International North-South Transport Corridor and Chabahar Port : Must-know for UPSC Exam

Take a look at the essential events, concepts, terms, quotes, or phenomena every day and brush up your knowledge. Here's your knowledge nugget for today on International North South Transport Corridor and Chabahar port.
(Relevance: Regional connectivity projects are an important part of the UPSC CSE syllabus. INSTC and Chabahar port have been in the news, and UPSC has previously asked questions on these projects; for instance, a question was asked on INSTC in prelims this year, and in prelims 2017, a question was asked on Chabahar port (do check it in the post-read questions); thus, it becomes essential to know about these projects.)
The Israel-Iran conflict entered its fourth day on Monday with fresh missile exchanges. The recent escalation in Israel-Iran conflict has triggered serious concern among major stakeholders in the region, including India. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement urging both nations to exercise restraint and avoid further escalation.
Notably, a potential regional conflagration puts India's regional connectivity strategy like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, the International North South Transport Corridor, and the Chabahar port at risk. Trade and commerce, energy imports, and Indian expatriates are other vital concerns for New Delhi. In this context, let's know about the International North South Transport Corridor and Chabahar port.
1. The International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which was initiated by Russia, India, and Iran, is a multi-modal transportation project linking the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea via Iran, and onward to northern Europe via St Petersburg in Russia.
2. This corridor aims to reduce transit times to about 25 days — 20 days fewer than the Suez Canal route — and cut freight costs by 30 per cent.
3. The INSTC envisages the movement of goods from Mumbai to Bandar Abbas in Iran by sea; from Bandar Abbas to Bandar-e-Anzali, an Iranian port on the Caspian Sea, by road; from Bandar-e-Anzali to Astrakhan, a Caspian port in the Russian Federation by ship across the Caspian Sea; and onward to other parts of the Russian Federation and Europe by rail.
1. Chabahar is a deep water port in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province. It is the Iranian port that is the closest to India, and is located in the open sea, providing easy and secure access for large cargo ships. The port is also part of the proposed International North-South Transport Corridor.
2. Chabahar is of strategic importance for India. It offers New Delhi an alternative route that bypasses Pakistan, which does not allow India land access for trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia.
3. Modern Chabahar came into being in the 1970s, and Tehran realised the strategic importance of the port during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
4. In 2002, Hassan Rouhani, who was Iran's National Security Advisor under President Syed Mohammad Khatami at the time, held discussions with his Indian counterpart Brajesh Mishra on developing the port, located 72 km west of Pakistan's Gwadar port.
5. In January 2003, President Khatami and then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee signed off on an ambitious roadmap of strategic cooperation. Among the key projects the two countries agreed on was Chabahar, which held the potential to link South Asia with the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Europe.
6. India, Iran, and Afghanistan signed a trilateral agreement in April 2016, after which the Indian Shipping Ministry worked at a rapid pace towards developing the port.
7. The attitude of the Donald Trump administration towards Iran complicated matters after 2017, but South Block appeared determined to stay the course. New Delhi managed to get a waiver from the US for the Chabahar project, citing access to Afghanistan as a reason.
8. Later, in August 2023, Prime Minister Modi met with President Ebrahim Raisi in Johannesburg on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit, and discussed the pending long-term contract on Chabahar. The two leaders gave a clear political direction to finalise and sign the long-term contract.
9. Notably, on May 13 last year, India and Iran signed a 10-year contract to operate the strategic Iranian port of Chabahar. The long-term agreement was signed by Indian Ports Global Ltd (IPGL) and the Port & Maritime Organisation of Iran.
10. With the operationalisation of the long-term investment, Chabahar could potentially become an important hub to connect India with the landlocked countries of Central Asia and Afghanistan. However, to better realise its commercial and strategic potential, the development of the port must be integrated with the International North South Transport Corridor.
1. The IMEC is a landmark project announced during the G20 Leaders' event in New Delhi in 2023. It was aimed at stimulating economic development through enhanced connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.
2. It will have two separate corridors, the east corridor connecting India to the Arabian Gulf and the northern corridor connecting the Arabian Gulf to Europe, along with a railway route for supplementing trade exchanges between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Europe.
3. India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, Germany, Italy, the European Union and the United States signed an MoU for its development, linked to the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). First announced in June 2021 during the G7 (or Group of Seven) summit in the UK, the PGII has been billed as an alternative funding source to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) without directly mentioning it.
4. In addition to the signatories to the MoU, Israel and Greece are two important nodal sites in IMEC who have expressed interest in joining the project.
POST READ QUESTIONS
(1) What is the importance of developing Chabahar Port by India? (UPSC CSE 2017)
(a) India's trade with African countries will increase enormously.
(b) India's relations with oil-producing Arab countries will be strengthened.
(c) India will not depend on Pakistan for access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
(d) Pakistan will facilitate and protect the installation of a gas pipeline between Iraq and India.
(2) India is one of the founding members of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multimodal transportation corridor, which will connect: (UPSC CSE 2025)
(a) India to Central Asia to Europe via Iran
(b) India to Central Asia via China
(c) India to South-East Asia through Bangladesh and Myanmar
(d) India to Europe through Azerbaijan
(Sources: What are India's stakes in Iran's Chabahar port?, India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor: Significance and Prospects for India,This Word Means: IMEC)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for May 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨
Roshni Yadav is a Deputy Copy Editor with The Indian Express. She is an alumna of the University of Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru University, where she pursued her graduation and post-graduation in Political Science. She has over five years of work experience in ed-tech and media. At The Indian Express, she writes for the UPSC section. Her interests lie in national and international affairs, governance, economy, and social issues. You can contact her via email: roshni.yadav@indianexpress.com ... Read More

