Aggressive revival of Monroe Doctrine by #Trump

President Donald Trump said yesterday that the US operation in Venezuela, which involved strikes on the capital and the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, fell under what he called the “Don-roe Doctrine.” Trump stated that Venezuela under Maduro hosted “foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives, and they used those weapons last night.”

“All of these actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries, and not anymore,” Trump said, The Hill reported. “All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrine. And the Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine," he added.

The Monroe Doctrine is one of the most influential principles of United States foreign policy. Announced by President James Monroe during his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823, it essentially declared the Western Hemisphere "off-limits" to European colonization.  

At its heart, the doctrine established four basic points that defined the relationship between the "Old World" (Europe) and the "New World" (The Americas):  

Non-Colonization: The American continents were no longer open to new European colonization.  

Two Spheres: The political systems of Europe (monarchies) were fundamentally different from those of the Americas (republics), and they should remain separate.  

Non-Intervention (by Europe): Any attempt by European powers to oppress or control newly independent nations in the Americas would be viewed as a hostile act against the U.S.  

Non-Interference (by the U.S.): In exchange, the United States pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of European nations or their existing colonies.  

 Historical Context

The doctrine was largely drafted by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. At the time, several Latin American nations had recently won independence from Spain and Portugal. The U.S. feared that European monarchies (specifically the "Holy Alliance") might help Spain reclaim its lost colonies or that Russia might expand southward from Alaska.  

Interestingly, when it was first issued, the U.S. lacked the military power to actually enforce it. It was primarily the British Royal Navy that gave the doctrine teeth, as Britain also wanted to prevent other European powers from dominating trade in Latin America.  

Evolution and Impact

While originally intended as a defensive "hands-off" warning, the doctrine evolved significantly over the next two centuries:  

Manifest Destiny (Mid-1800s): It was used to justify U.S. westward expansion and the annexation of Texas.  

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904): President Theodore Roosevelt added a "corollary" stating that the U.S. had the right to intervene in Latin American nations to maintain stability (the "Big Stick" policy). This shifted the doctrine from a defensive shield to an interventionist tool.  

The Cold War: It was invoked to justify opposing Soviet influence in the Americas, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  

Modern Day: In recent years (including 2025-2026), the doctrine has seen a resurgence in political rhetoric, often cited as a reason to limit the influence of non-hemispheric powers like China or Russia in Latin America.

While the Monroe Doctrine (1823) was originally a "keep out" sign for Europe, the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) turned the U.S. into the region's "policeman."

The key difference is the shift from a defensive posture to an interventionist one.

The Roosevelt Corollary was the theoretical backing for Roosevelt’s "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.

Notable Interventions:

Dominican Republic (1905): After the nation defaulted on its debts, the U.S. took control of its customs houses to ensure European creditors were paid, preventing a European naval invasion.

Cuba (1906–1909): The U.S. established a provisional government to restore order after a rebellion, citing the need for regional stability.

Nicaragua: Periodic interventions occurred to protect U.S. economic interests and prevent foreign-funded canals from competing with the Panama Canal.

 Legacy and Shift

By the 1930s, the aggressive nature of the Corollary had deeply damaged U.S.-Latin American relations. This led Franklin D. Roosevelt to eventually renounce the policy in favor of the "Good Neighbor Policy," which emphasized non-intervention and cooperation.

In 2025 and 2026, the Monroe Doctrine has experienced its most aggressive revival in over a century. Under the current U.S. administration, the policy has moved beyond historical debate and into active military and diplomatic application, specifically targeting the influence of China and Russia in the Western Hemisphere.

Containment of China: The U.S. is actively pressuring Latin American nations to reject Chinese investments in critical infrastructure (like 5G networks, ports, and the Panama Canal), framing these as security threats to the hemisphere.

Operation Absolute Resolve (January 2026): In a dramatic escalation of the doctrine, U.S. forces launched a military operation in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, capturing President Nicolás Maduro. The administration justified this by citing Maduro’s ties to foreign adversaries and his "violation" of hemispheric stability.

Securing Supply Chains: The doctrine is being used to prioritize "near-shoring," pushing American companies to move manufacturing from Asia to "friendly" Western Hemisphere nations like Mexico, Argentina, and El Salvador.

