For the past five years, the term ‘Shanghai’ has been ubiquitous in the discourse on urban development in India, particularly so in Mumbai, beginning in 2004 when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared in an electoral address his government’s ambition to transform Mumbai into Shanghai, even better it.

Gradually, the word has shifted from a proper noun to a verb, being invoked in Mumbai’s desire to “shanghai itself” or “be shanghai-ified,” with no relation whatsoever to the traditional dictionary meaning of ‘shanghai,’ to force or trick into a place of undesirable position.

Consider the following three facts. First, approximately every sixth person in the world is Indian. Second, for the first time in the history of humankind, the majority of people live in urbanized regions, concentrating poverty in new ways. Third, India 's industrial sectors have distinct spatial characteristics that mirror caste, jati, and gender features of Indian workers. These citizens are poorly counted by both the government and unions.

Despite all the talk of an emerging “strategic partnership” between India and Iran in Washington’s policy-making circles, two recent developments underscore the tenuous nature of India-Iran ties. Tehran has taken up with the Indian government the issue of India launching an Israeli satellite, TECSAR, that many in Israel have suggested would be used to spy on Iran’s nuclear program.

The course of political life in Jharkhand has not run smooth since the State was carved out of Bihar in 2000, the 28th to become part of the Indian Union. In its short history, the state has seen it all: Naxalism, an RSS presence, bribery cases, and murder, not to mention five chief ministers in seven years.

As the annual ritual of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD) concludes, the Indian government’s approach to cultivating overseas Indians needs critical scrutiny. The fact that governments in India — both at the national and state levels — have been making much greater efforts to cultivate overseas Indians is not in doubt.

On September 7, 2001, India’s then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced a national policy with the vision of “shaping biotechnology into a premier precision tool of the future for creation of wealth and ensuring social justice – especially for the welfare of the poor.” Biotechnology, in the aims of the policy, was to combat obdurate diseases and nutritional deficiencies, increase agricultural production, and protect the environment. Scientifically, these are all plausible – though distal and aspirational – claims.

It has been two years since India’s Parliament passed legislation to allow the creation of Chinese-style Special Economic Zones (SEZs), enclaves whose tax breaks and relaxed regulatory requirements are intended to attract foreign investment, spur the creation of world-class infrastructure, and create jobs.

By most accounts, all Indians now regard democracy as the ideal political system for India, but I would like to argue that that consensus is not quite valid, especially when it comes to challenging the caste order.

The large majority of politicians, political theorists as well as the general public often speak of an Indian way of democracy as distinct from Western democracy, but this thinking has an undercurrent of contempt against the entire Western value system.

With the India-United States nuclear deal facing an uncertain future, there has been a spate of analysis on the domestic opposition to the deal from within India. Security hawks and sections of the Bharatiya Janata Party worry that the deal may constrain India’s strategic options in the future. And for India’s Left the most disturbing implication of the deal is that it will bind India more closely to the US.