Misunderstanding India’s advocacy for multipolarity
If India is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow.
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India’s relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump’s criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India’s search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India’s advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today.
Let’s begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like?
Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India’s tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India’s foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India’s foreign policy is not about indecision; it’s a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country’s fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity.
Third, India’s complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi’s rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America’s global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia.
While America’s declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi’s desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow.
There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China’s unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China’s influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist.
In an ideal world, New Delhi’s articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia.
But New Delhi’s rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences.
Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India’s rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India’s geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China’s attempts at regional hegemony.
This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing’s efforts to establish hegemony in Asia.
New Delhi’s rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia.
More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India’s strategic community about the true motives behind India’s multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC.
There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House.
Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA’S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
HT App & Website
Scientifically Speaking: How seeing sickness activates your immune system
Researchers in Switzerland and Italy found that simply seeing someone who looks contagious can trigger your brain’s threat circuits
You’re in a crowded train. Someone nearby sneezes, eyes watery, nose red. You take a step back. That reaction seems to be social conditioning and a learned experience. But it may run deeper than behavior. Now, we know that there may be more going on, according to a new study in Nature Neuroscience. Responses to visible signs of sickness may not be purely behavioral. They may extend to your immune system too.
Researchers in Switzerland and Italy found that simply seeing someone who looks contagious can trigger your brain’s threat circuits and mobilize your immune cells. No actual pathogen is needed to trigger a response, just a visual cue. The team tested this using virtual reality (VR), creating digital avatars that looked sick and watching how people’s bodies responded.
This work is fascinating and so simple that one wonders why no one had thought to do it before. In a series of VR trials, 248 healthy participants watched digital avatars approach their faces. Some looked neutral, some fearful, some showed clear signs of illness like rashes or coughing. Participants responded to mild facial touches faster when a “sick” avatar was nearby, even at a distance. Their brains were already on high alert, subtly expanding the monitored space around the body in response to infection threats.
Brain imaging revealed that two key systems kicked in: the peripersonal space network, which monitors the area right around your body, and the salience network, which flags important or threatening information. What surprised scientists most wasn’t just the brain lighting up but what happened in the blood.
Also Read: Scientifically Speaking: Science is accessible now, and kids should be encouraged to take it up
People exposed to infectious-looking avatars showed increased activity in innate lymphoid cells. These immune cells act like the body’s first responders, sounding the alarm to other immune defenses. The pattern was strikingly similar to what researchers saw in participants who had received a flu vaccine.
The result is striking and worth repeating: the mere appearance of disease triggered a response normally seen with actual infection.
This suggests your brain and immune system share a biological alarm system, one that’s tuned to err on the side of caution, even when the fire is just a simulation. The researchers traced this remarkable pathway using advanced brain imaging, finding that visual threat detection communicates with immune cells through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. This is your body’s main stress response network, and apparently also a shortcut to priming the immune system before any actual infection.
Using machine learning, the researchers discovered that there is a sophisticated calculation involving stress hormones, inflammatory molecules, and other chemical messengers working in delicate balance. They found that immune activation was predicted to be highest when stress hormones were high, inflammatory factors were low, and certain signaling molecules were in balance.
This makes evolutionary sense. Our ancestors who could spot potential sources of infection from a distance and prepare their bodies accordingly would have had a survival advantage.
But exciting as these observations are, there are limitations. The study didn’t show that this visual immune priming makes you less likely to get sick. It didn’t demonstrate long-term changes in immunity or any boost to actual infection-fighting power. The researchers only looked at two types of immune cells, in healthy young adults, right after exposure. We don’t know how durable the effect is, or whether it works the same across age groups, genders, or backgrounds.
We also can’t separate the sickness cue from disgust entirely. A face covered in lesions might trigger visceral reactions that overlap with fear or revulsion, and that could be part of what’s priming the immune system. The findings are exploratory, the first of their kind, and need replication across different populations and pathogens.
Still, the implications are fascinating. This study could open doors to practical applications such as enhancing vaccine efficacy through visual stimuli or better understanding why stress affects our ability to fight infections. The researchers suggest that one day, something as simple as virtual reality exposure could boost medication effectiveness, though that’s still science fiction, not science fact.
Most intriguingly, this study invites a different kind of question, one biology and medicine don’t always ask: how much of our health is shaped not just by what enters our bodies, but by what we see and expect in the world around us?
Anirban Mahapatra is a scientist and author, most recently of the popular science book, When The Drugs Don’t Work: The Hidden Pandemic That Could End Medicine. The views expressed are personal.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
HT App & Website
Mind the Gap: How a law to protect children was weaponized against consensual teen sex
Sex with a girl below the age of 18 is rape, even if it’s consensual.
