# The Shadow War: Destabilization Tactics Targeting India’s Strategic Autonomy, Economic and Industrial Growth

The Shadow War: Destabilization Tactics Targeting India’s Strategic Autonomy, Economic and Industrial Growth

?

The Opening Gambit

1.? As India stands at the cusp of significant economic and geopolitical transformation, its rise is increasingly seen as a threat by global powers invested in maintaining the current world order. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, India’s assertion of strategic autonomy—most notably through sustained relations with Russia—has sent ripples through the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. The prospect of India evolving into a $10-15 trillion economy within the next decade or two, with the potential to challenge the United States on multiple fronts, is a scenario that some in the U.S. and its allies are determined to prevent at any cost. This article explores how the toolkit of regime change/destabilization, historically employed in countries like Libya, Egypt, and Bangladesh, might be applied to destabilize India and bring a pliable government to power. However, suffice to remember that India is no Egypt, Libya, or Bangladesh. It is a large democracy and the most populous country. However, having said that, this can’t be reason enough for us to be complacent, blind, and deaf. We need to keep our upper faculty honed up.

?The Strategic Threat: India’s Path to Autonomy

2. India’s growing influence on the global stage, driven by a robust economy, technological advancements, and strategic alliances, represents a fundamental shift in the global balance of power. Unlike the India of the past, which often aligned itself with Western interests, Modi’s government has increasingly pursued an independent foreign policy. This has included deepening ties with Russia, a relationship that harks back to the Cold War era but has taken on new significance in the context of U.S. efforts to isolate Moscow on the world stage.

3. For the U.S./Western Hemisphere Deep State— ex politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, an amalgamation of intelligence agencies, defense contractors, and policymakers who operate with a degree of autonomy from the elected government—India’s strategic autonomy is a double-edged sword. While India is seen as a counterbalance to China, its growing assertiveness and refusal to toe the U.S. line on issues like sanctions against Russia, or its stance on global trade, pose a challenge to American hegemony. The U.S. does not want to see India emerge as a peer competitor in the global economy 10-15 years down the line, nor does it wish to see India’s technological and industrial base develop to the point where it can operate independently of Western influence.

?Modus Operandi: The Toolkit of Regime Change

4. The playbook for regime change is well-documented and has been applied with varying degrees of success in different regions of the world. The process typically begins with the identification and exploitation of internal divisions—whether ethnic, religious, or regional—to create an environment ripe for destabilization.

4.1.???????? Exploiting Sub-Nationalism and Communal Divisions

• In India, the Deep State’s first line of attack would likely involve the amplification of existing fault lines within the country. India’s diversity, while a source of strength, also presents vulnerabilities that can be exploited. The Deep State could seek to fuel regionalism, religious, synthetic caste tensions, and religious divisions, much like how sectarian and ethnic differences were manipulated in Iran during the 1953 coup or in the Congo during the 1960s.
• Jenifer Larson the Consul General, U.S at Hyderabad, an anathema, and a serious threat to India. The recent meeting

?between U.S. Consul General Jennifer Larson and Asaduddin Owaisi, a prominent Muslim leader, could possibly be viewed as part of an effort to cultivate ties with groups that might be used to stoke communal tensions. Larson’s previous involvement during the period 2009-12 in Libya during the Arab Spring, where she was accused of facilitating regime change through similar tactics, raises concerns about her role in India.

4.2. Weaponizing Economic Instability.

• Economic turmoil is another potent weapon in the regime change arsenal. By leveraging economic tools—such as manipulating currency values, imposing sanctions, or encouraging capital flight—the Deep State could aim to create a crisis of confidence in the Indian economy. The advisory issued by the Karnataka government, urging citizens to withdraw their fixed deposits from state-run banks, could be an early indicator of such efforts. This act of economic sabotage, particularly if it spreads to other states or sectors, could undermine public trust in the Modi government’s economic management.
• The recent increase in MCLR (Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate) could be weaponized by some political parties of various description-controlled states to stoke fears of a financial crisis, thereby eroding confidence in the central government.