 Regional Reactions

The revival of the doctrine has deeply split the Americas:

Supporters: Leaders like Javier Milei (Argentina) and Daniel Noboa (Ecuador) have praised the move, seeing it as a way to strengthen security and economic ties with the U.S.

Critics: Leaders such as Gabriel Boric (Chile) have condemned recent interventions as a violation of sovereignty, arguing that the "policeman of the Americas" approach belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st.

Dicey’s Rule of Law vs. Might is Right : #Venezuela Invasion, South China Sea & #Ukraine Conflict

The contrast between the Rule of Law and Might is Right  or Thrasymachian Realism represents the fundamental struggle of human civilization: whether we are governed by shared, objective principles or by the raw exercise of power.

A.V. Dicey, a British jurist, popularized the modern concept of the Rule of Law in his 1885 book, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.
He argued that the Rule of Law was a fundamental characteristic of the British Constitution, distinguishing it from systems where the government held arbitrary power. He broke this down into three "pillars."
1. The Three Pillars of Dicey’s Theory
Supremacy of Law: No person can be punished or made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law, established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts. This excludes the existence of arbitrariness or wide discretionary authority by the government.
Equality Before the Law: Every person, regardless of rank or condition (including government officials), is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. Dicey famously rejected the French concept of droit administratif (administrative law), where officials were tried in special courts.
Predominance of Legal Spirit: Dicey believed that the "general principles of the constitution" (like the right to personal liberty) are not the result of a formal written code, but rather the result of judicial decisions in private litigation. In short, the constitution is the consequence of the rights of individuals, not their source.
Might is Right: The Law of the Jungle
This philosophy (often called Thrasymachian after the character in Plato’s Republic) argues that "justice" is simply whatever the person in power says it is.
Realism in Geopolitics: In international relations, this often manifests as "Power Politics," where larger nations dictate terms to smaller ones regardless of international treaties.
The "State of Nature": Philosopher Thomas Hobbes described a world of "Might is Right" as a "war of all against all," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Modern Risk: When legal institutions (courts, police, elections) fail, society often reverts to this state, where wealth or physical force becomes the only currency of safety.
While Dicey’s work is foundational, it has faced significant criticism over the last century as governance has evolved.
Dicey’s formulation was the ultimate intellectual weapon against the "Might is Right" doctrine. By insisting that power must be channeled through regular law and ordinary courts, he ensured that a King or Prime Minister could not simply use their "might" to bypass the rights of a common citizen.
For Dicey, the Rule of Law isn't just about having rules; it's about the absence of arbitrary power and the universal application of those rules to everyone, including the rulers.
The Core Thrasymachian Claim
In Book I of The Republic, Thrasymachus famously interrupts Socrates to declare:
"Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger."
By this, he means that:
Laws are tools: Rulers (whether a tyrant, an aristocracy, or a democracy) make laws that benefit themselves.
Morality is a "scam": What we call "justice" is actually just the weak serving the interests of the powerful.
Injustice is a virtue: He argues that the "perfectly unjust" man (the tyrant) is the happiest because he has the power to ignore rules and satisfy his own desires without consequence.
Thrasymachian" view, it directly contradicts Dicey’s three pillars: Supremacy of Law. Thrasymachian view The Ruler is the source of law; therefore, the Ruler's will is the law.
Equality Before Law.
Thrasymachian view :Equality is an illusion. The law exists to keep the weak in check, while the strong bypass it.
Legal Spirit/Rights : "Rights" are just words used by the powerful to keep the masses obedient.
Socrates dismantled the Thrasymachian view by using the "Analogy of the Crafts":
The Goal of a Craft: A doctor’s "might" (knowledge) is used to benefit the patient (the weak), not the doctor. A captain’s power is used to save the crew.
The Goal of Ruling: Therefore, a "true" ruler (a ruler in the strict sense) must act for the benefit of the subjects, not for their own "advantage."
The Failure of Might: Socrates argued that a society based purely on "Might is Right" would eventually collapse because the people (the "weak") would have no reason to cooperate, and the "strong" would eventually turn on each other.
4. Why the Term is Used Today
Today, calling a political or legal argument "Thrasymachian" is often a critique. It describes a cynical or realist view of power where:
