As India prepares for another round of base-year revision and methodological updates in its national accounts, questions around the credibility of official economic data have resurfaced. Such scrutiny is not only inevitable but desirable in a democracy. However, the quality of debate matters. Since the shift to the 2011–12 base year, criticisms of India’s GDP estimates have broadly fallen into four distinct categories. Distinguishing between them is essential to separate legitimate analytical concerns from selective or speculative claims.

In 2025, India–United States relations present a complex and seemingly contradictory picture. On the surface, political ties appear strained, shaped by trade frictions, sanctions, and diplomatic unease symbolised by the postponement of the Quad Leaders’ Summit that India was expected to host. Yet beneath this turbulence lies a more stable and enduring reality: the institutional foundations of the bilateral relationship remain strong, functional, and steadily expanding.

On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment that will significantly influence how Indian courts balance civil liberties against national security. By refusing bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots, the Court underscored a hard constitutional truth: once an offence is framed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail jurisprudence shifts from ordinary criminal law to a far stricter statutory terrain.

When U.S. President Donald Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine to justify the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, he revived one of the oldest and most contentious ideas in American foreign policy. First articulated more than two centuries ago, the doctrine has never been static. Instead, it has evolved alongside U.S. power, repeatedly reinterpreted to legitimise American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Its latest invocation underscores how historical doctrines can be reshaped to serve contemporary strategic agendas.

Donald Trump’s dramatic seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was intended to project American resolve and deterrence. Yet far from Washington, in Beijing’s strategic circles, the episode is being read very differently. For China, the operation is less a show of strength than a narrative gift — reinforcing its long-standing argument that the United States invokes international rules selectively, upholding them when convenient and discarding them when power permits. From Taiwan to the South China Sea, Chinese officials believe Washington has handed them valuable diplomatic ammunition.