4.3. Fostering Civil Unrest and Political Turmoil.

• The ultimate goal of these destabilization efforts would be to create an environment of anarchy and civil unrest. Drawing parallels with the Arab Spring, where seemingly spontaneous protests were later revealed to have been orchestrated by external actors, similar tactics could be deployed in India. The aim would be to delegitimize the Modi government by portraying it as unable to maintain law and order, thus paving the way for an alternative government more amenable to Western interests.
• The involvement of operatives like Jennifer Larson, who played a key role in the Arab Spring and the Libyan Civil War, suggests that the groundwork for such an operation may already be in progress. The coordinated dissemination of anti-government narratives through media, social networks, and even within academic circles could serve as the catalyst for mass protests and civil disobedience.

The Role of some political parties of various description as Willing Participant?

4. The role of ??some political parties of various description, particularly some national and regional political parties, as well as political formations with religious overtones and following, in this potential scenario cannot be overlooked. Out of power for over a decade, some political parties of various description are desperate to regain control, even if it means aligning with external actors whose interests may not align with those of India. The national and regional political parties as well as political formations with religious overtones and following recent overtures to the U.S. and its allies, coupled with its criticism of the Modi government’s foreign policy, suggest that it may be willing to play the role of a Trojan horse in this larger geopolitical game.

5. The alliance between some political parties of various description and the Deep State could be facilitated through intermediaries who have a vested interest in seeing a change of government in India. Figures like Victoria Nuland, Donald Lu, and others who have a track record of engineering regime changes in other parts of the world could be involved in providing the necessary financial and logistical support to some political parties of various description forces in India. Some national and regional political parties as well as political formations with religious overtones and following, may be willing to engage in what could be seen as a Faustian bargain—trading national sovereignty for a return to power—poses a significant risk to India’s stability.

?

The Timeline: Early and Late Manifestations

6. Understanding the potential timeline of these destabilization efforts is crucial for anticipating and countering them. The operation could unfold in several phases:

6.1.???????? Early Manifestations.

• Subtle Economic Undermining. ?Early signs could include economic advisories like the one issued by Karnataka, attempts to create uncertainty in financial markets, and efforts to undermine investor confidence. These actions may be subtle and easily dismissed as local or isolated incidents, but they should be recognized as part of a broader strategy.
• Increased Communal Tensions. ?A rise in communal incidents, possibly sparked by seemingly spontaneous events, could serve as an early warning sign. These incidents may be portrayed as failures of governance, further eroding the government’s credibility.

6.2. Intermediate Phase.

• Organized Protests. ?As the groundwork is laid, more organized and widespread protests could emerge. These protests would likely be framed around legitimate grievances—such as economic inequality, corruption, or human rights—but would be orchestrated to maximize disruption and delegitimize the government.
• International Condemnation. ?As protests gain momentum, there would likely be an increase in international criticism of the Modi government. This criticism could be spearheaded by NGOs, human rights organizations, and even foreign governments, creating a narrative of India as a nation in crisis.

6.3. Late Manifestations.

• Political Crisis. ?As the situation escalates, the goal would be to provoke a political crisis that could force Modi to step down or call early elections. This could be achieved through a combination of mass protests, defections within the ruling party, and pressure from international bodies.
• Potential call for Military Intervention to Restore the Law and Order. ?In a worst-case scenario, the situation could deteriorate to the point where there is a real or perceived call for military intervention to restore order. This would nearly coincide with the final phase of the regime change/destabilization operation, where the goal would be to install a government more aligned with Western interests.

?

Battle Indicators: What to Watch For?

7.????? To effectively counter these destabilization attempts, India’s intelligence and security agencies must be vigilant in monitoring key battle indicators. These indicators could include:

7.1. Unusual Financial Movements. ?Sudden capital outflows, unexplained fluctuations in the stock market, or coordinated advisories from state governments that seem to undermine the central government’s economic policies.

