contrary to the expectations of Donald Trump and his strategic establishment, Iran did not collapse under the weight of bombardment. The assumption that overwhelming force would yield swift capitulation reflects a deeply entrenched imperial arrogance—one that reduces societies to calculable variables while ignoring their ideological and cultural depth.

Even after the symbolic and political blow associated with attacks linked to the legacy of Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran refused to yield. The losses it suffered were not merely infrastructural but profoundly human—leaders, cadres, and civilians. Yet, the Iranian state drew upon the Shia tradition of shahadat, transforming loss into political resolve.

This is where the imperial calculus faltered. The United States, armed with unparalleled war-gaming capabilities, failed to grasp that resistance can be historically embedded and spiritually sustained. The expectation of a short war was not merely misplaced—it was structurally flawed.

III. The Truce: Negotiation as an Admission of Limits

The two-week truce, reluctantly embraced by Benjamin Netanyahu and cautiously accepted by Iran, is less a peace than a pause born of necessity. The most telling aspect of this development is the United States’ willingness to consider Iran’s 10-point proposal, effectively shelving its own 15-point framework.

This reversal is not procedural; it is political. It signifies that even at the height of its coercive power, the United States could not impose unilateral terms. Iran, despite suffering immense losses, has forced a negotiation on relatively equal footing.

This moment reveals a fissure in the structure of imperial dominance. The periphery, when strategically coordinated and ideologically mobilized, can compel the core to negotiate.

IV. India’s Historical Position: From Non-Alignment to Strategic Submission

India’s foreign policy, since independence under Jawaharlal Nehru, was anchored in the doctrine of non-alignment. This was not passive neutrality but an active assertion of sovereignty in a bipolar world. It allowed India to navigate competing blocs while retaining policy independence.

Over time, non-alignment evolved into strategic autonomy, enabling India to engage with diverse powers without subordination. This framework was not merely diplomatic; it was civilisational—a reflection of India’s anti-colonial ethos.

However, under Narendra Modi, this legacy appears to have been systematically dismantled. The shift is neither abrupt nor accidental; it is the culmination of a decade-long reorientation. Foreign policy has increasingly been personalized, reduced to optics and symbolism rather than grounded in institutional continuity.

V. Alignment Disguised as Strategy

India’s conduct during the Iran–US–Israel war reveals a clear departure from equidistance. The timing of Modi’s visit to Tel Aviv—just 48 hours before the outbreak of hostilities—was not diplomatically neutral. In international relations, symbolism is substance, and this gesture signalled alignment.

The absence of a strong condemnation following attacks on Iran’s leadership and killing of Ayatollah Khomeini further deepened this perception. Even symbolic acts of condolence were delayed and diluted, reflecting a hesitation rooted not in caution but in political alignment.

Simultaneously, India’s criticism of instability in the Gulf, without addressing the structural causes of the conflict, reinforced the impression that it had internalized the narrative of the US–Israel axis.

This alignment is not merely geopolitical but ideological. The affinity between sections of India’s ruling establishment and the Israeli state reflects a convergence of nationalist projects—each seeking legitimacy through exclusionary narratives.

VI. The Subordination to Imperial Power

The broader context of India’s foreign policy under Modi reveals patterns of subordination to American interests. Trade arrangements perceived as asymmetrical, compliance with directives on energy imports, and visible deference to US strategic priorities indicate a shift from autonomy to alignment.

The role of Donald Trump in shaping these dynamics cannot be overlooked. The oscillation in India’s policy—whether on tariffs, oil imports, or diplomatic positioning—suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach.

This subordination becomes particularly evident during crises. As the war escalated, India appeared less as an independent actor and more as a peripheral observer, its choices constrained by external expectations.

VII. Pakistan’s Strategic Insertion

In stark contrast, Pakistan has managed to position itself as a facilitator in the evolving diplomatic landscape. By maintaining engagement with multiple actors—including the US, Iran, and China—it has occupied a space that India historically claimed.

This development is not merely ironic; it is indicative of a broader shift. A state often marginalized in global discourse has leveraged the crisis to enhance its diplomatic relevance, while India, despite its economic and strategic weight, remains on the margins.

VIII. Operation Sindoor and the Myth of Global Support

The pattern of isolation is further reflected in the context of Operation Sindoor, where India reportedly found limited international backing. Countries such as Turkey, China, and Azerbaijan aligned more closely with Pakistan’s position.