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

26 minutes ago

• Business Standard

What is Samson Option, Israel's nuclear threat that's no longer a theory?

Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated sharply after 'Operation Rising Lion' — Israel's largest strike on Iranian nuclear sites since the 1981 Osirak raid. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks, straining Israeli defence systems and prompting fears of wider conflict. With Hezbollah mobilising in the north, Houthi threats rising in the Red Sea, and the possibility of a multi-front war looming, Israeli security doctrine is under renewed global scrutiny. At the centre of that attention is the Samson Option, Israel's undeclared but long-assumed nuclear last-resort policy. Once regarded as a Cold War-era relic, the Samson Option has re-emerged as a global worry with serious implications for global security, defence markets, and diplomatic stability. What is the Samson Option? The Samson Option is widely understood as Israel's nuclear last-resort strategy: threat of massive retaliation if the country's survival is at stake. The name is derived from a reference of the biblical figure Samson, who brought down a Philistine temple upon himself and his enemies, an allegory for apocalyptic deterrence. Though Israel has never confirmed possessing nuclear weapons, its policy of 'Amimut' (Israel's policy of neither confirming nor denying the possession of nuclear weapons), or deliberate ambiguity, has kept adversaries guessing. However, foreign assessments suggest Israel has 80 to 400 nuclear warheads, with delivery systems spanning land-based missiles, submarines, and aircraft. The doctrine entered public discourse in the 1990s via US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who, in his book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, explored Israel's nuclear journey and its relation with the United States. Since then, Israel hardened its 'strategic ambiguity' concept over the possession of a nuclear arsenal. How did Israel build its nuclear arsenal? Israel's nuclear journey began in the 1950s, with the then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion envisioning a survival insurance policy for the newly-formed Jewish nation. With covert help from France and Norway, Israel established the Dimona nuclear facility, presented publicly as a research centre. By the time of the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel is believed to have constructed its first nuclear weapon. Who is Samson, and why is Israel's nuclear policy named after him? The doctrine's name draws from the Book of Judges, where Samson, betrayed, blinded, and imprisoned, sacrifices himself to destroy his enemies. This story, ingrained in Israeli strategic thinking, underlines the nation's message: if its destruction is imminent, it will not go quietly. Yet unlike the doomed biblical hero, modern Israel is a technologically advanced military power. The Samson Option, therefore, is not desperation, but a calculated deterrent, designed to force potential adversaries to think twice. What nuclear weapons does Israel have? Although never confirmed, Israel is among the nine nuclear-armed nations alongside the United States, Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Estimates suggest Israel possesses about 90 warheads, with enough plutonium to build up to 200 more, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Its arsenal is believed to include: > Aircraft: Modified F-15, F-16, and F-35 jets capable of carrying nuclear payloads. > Submarines: Six Dolphin-class submarines, reportedly capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles. > Ballistic missiles: The land-based Jericho missile family, with a range of up to 4,000 km. Around 24 of these missiles are believed to be nuclear-capable. What was the Vela incident? Israel is the only nuclear power which has not openly conducted a nuclear test. The closest indication came in September 1979, when US satellites detected a double flash over the South Atlantic, an event known as the 'Vela Incident'. At the time, US President Jimmy Carter reportedly believed Israel had conducted a nuclear test in collaboration with apartheid-era South Africa. 'We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test,' Carter later wrote in his diaries, which were made public in 2010. Despite speculation, Israel has never confirmed its involvement in the incident. How was Israel's nuclear arsenal revealed to the world? In October 1986, former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu exposed Israel's nuclear programme in an explosive interview with the Sunday Times. Having worked at the Dimona plant for nearly a decade, Vanunu revealed that Israel was capable of producing 1.2 kg of plutonium per week, enough for 12 warheads annually. He also disclosed how Israeli officials had deceived US inspectors during visits in the 1960s with false walls and concealed elevators, hiding entire underground levels of the facility. Vanunu was later abducted by Mossad in Rome, tried in Israel, and sentenced to 18 years in prison, spending over half that time in solitary confinement. Even after his release in 2004, he remains under strict surveillance, barred from foreign travel and media engagement. With West Asia at the edge of a potential multi-front war, Israel's Samson Option has moved from the realm of whispered deterrence to an option in real-world decision-making. Its existence, unconfirmed but globally acknowledged, adds a nuclear dimension to an already combustible region.