7.2. Surge in Communal Incidents. ?A noticeable increase in communal violence, particularly in regions with a history of such tensions. These incidents may be accompanied by a surge in inflammatory rhetoric on social media platforms.

7.3. Foreign Involvement in Domestic Politics. ?Increased interactions between some political parties of various description leaders and foreign diplomats, particularly those with a history of involvement in regime change operations. Public statements or leaks that suggest foreign governments are “concerned” about India’s internal situation.

7.4. Coordinated Media Campaigns. ?A surge in negative media coverage of the Modi government, particularly from international outlets known to have links with Western intelligence agencies or think tanks.

7.5. Formation of Unusual Political Alliances. ?The emergence of unlikely political alliances, particularly between the national and regional political parties as well as political formations with religious overtones and following and groups that have historically been opposed to each other. These alliances may be facilitated by external actors with the goal of presenting a united front against Modi.

?

The Bangladesh Precedent: A Test Case?

8. The recent crisis in Bangladesh, where the U.S. was accused of orchestrating a regime change operation, could serve as a test case for similar efforts in India. The timeline of events in Bangladesh, which culminated in widespread protests and political instability, bears striking similarities to the playbook that could be applied to India. The involvement of key U.S. figures like Victoria Nuland and Donald Lu in both scenarios suggests that similar strategies may be at play.

9. In Bangladesh, the regime change operation was marked by a sudden surge in anti-government protests, international condemnation of the government’s handling of the situation, and a series of economic pressures that exacerbated the crisis. Victoria Nuland and Donald Lu, both seasoned operators in the realm of U.S. foreign policy, were seen as key figures behind the scenes, orchestrating diplomatic and economic manoeuvres aimed at destabilizing the Hasina government. The parallels to India are clear: should similar tactics be deployed, India could face an orchestrated campaign to undermine its economic stability, international standing, and internal cohesion.

10. The Bangladeshi experience demonstrates how quickly a seemingly stable government can be thrown into turmoil through a combination of external pressure and internal dissent. The use of economic tools, such as sanctions or the withdrawal of foreign investments, coupled with a narrative of human rights abuses and democratic backsliding, created a pretext for foreign intervention. The resulting chaos, which included violent protests and clashes between government forces and some political parties of various description groups, was leveraged to delegitimize the government on the global stage.

11. ?For India, the implications are profound. The U.S. may attempt to replicate the Bangladesh model by first weakening Modi’s government economically, followed by a media-driven campaign to highlight alleged failings in governance, human rights, and democratic principles. The goal would be to foster a sense of inevitability about regime change, both within India and in the international community.

The U.S. Motive: Preventing India’s Rise

12. Understanding the U.S. motive behind a potential destabilization effort is crucial. The rise of India as a major global power threatens to disrupt the existing balance of power, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. views India as a critical player in its strategy to counter China, but it also sees the risks of an India that is too independent, too economically powerful, and too closely aligned with Russia.

12.1. Strategic Autonomy as a Threat. India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy is perceived as a direct challenge to U.S. interests. Unlike Japan, South Korea, or even Australia, India has refused to become a mere extension of U.S. strategic interests in Asia. Instead, India has sought to carve out its own space, balancing relations with the U.S., Russia, and China. This independent stance, particularly India’s refusal to condemn Russia overtly and directly over the Ukraine conflict and its continued purchase of Russian oil, is viewed with suspicion in Washington.

12.2. Economic Competition. The prospect of India emerging as a $10-15 trillion economy within the next decade or two, presents a significant challenge to U.S. economic hegemony. A strong, self-reliant India, capable of technological innovation and industrial growth without Western assistance, would weaken the U.S.’s ability to exert influence over global markets. The Deep State, with its roots in protecting American economic dominance, may view India’s rise as a zero-sum game, where India’s gain is America’s loss.