The intervention of Washington in shaping ceasefire outcomes underscores a troubling reality: India’s strategic autonomy has been compromised to the extent that external powers can influence outcomes in its immediate neighbourhood.

IX. The Illusion of Vishva Guru

The dissonance between rhetoric and reality is perhaps most evident in the claim of India as a “Vishva Guru.” If India were indeed a guiding force in global affairs, its role in a crisis of this magnitude would not be peripheral.

The dispatch of parliamentary delegations to multiple countries in the aftermath of diplomatic setbacks during operation sindoor reflects an implicit acknowledgment of this gap. It suggests a reactive attempt to rebuild credibility rather than a confident assertion of influence.

X. Conclusion: The Cost of Abandoning Autonomy

The Iran–US–Israel war has exposed the fault lines of the contemporary global order. It has demonstrated that even in an era of overwhelming military power, resistance remains possible, and negotiation remains necessary.

For India, however, the conflict has revealed a deeper crisis—a crisis of orientation. The abandonment of non-alignment, the erosion of strategic autonomy, and the visible tilt towards a particular bloc have collectively diminished its global standing.

To describe this moment as the writing of an epitaph may appear stark, but it captures a profound truth: the essence of India’s foreign policy—its independence—stands at risk.

The future consequences of this shift will not be immediate, but they will be enduring. In a multipolar world, where power is fluid and alliances transient, the ability to maintain balance is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

India must decide whether it will reclaim this balance or continue along a path where its voice is subsumed within the chorus of greater powers.

Footnotes

1. The World War II (1939–1945) marked the last conflict with truly systemic global impact; subsequent wars, including those in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, remained regionally contained despite wider implications.

2. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which approximately 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption passes, making it central to global economic stability.

3. The doctrine of Non-Alignment was articulated by Jawaharlal Nehru and institutionalized through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961, alongside leaders like Tito and Nasser, as a strategy to maintain independence from Cold War blocs.

4. The concept of Vilayat-e-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), institutionalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 under Ruhollah Khomeini, forms the ideological backbone of the Iranian state.

5. Iran’s reported “10-point proposal” includes demands such as sanctions relief, non-aggression guarantees, recognition of nuclear enrichment rights, and security assurances for its regional allies; the US “15-point proposal” is believed to have included stricter compliance and disarmament conditions.

6. The assumption within US strategic circles, particularly under Donald Trump, that rapid military escalation would force Iranian capitulation reflects a pattern seen in earlier interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

7. Benjamin Netanyahu has historically advocated a hardline stance against Iran, particularly regarding its nuclear programme and regional influence through proxy groups.

8. India–Iran relations have traditionally included cooperation in energy (notably crude oil imports), infrastructure (such as the Chabahar Port project), and diplomatic coordination in multilateral forums, though Iran’s support on Kashmir-related issues has been cautious and not uniformly pro-India.

9. Narendra Modi’s foreign policy has been characterized by increased engagement with the United States and Israel, including high-profile visits and strategic agreements, marking a shift from earlier doctrinal positions.

10. Pakistan has historically leveraged its geopolitical position to act as an intermediary in regional conflicts, maintaining ties with the US, China, and key Islamic nations despite internal challenges.

11. Reports of large-scale casualties in the Gaza Strip conflict have been widely documented by international organizations, though figures vary and remain contested in politically charged narratives.

12. Turkey, China, and Azerbaijan have, in recent geopolitical alignments, shown varying degrees of support for Pakistan in regional disputes, reflecting shifting alliances.

13. The term “Operation Sindoor” is used contextually to describe recent India–Pakistan tensions; details remain fluid and subject to differing national narratives and interpretations.

14. The phrase “Vishva Guru” is a political and cultural articulation used in contemporary Indian discourse to signify India’s aspiration for global leadership based on its civilisational heritage.

15. The concept of shahadat (martyrdom) in Shia Islam plays a significant role in shaping political resistance, drawing from historical events such as the Battle of Karbala.

16. India’s compliance with US sanctions regimes—particularly regarding oil imports from Iran and Venezuela—has been documented in policy shifts following American withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018.

17. The Chabahar Port project in Iran has been a strategic investment by India to access Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan, and its progress has been affected by US sanctions and shifting diplomatic priorities.