First Post

30 minutes ago

• First Post

Five years since Galwan: The two-front threat looms larger for India

In recent years, China–Pakistan military cooperation has deepened significantly. In response, India has enhanced its preparedness and strategic coordination, even as managing simultaneous threats on two fronts demands careful resource prioritisation and long-term capability building read more It has been five years since India and China's skirmish in the Galwan Valley, giving rise to bitter relations between the two. It was after nearly 45 years, after the Tulung La conflict in the Arunachal Valley in 1975, in which four Indian soldiers were killed in the Chinese ambush, that India and China suffered military casualties at the borders. There was another incident in Sikkim in which the Indian soldiers chased away the Chinese soldiers; however, no casualties were reported on either side. This led to a worsening of the relations between the two Asian giants, leading India to reorient its approach towards its relations with China. India managed to control the situation from a position of strength and refused to be cowed under pressure from China. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During the night of June 15-16, 2020, Indian and Chinese soldiers engaged themselves in hand-to-hand combat with the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Both sides incurred casualties; India conceded that twenty soldiers died in the combat, and the Chinese acknowledged only four casualties, but sources confirmed 45 deaths on the Chinese side. Over the next eighteen months both the countries increased the number of forces on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and even exchanged shots against each other. This episode was a landmark in India-China relations, and India revised its strategy towards LAC. Indian forces had minimal armed forces present at the LAC earlier; now it was decided that India would maintain at least 50 to 60 thousand troops permanently besides 40 thousand troops on a rotational basis depending upon the climatic conditions and operational requirements. The Indian foreign minister termed it a 'premeditated and planned action' by the PLA to change the status quo on the borders. How have things changed for India after the conflict? How has the Galwan Conflict changed the dynamics between Pakistan and China, and is India prepared for a two-front war? These are the questions that are being asked by the Indian citizens. Have things changed on the India-China borders? Things have eased up, but tensions are still there. The troop numbers have increased, and it has made a qualitative difference in the situation at the borders before the Galwan. The talks have been going on at three levels between India and China. They are: STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 1. Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) These are mainly at the diplomatic level and practical level to manage the borders and for de-escalation of conflicts. As of March 2025, 30 rounds of WMCC have taken place, the last one being in August 2024. 2. Corps Commander Level Talks These are aimed at de-escalation and toning down of conflicts at specific levels along the LAC. There have been 21 commander-level talks between China and India. 3. Special Representative Level Dialogue These are high-level talks between political representatives of both countries and are focused on a long-term boundary settlement. 21 rounds of discussions have been held between the two countries. In terms of securing the borders, India undertook significant military and strategic reforms to bolster its security posture along the China border. India is now in a position to rapidly reinforce its troop presence at the borders and has established robust defensive positions besides maintaining a regular deployment of acclimatised troops for high-altitude deployment, giving it an advantage over China. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has also initiated what it terms the 'Cold Start' doctrine for quick mobilisation and created multiple mountain strike corps focused on the Indo-Tibetan borders to promptly respond to these threats in the border regions. In terms of deployment of military equipment, Indigenous artillery, armoured vehicles, and heavy tanks (like T-90 and T-72) were deployed. The Indian Air Force upgraded and expanded air bases near the border, improving logistics and strike capabilities. Diplomatic messages going across the borders have also been very strong. India increased diplomatic engagement, sought international support, and deepened strategic partnerships, notably with the US and the Quad, signalling a readiness to counterbalance China's assertiveness. Has the Galwan Crisis brought India and Pakistan together? The Galwan crisis has proved to a large extent the Kautilyan theory that an enemy's enemy can be a good friend. The collaboration between Chinese and Pakistani militaries has increased. This is not only because of the crisis in the Galwan Valley but also because there have been ongoing investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), in which China has invested approximately $50 billion, linking China to the Gwadar port in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. This route flows via Indian territory in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is a strategic alignment between China and Pakistan and a sort of 'collusive threat' from both towards India; this was seen partly in the recent escalations between India and Pakistan over the Pahalgam terrorist attacks. Pakistan used large numbers of Air Force and military hardware against Indian armed forces which are of Chinese origin. China and Pakistan are also colluding economically, politically and diplomatically with each other at a deeper level and with a greater understanding. Is India prepared for a two-front war? India has made significant progress in its military preparedness, but challenges remain on the two-front war on the question of a hypothetical conflict between India and its northern and western neighbours. India has dwelt upon this at a military level and is acutely aware of this. In January 2020 Chief of Army Staff MM Narvane was confronted with this question, and later Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat also acknowledged this hypothetical situation. Even the Chinese have similar fears. As it has India on one side and other adversaries in the Indo-Pacific and the China seas on the other. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In terms of India, we need to address this in the right earnest. In view of increasingly powerful and assertive China, Indian armed forces strategy and preparedness need a complete overhaul. Military observers feel that Indian armed forces' preparedness is constrained and its resources overstretched, and the conversion of some strike corps for China-facing roles has reduced offensive power against Pakistan. India's strategy involves deterring Pakistan with credible military threats, as observed in Operation Sindoor, while seeking to diplomatically avoid escalation with China, recognising that fighting on both fronts simultaneously would strain resources and in the meantime keep preparing itself for such operational readiness. Conclusion Since the 2020 Galwan crisis, India has made incremental security improvements through diplomatic agreements and infrastructure development, yet significant challenges remain. The Pakistan-China strategic partnership has deepened considerably, with China providing substantial military assistance to Pakistan. While recent border agreements with China show promise for tension reduction, India needs to be prepared for a potential two-front war. The sustained deployment of over 100,000 troops along contested borders reflects ongoing security concerns. Despite diplomatic progress, India must continue strengthening its military capabilities and border infrastructure to effectively counter coordinated threats from both Pakistan and China in an increasingly complex regional security environment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Amitabh Singh teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