12.3. Technological Sovereignty. India’s efforts to develop its own technological ecosystem, including initiatives like Aatmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India), threaten to reduce its dependency on Western technology. As India advances in areas like semiconductor manufacturing, defense technology, and digital infrastructure, the U.S. could lose its leverage over one of the world’s largest markets. This shift would also diminish the West’s ability to control global technological standards, a domain in which the U.S. has traditionally been dominant.

12.4. Geopolitical Realignments. India’s deepening ties with Russia and its cautious approach to the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy signal a potential realignment in global geopolitics. While India participates in forums like the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) and maintains robust defense ties with the U.S., it has not fully aligned with U.S. strategic objectives. India’s reluctance to fully embrace the anti-China rhetoric and its nuanced approach to the Ukraine conflict indicate a broader strategy of maintaining strategic flexibility. This realignment poses a threat to U.S. efforts to build a cohesive coalition against China and Russia.

?

Countermeasures: Safeguarding India’s Sovereignty

13. To counter potential destabilization efforts, India must adopt a multi-faceted strategy that addresses both internal vulnerabilities and external threats. The following measures could be critical in safeguarding India’s sovereignty:

13.1. Strengthening Intelligence and Security Apparatus. ?India’s intelligence agencies, including the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB), and Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), must be manned, organised, and equipped to detect and neutralize foreign influence operations. This includes monitoring financial transactions, political alliances, and media narratives that may be indicative of a broader destabilization campaign. Enhanced cooperation with allied intelligence agencies could also provide valuable insights into the modus operandi of the Deep State.

13.2. Economic Resilience. ?Building economic resilience is essential to withstand potential attacks on India’s financial system. This could involve diversifying foreign reserves, reducing dependency on foreign capital, and encouraging domestic investment. The government could also consider strategic economic measures, such as capital controls or the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, to mitigate the impact of foreign economic warfare.

12.3. Media and Information Warfare. ?Countering the narrative warfare that often accompanies regime change/destabilization operations is critical. The Indian government should invest in its own media infrastructure, both domestically and internationally, to present its narrative to the world. This could involve the establishment of a global media network that can counter biased reporting and highlight India’s achievements and policies. Additionally, combating misinformation and propaganda within India through legal frameworks and public awareness campaigns is crucial.

12.4. Diplomatic Outreach. India must engage in proactive diplomacy to build alliances and partnerships that can act as a counterweight to U.S. pressure. Strengthening ties with Russia, China, and other non-Western powers could provide India with strategic leverage. Additionally, engaging with European nations that are increasingly wary of U.S. unilateralism could help build a coalition that supports India’s strategic autonomy.

12.5. Political Unity and Nationalism. ?Internally, fostering a sense of national unity and resilience is paramount. The Modi government must work to bridge communal and regional divides, ensuring that all sections of society feel invested in India’s future. Promoting a narrative of national pride and resilience against foreign interference can galvanize public support and make it harder for external actors to exploit internal divisions.

12.6. Legal and Constitutional Safeguards. Strengthening the legal framework to protect against foreign interference in domestic politics is another critical measure. This could include laws that restrict foreign funding of political parties and NGOs, regulations on the activities of foreign diplomats, and mechanisms to ensure that economic advisories from state governments do not undermine national interests.

?

Quintessence: The Battle for India’s Future

13. India stands at a crossroads in its journey towards becoming a global power. The path ahead is fraught with challenges, not least of which is the potential for external efforts to destabilize the country. The U.S. Deep State, with its long history of regime change operations, may view India’s strategic autonomy and economic rise as threats that must be neutralized. However, by recognizing these challenges and taking proactive measures to safeguard its sovereignty, India can navigate these turbulent waters and emerge as a resilient and independent global power.

14.The key to India’s success will lie in its ability to maintain internal cohesion, strengthen its economic and strategic resilience, and engage with the world on its own terms. As the global balance of power shifts, India must be prepared to defend its interests against those who seek to undermine its rise. The battle for India’s future is not just a geopolitical contest; it is a test of the nation’s resolve, unity, and vision for its place in the world.

?