By Dilip Cherian
Three hours is barely enough time for a working lunch in New Delhi. Yet when UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed flew in last week at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation, the visit packed the punch of a far longer engagement. It was his third visit as UAE President, and a reminder that in contemporary diplomacy, duration matters far less than preparation and intent.
Also Read
The efficiency of the visit owed much to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which choreographed it with minimal fuss and maximum focus. Indian mandarins kept the optics understated and the agenda tight, signalling a mature, outcome-driven approach. This was quiet, deliberate and effective diplomacy.
The substance reflected how India-UAE ties have steadily evolved into a serious strategic partnership. Behind the scenes, the role of National Security Adviser Ajit Doval has been central in deepening cooperation on defence and counterterrorism, moving the relationship well beyond trade, energy, and diaspora considerations.
The Letter of Intent signed during the visit gives momentum to an emerging India-UAE Strategic Defence Partnership. The defence cooperation that began in 2003 is now entering a more ambitious phase, covering joint production, defence innovation, advanced technologies, cyber capabilities, special operations, and interoperability.
The emphasis on co-manufacturing defence hardware is particularly telling, pointing to trust and long-term alignment rather than transactional deals.
Equally significant, though less visible, is the quiet strengthening of counter-terror cooperation, where the UAE’s de-radicalisation experience aligns closely with India’s security priorities.
For India, aspiring to lead the Global South, and for the UAE, keen to project influence beyond its immediate neighbourhood, this partnership feels less like a tactical convergence and more like a long-term strategic bet. That tightly run three-hour visit made one thing clear: both sides know where this relationship is headed and are keen to get there quickly.
CAPF vs IPS: Why the SC is back in picture
The long-running IPS-CAPF turf war has returned to the Supreme Court, this time as a contempt petition. A group of retired CAPF officers has accused the Union Home Secretary of dragging his feet on a clear judicial directive to reduce IPS deputation in the Central Armed Police Forces. And they may have a point, observers say.
Last year, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognised the Group-A cadres of the CAPFs as organised services and ordered a phased reduction of IPS deputation up to the rank of Inspector General within two years. The idea was to end the glass ceiling that has kept thousands of career CAPF officers stuck below senior leadership, while officers from another service routinely parachute into top roles.
Yet, months later, not much has changed on the ground. IPS officers continue to occupy senior posts, service rules remain untouched, and cadre reviews are still “under examination”. The contempt plea argues that this isn’t a delay; it’s defiance dressed up as process.
Supporters of the current system argue that IPS officers bring strategic oversight and administrative experience crucial to national security. Fair enough — but that logic collapses when used to permanently deny CAPF officers leadership of their own organisations. The court never asked for an overnight purge, only a calibrated transition.
This isn’t just about service rivalries. It’s about whether court orders mean what they say. If judicial directions can be endlessly stalled through committees and consultations, the message to the system is dangerous: compliance is optional.
What CAT’s Wankhede order really says
If there was any doubt about how seriously the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) viewed the action against Sameer Wankhede, its language should settle it.
Calling the disciplinary proceedings “malicious” and motivated by vendetta is not judicial understatement. By quashing the charge memorandum and restraining the CBIC from proceeding further, the CAT sent an unambiguous message: discipline cannot be enforced by bending rules or recycling legally untenable material.
This was not a case of minor procedural sloppiness. The tribunal found that the authorities pressed ahead despite clear legal limits on what could form the basis of disciplinary action. In doing so, it concluded, the intent appeared less corrective and more punitive.
The irony is hard to miss. India’s enforcement agencies often speak of the rule of law and institutional credibility. Yet here, the watchdog had to remind the system that fairness applies inward as much as it does outward.
The order does not exonerate Wankhede on every allegation that has swirled around him. What it does do, and this is no small thing, is draw a red line between legitimate oversight and administrative persecution. In today’s charged bureaucratic climate, that distinction is worth defending.