The Wire

31 minutes ago

• The Wire

India Did Go to the G7, But It is Still Alarmingly Isolated in the World

Now that the G7 summit is done and dusted, we may try to assess whether it has helped India break its disastrous isolation that Operation Sindoor revealed. , prime minister Narendra Modi did get a last-minute invitation to join the G7, but not as a participant – only as an observer. There was jubilation among his lesser-informed fans, fanned also by his multi-million rupee IT cells and the enthralled majority in Indian media. The narrative was that he is too important not to be invited and that India is not isolated, or never was. It is, was and continues to remain the Vishwaguru. Facts, unfortunately, speak otherwise and the drift is just too stark, even for jaundiced eyes to miss. History will surely contrast India's current isolation with the post-colonial decades (1940s to 1960s), when Jawaharlal Nehru and India strode like a colossus among the newly liberated nations. Her draconian Emergency notwithstanding, Indira Gandhi will never be forgotten for giving India its finest hour in 1971 by dismembering Pakistan and forcing 93,000 troops to surrender in Dhaka. These are the stuff of legends – however much we dispute, denigrate or deny. The present 'hyphenation' of India with Pakistan, an almost failed state, is a deliberate insult inflicted on Modi's India to cut to a realistic size and to taunt a drum-beaten narrative that we are almost a superpower. True, India's self respect was salvaged when PM Modi was invited by the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney – of Harvard and Oxford, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and then of England, overrode objections from cantankerous Sikh separatists. But to what effect? America, the very fulcrum of G7, disappeared from the scene after Trump gave just a sneering glance and left – to avoid the overtures of the European heads, keen to catch his ear, to drill some sense. Not only could Modi not hug his dear Donald for photo ops, but he had to gulp the ignominy of watching the big man wine and dine his bête noire, the dreadful de facto ruler of Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir. This lunch may have been offered to distance him from Iran, but now that the wily soldier has declared publicly that Trump must get the Nobel Prize for peace, the blonde man is just swooning. All of Modi's efforts to woo him with delirious Indian crowds screaming ' Abki baar, ' at Houston's 'Howdy, Modi' bash has gone down the drain. The bells have been clanging quite cacophonously for India – when, after hyphenating and equating Pak with India, the west-dominated the UN Security Council went a step forward to torpedo India's righteous indignation at Pakistan sponsored terrorism that killed 26 innocents at Pahalgam. India's screams notwithstanding, the UN Security Council declared Munir's Pakistan to be the vice chair of the committee to combat terrorism. "Friend" Russia looked on, with a smirk, as India's recent track record of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds backfired. It hurts all of us and more tragic is the fact that even after two full months, India could neither produce evidence before the international community. Nor could it enforce 'accountability at the highest levels' for the "intelligence failure" at Pahalgam that India's former Army chief, General Shankar Roychowdhury, had openly declared and . The UN Security Council also appointed Pakistan as chair of the Taliban sanctions committee. This is not only ironic, but a repayment with compound interest. In fact, Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that 'new' India reviles for its constant criticism of India's track record over the last 11 years, had boldly recorded Pakistani involvement with the Taliban, long ago. It said: 'Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force'. But, since then, much water has flowed down the Indus, on which India has no tap, despite our current bluster to stop water. We chose not to hear these bells and blame it all on the Trump family's commercial interest in World Liberty Financial's new deal with Pakistan – to make it 'the crypto capital of South Asia" and a "global leader in the digital finance revolution." Back to our theme that India is completely isolated, especially after Operation Sindoor, we sifted through every phrase uttered at the pined-for G7 summit but could find not a word of support for India's justified war on terror. Even the Pahalgam attack was taken up by G7 only after India launched its operation against Pakistan. On the third day of the furious battle of aircrafts, missiles and drones (with no boots on the ground), the G7 did wake to 'strongly condemn the egregious terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22' without pointing fingers. But G7's chief focus was to 'urge maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan' (note how both are equated) and to 'call for immediate de-escalation and …engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome.' This is when the calculated blunderbuss Trump walked in to claim he pulled apart the two fighting children. To drive home USA's infatuation with Pakistan, the US Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla said that America appreciates Munir's cooperation against the Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS‑KP). At the G7 Summit, nations waited for Trump to ramp