International treaties are seen as "scraps of paper" if they hinder a superpower.
Legal systems are viewed as rigged games designed to protect the wealthy and punish the poor.
The concept of "Truth" is replaced by "Propaganda" (the "might" of the loudest voice).
Building on Thrasymachus, later political "realists" like Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes took his cynical observations and turned them into systematic political theories.
While Thrasymachus mostly used "Might is Right" to annoy Socrates in a debate, these later thinkers used it to explain how the world actually functions and how to prevent total social collapse.
1. Niccolò Machiavelli: The Pragmatic Thrasymachian
In The Prince (1513), Machiavelli argues that a ruler cannot be bound by "Rule of Law" in the way Dicey would later describe. For Machiavelli, power is an art (techne), much like Thrasymachus argued.
Effective Truth: Machiavelli believed we should look at how people actually live, not how they ought to live. Since people are generally "ungrateful, fickle, and deceptive," a ruler must be prepared to be "not good" to maintain order.
The Fox and the Lion: He famously argued that a ruler must have the might of a lion (to scare wolves) and the cunning of a fox (to recognize traps).
Law vs. Force: He acknowledged that there are two ways of fighting: by law and by force. However, since law is often insufficient, one must have recourse to force.
2. Thomas Hobbes: The Logic of the Leviathan
Hobbes took the Thrasymachian "State of Nature" and turned it into a terrifying logical proof for absolute authority in Leviathan (1651).
The War of All Against All: In a natural state where "Might is Right," there is no industry, no culture, and no society. This is the ultimate end-point of Thrasymachus’s philosophy if everyone actually practiced it.
The Social Contract: To escape this horror, people voluntarily surrender their "might" to a single "Leviathan" (the State).
Might Creates Law: For Hobbes, "Covenants, without the sword, are but words." Law only exists because there is a power (Might) strong enough to punish those who break it. Unlike Dicey, Hobbes would argue that the Rule of Law is impossible without an underlying "Might" to back it up.
Today, we often try to merge these ideas. We use Dicey’s Rule of Law as our ideal (the goal), but we acknowledge Hobbes’s point that without a police force and a military (Might), those laws are just "scraps of paper."
The difference is that in a Rule of Law system, the "Might" of the state is chained by the law, whereas in a Thrasymachian system, the law is simply a weapon held by the Might.
In modern International Relations (IR), the Thrasymachian/Hobbesian view is known as Realism. It argues that while the "Rule of Law" works inside a country, the world between countries is a "State of Nature"—an anarchy where there is no global police force to stop the strong from dominating the weak.
Here is how these ancient "Might is Right" ideas manifest in today’s legal and political world:
1. The "Anarchy" Problem
Realists argue that International Law is not "law" in the way A.V. Dicey defined it.
Dicey’s Rule of Law: Requires a court that can punish anyone (even the King).
International Reality: There is no "Global Sovereign." If a superpower (like the U.S., China, or Russia) breaks a treaty, there is no higher power that can physically force them to comply.
Result: In IR, "Might" often determines which laws are followed and which are ignored.
2. The Thrasymachian Veto
The structure of the United Nations Security Council is a modern example of "Might is Right" being baked into the law.
The Privilege of Might: The five permanent members (P5) hold a Veto Power.
The Realist View: This is a Thrasymachian setup. The "stronger" nations created a legal system where the law cannot be used against them, only against the "weaker" nations.
The Argument: Realists (like Hans Morgenthau) would say this is necessary. If you try to force a law on a superpower against its will, you don't get "justice"—you get a World War. Therefore, "Might" must be given a special legal status to keep the peace.
3. "Lawfare": Using Law as a Weapon
Modern Realists often view the Rule of Law as a tool of Lawfare—using legal systems to achieve military or political objectives.
Thrasymachian Echo: Just as Thrasymachus said "Justice is the advantage of the stronger," modern critics argue that powerful nations use "Human Rights" or "International Law" as an excuse to sanction or invade rivals, while ignoring those same laws when their own allies break them.
Example: A powerful state might justify an intervention as "upholding the Rule of Law" (Idealism), while a Realist would argue they are simply using the language of law to mask their "Might" (Realism).
4. Why International Law Still Exists
If "Might is Right" is the reality, why do powerful states bother with laws at all?
Lower Costs: It is cheaper to rule through "Rules" than through constant physical force. Even the "Mightiest" want others to follow the law to keep the world predictable.