The big story
It’s a story playing on loop from Guwahati to Allahabad, Delhi to Meghalaya. The plot line is more or less the same: Teenagers in love. He’s 18, 19, or maybe 20. She’s 17 or 16. Everything is going smoothly until her parents find out. Perhaps she gets pregnant. Perhaps someone sees them together. Perhaps she’s run off with him. But all hell breaks loose. Maybe he’s of a different religion or caste, or maybe they’re just angry at the daughter’s exercise of choice.
They file a complaint of rape.
In 2014, when his 17-year-old daughter ran off with the 19-year-old man she loved, her father filed a missing person’s complaint with the police. The police tracked her down to Ghaziabad where she told them she had married her boyfriend in a temple. No matter. He was charged with rape and sentenced to seven years in prison by a trial court. He appealed.
Eleven years later, in February this year, Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi high court finally acquitted him. The punishment handed out to him was a ‘perversity of justice’, the judge ruled. “It was a case of adolescent love and the physical relations were established consensually.”
By law, the age of consent is 18. In other words, sex with a girl who is less than 18 years of age, even if consensual, amounts to statutory rape.
The government’s own data, the National Family Health Survey-5 found that 39% of girls had sex for the first time before turning 18. This of course would include girls married off by their parents before the legal age. The survey doesn’t tell us of marital status, but it shows a large proportion of sexually active girls below the age of 18.
For 80 years, the age of consent was 16. Then in 2012, it was raised, without explanation or rationale, to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). And it is this increase of age that is increasingly being used by parents to punish the consensual sexual relationships of their daughters in a country where sex, particularly pre-marital sex, is taboo.
“An increase in the age of consent violates the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity,” argued senior advocate Indira Jaising who appeared last week as amicus curie: “To criminalize such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law.”
Hard facts
The evidence on how romantic relationships between teenagers are being criminalized is chilling: One in five boys and men charged with rape under POCSO are in romantic, consensual relationships. In one study, it’s one in four.
A five-state study by the Centre for Child and the Law at the National Law School of India University that looked at 2,788 POCSO cases found that romantic, consensual cases made up 21.2% of cases in Andhra Pradesh, 15.6% in Assam, 21.5% in Delhi, 21.8% in Karnataka, and 20.5% in Maharashtra.
Another study by Enfold Proactive Health Trust looked at 7,064 judgements between 2016 and 2020 by POCSO courts in Assam, Maharashtra and West Bengal to find 1,715, or 24.3%, were romantic cases. In nearly half, 46.5%, of these cases, the girl was married to the accused.
The complainants in over 80% of these cases are parents and relatives. Only in 18.3% of cases was the complaint lodged by the girl on grounds of breach of promise to marry.
Acquittal rates are, fortunately, high. When judges hear from girls in romantic relationships, 93.8% of cases end in acquittals, found the Enfold study. But the time taken from the filing of the police complaint to judgment by the courts can take up to three years leaving young couples, many of them already married, some with children, on tenterhooks.
Looking for solutions
The courts are increasingly voicing their concern about consensual teenage sex being criminalized. In 2019, the Madras high court noted that sexual relations among what’s known as “mature minors” was not unnatural and recommended a revision of the age of consent.
The Allahabad high court echoed that view in October 2023 when it stressed that the fact of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.
In February 2024, the Karnataka high court quashed the criminal prosecution of a 20-year-old man who had married a 16-year-old girl and even had a child with her.
But court verdicts can go the other way. In 2019 in Maruthupandi v State, the Madras high court stuck to a literal interpretation of the law and stipulated that the penalties are attracted even though the relationship was consensual.
In May this year, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on a case where the man was 25 and the girl only 14 when she ran off and married him in 2018. They subsequently had a daughter, and the girl, now a woman, was fiercely protective of her small family and wanted to continue the relationship.
The apex court, upheld the man’s conviction under POCSO but declined to sentence him. To send him to jail for the 20 years that he could have got, the court noted would only further harm the woman and her daughter.
I wrote about that verdict in an earlier column here.
Nobody disputes the need for POCSO in a country where a 2007 government survey found 53% of children had faced some form of sexual abuse. The need to protect children is urgent and real.
But the blanket criminalization of all sexual relationships with a girl under 18 is a travesty of the law that is placing pressure on an already over-burdened criminal justice system. A case-by-case approach that leaves justice to the discretion of judges cannot remain the solution.
Indira Jaising recommends a “close in-age exception”. The statutory age of consent would remain 18, but a close-in-age exception—where both adolescents are aged between 16 and 18 and where sex is consensual—would “preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature”, she said.