up pressure on Russia and the Group was ready to lower the price cap on Russian oil from $ 60 to $ 45 dollars per barrel. This would drastically decrease Russia's oil revenues that financed its war in Ukraine. Not only did Trump veto the proposal (rewarding Putin) but he expressed his undisguised annoyance at G7 for dropping Russia from the original G8. Those Indian GDP enthusiasts who swear that high GDP means world power may note that Russia figures nowhere in the list of top 10 GDP countries. These consist of the G7 ones and China, India and Brazil. So, India's fourth GDP rank counts for so little in the Game of Thrones. Salt on wounds do not seem to stop as Trump is even reported to have suggested inclusion of China into a new G9. Wasn't he at Xi Jinping's throat – until the latter kicked his anatomy where it hurts the most? India's foreign office must surely have noted Trump's penchant for kissing those who behave the worst. Remember how passionately he had wooed the terribly unreliable Kim Jongun of North Korea? But not even mentioning India to expand it to G 10 is a diabolical outrage, meant to wake us up to play rugger the way he does. Incidentally, this G7 summit was among the rarest – from which no joint communique could be issued – so fragmented are the big boys. It is time for India to assiduously befriend just two of the European four and try to strengthen positive relations with Japan to the next level. If China and Türkiye can stand rock-like behind Pakistan, India can not be so hopelessly isolated that not one major country comes out boldly, as an all-weather friend. Well, PM Modi did get a day's rest in Canada when the leaders of G7 huddled together, without the other 'invitees'. He figured not in the actual G7 photo, but in that of the extended group – standing somewhere on the second row, looking lost as others were busy networking. It goes, however, to a dignified, erudite Canadian PM's credit that he kept the few handful of Sikh agitators at bay and took positive steps to normalise relations with India. And, surely, PM Modi must have held bilateral talks with most – and one sincerely hopes that they begin to matter. After all, his visit to a record total of 74 countries so far could not persuade even one country– even Guyana or Fiji or Papua New Guinea would do, to begin with – to come out and say that they condemn Pakistan's terrorists and support India's retaliation. Also read: Rousing Rhetoric for Diaspora, Tourist Spot Visits, Courting Domestic Voter Base: What MPs Did Abroad The hyper-publicised seven 'all party' delegations are back home after visiting 32 countries. My former colleagues in parliament must all be tired. But the 31 political leaders from the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) must now be happy that Modi has finally cast his benevolent gaze at them – after excluding most, for years together, from either importance or power. The 20 politicians from 'other parties' are also grateful for this unique world tour and one of them weaponised it against the detractors in his party. Fine, but it is doubtful if even one of the 32 countries visited would stand up for India. But politics is politics and neither performance nor results matter – something else does. That's why I left it. We have taken the PM and his prickly, ultra-pontificating foreign minister to task in the earlier piece for landing us in such a friendless world. But we also have to admit that there is surely a strong malicious tinge in this west's disaffirmation of India's indisputable economic elevation. India's manufactured superpower narrative is also hot air, because economic growth is only one factor. History shows that no nation has ever been conferred a place on the high table without facing initial scorn, condescension and trial by fire. England, for instance, was just pooh-poohed as a nation of shopkeepers until Poseidon (or Varun) intervened with unruly storms in 1588, for Francis Drake to defeat the invincible Spanish Armada. But, England continued to face ridicule from the continental powers that dominated land warfare and its conquests in India and elsewhere attributed to a cocktail of fluke and bribery. It was only after Wellington managed to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, with dollops of timely assistance from Field Marshal Blucher and his merciless Prussian cavalry that England mattered. If we look intently at each one of the other nations of G7, we will understand how much blood and gore they have gone through in the past centuries. In fact, the dropped-out eighth nation, Russia, alone has witnessed more death and devastation than any other country. What is more relevant is that the entire population of these nations was involved and every village lost her sons. There was, therefore, no time for pampered citizens to indulge in warmongering from air-conditioned homes. Those mercenary TV anchors who won imaginary victories in Pakistan (and their counterparts there) have brought shame to the profession and are now a laughing stock among informed global citizens. India's isolation is a current reality and while we break out of it with all we have in us, we must also realise that 'demeaning an upstart' is left-handed recognition. The rest of the nation's journey up is long, perilous and, hopefully, less violent. Jawhar Sircar is a former Rajya Sabha MP of the Trinamool Congress. He was earlier Secretary, Government of India, and CEO of Prasar Bharati.