Soft Power: A state that is seen as "Law-abiding" gains allies and influence. Pure "Might" creates enemies and resistance (as Socrates predicted).
The Hobbesian Bargain: States follow international law because they fear a return to the "War of All Against All," where even the strong are never truly safe.
To see these theories in action, we can look at two major 21st-century conflicts. These aren't just military battles; they are philosophical wars between Dicey’s Rule of Law and Thrasymachian Realism.
1. The South China Sea: "Lawfare" vs. Facts on the Ground
This is perhaps the clearest modern example of the "Might vs. Law" tension.
The Rule of Law (Philippines): In 2013, the Philippines took China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They argued that China's "Nine-Dash Line" was illegal. In 2016, the court ruled unanimously in favor of the Philippines, stating China had no legal basis for its claims.
The Thrasymachian Response (China): China refused to participate in the hearings and declared the ruling "a piece of scrap paper." Instead of following the law, they used "Might"—building artificial islands and deploying naval "gray zone" tactics to establish dominance.
The Current State: This is a stalemate. The Philippines has the Legal Right, but China has the Physical Might. Smaller nations in the region are now caught in the "Thrasymachian Trap": do they stand by the law (which has no police to enforce it) or "kowtow" to the stronger power to avoid conflict?
2. The Ukraine Conflict: The Death of the "Liberal Order"?
The invasion of Ukraine is often described by political scientists as the ultimate "Realist" moment.
The Realist/Thrasymachian Logic (Russia): Realists like John Mearsheimer argue that Russia viewed NATO expansion as an existential threat to its security. From this perspective, the "Rule of Law" (respecting Ukraine's sovereignty) was less important than the "Might" required to maintain a buffer zone. To a Realist, the law is a luxury that disappears when a Great Power feels its survival is at stake.
The Rule of Law Logic (The West/Ukraine): The international community argued that if a large nation can simply invade a smaller neighbor because it has the "might" to do so, the entire global legal system (the UN Charter) collapses. They applied sanctions and sent weapons to prove that "Might" should not be allowed to rewrite the "Law."
The Hobbesian Element: Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 (Budapest Memorandum) is often cited by Realists as a tragic mistake. They argue that Ukraine trusted the Rule of Law (treaties), but in a Thrasymachian world, only Might (nuclear weapons) provides true security.
On January 3, 2026, the United States launched a major military operation in Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This event has sparked a massive global debate regarding the rule of law, both within U.S. domestic policy and under international legal frameworks. 
The following is a breakdown of the legal arguments and the status of the intervention as of early 2026.
1. International Law and Sovereignty
Under international law, the primary concern is the violation of State Sovereignty and the UN Charter. 
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: This prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Legal experts and UN officials have stated that the U.S. strikes and the abduction of a sitting head of state constitute a "crime of aggression." 
The Right to Self-Defense (Article 51): For a military strike to be legal without UN Security Council approval, it must be in self-defense against an "armed attack." Critics argue that because Venezuela was not attacking the U.S., this justification is missing. 
Non-Intervention: The principle of non-intervention forbids states from interfering in the internal affairs of others. While the U.S. does not recognize Maduro's 2024 election victory, international law generally does not permit unilateral military force to enact regime change based on election disputes. 
2. U.S. Domestic Law and War Powers
The operation has raised significant constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between the President and Congress. 
Congressional Authorization: Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. The Trump administration reportedly carried out this operation without seeking a Vote of Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). 
Article II Authority: The administration is likely to claim "inherent authority" under Article II to protect U.S. national security interests. However, many lawmakers (including the Congressional Black Caucus and various legal scholars) have labeled the action an "illegal abuse of power." 
The "Noriega Precedent": Supporters of the move point to the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. U.S. courts eventually upheld the legality of Noriega's capture despite the violation of Panamanian sovereignty, suggesting that once Maduro is in a U.S. courtroom, the "how" of his arrival may not legally prevent his trial. 
3. Justifications vs. Legal Reality
The U.S. government has presented several justifications, though their legal weight is heavily contested.

Maduro had 'multiple opportunities' to avoid this: US Secretary of State Rubio

Secretary of State Rubio says Maduro had 'multiple opportunities' to avoid this.

We're now hearing from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

He says Maduro is not the legitimate president. It is "not just us saying it", he says, adding the first Trump administration and the Biden administration also said the same.

Maduro is also not recognised by the EU and multiple countries around world, Rubio says.

He describes the Venezuelan president as a "fugitive of American justice", with a $50m reward.

"I guess we saved ourselves $50m," Rubio says, before Trump chimes in with: "We should make sure... don't let anybody claim it."

Rubio continues by saying that Maduro had "multiple opportunities" to avoid this, but chose instead to "act like a wild man" and "play around".

He describes Maduro as a man who decided to "invite Iran into his country" and "flood the US with gang members".

Maduro thought nothing would happen, Rubio says, before adding that Trump is "not a game player".

When Trump says he is going to address a problem, he actions it, Rubio adds.

USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) transporting captured #Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro

The USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) is a large U.S. Navy Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, named for the famous World War II battle, serving as a mobile base for Marines and aircraft like MV-22 Ospreys and F-35B jets, and is currently in the news for transporting captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Commissioned in 2001, it's designed as a small aircraft carrier with a massive flight deck, acting as a command center for complex operations, including disaster relief (like Hurricane Katrina) and recent high-profile missions in the Caribbean. 

US ready to stage second wave of attack on #Venezuela : #Trump

US ready to stage second 'much larger' attack on Venezuela if needed, says Trump

Turning now to oil, Trump says the oil business in Venezuela has been a "bust" - as he explains large US companies are going to go into the country, spend billions, fix the oil infrastructure and "start making money for the country".

He adds the US is "ready" to stage a second "and much larger" attack on the country if needed.

He says they were initially prepared to do a "second wave" and had assumed it would be necessary - but given the success of last night's attack, it probably would now not be.

KKR drops #Bangladeshi left-arm fast-medium bowler form its squad

KKR (removes) released Bangladeshi left-arm fast-medium bowler Mustafizur Rahman from IPL 2026 squad following BCCI instructions.

BCCI "instructed" them to do so because of "recent developments", possibly referring to geo-political developments in the region and after KKR owner Shah Rukh Khan had faced fury over KKR's Bangladeshi Pacer.

Mustafizur, who has played for Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH), Mumbai Indians (MI), Rajasthan Royals (RR), Delhi Capitals (DC) and Chennai Super Kings (CSK) in the past, has picked up 65 wickets in 60 matches overall in an IPL career that started in 2016.

He was acquired by KKR at the IPL auction late last year for INR 9.2 crore as the team refreshed their line-up, also adding Akash Deep, Sri Lanka's Matheesha Pathirana and Australia allrounder Cameron Green, among others.

Mustafizur, the only Bangladesh cricketer to find an IPL team ahead of the 2026 season, is currently playing in the Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) for Rangpur Riders.

Another Bengali Hindu killed in #Bangladesh

In Bangladesh Bengali Hindu man Khokan Chandra Das died while undergoing treatment today after being stabbed and set on fire in Shariatpur, Bangladesh.
He passed away today around 8 am at the burn unit of Dhaka Medical College Hospital. Khokan Das was attacked and set on fire on Wednesday (December 31st) night when he was returning home after closing his shop.

Value of #cryptocurrency transactions in India crosses ₹51,000 crore

The value of cryptocurrency transactions in India exceeded ₹51,000 crore in 2024-25, according to an analysis of data shared with Parliament, representing a 41% increase over the previous year.

The data, shared by the Ministry of Finance in reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, shows that the government collected ₹511.8 crore as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on crypto transactions in 2024-25. As the rate of Tax Collected at Source (TCS) is 1% on every transaction, this means the value of total transactions that year stood at ₹51,180 crore.
In 2025, crypto in India transitioned from a "speculative fad" to a long-term wealth strategy, with investors holding an average of 5 different tokens compared to just 2 in 2022..
Under the Finance Act 2022, the government had introduced a provision in the Income Tax Act 1961, which has been retained in the Income Tax Act 2025, mandating a 1% TDS on any transfer of Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) or cryptocurrencies.
Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Bitcoin is classified as a Virtual Digital Asset (VDA). This classification was formalized through the Finance Act, 2022, which introduced specific sections to govern its taxation.
In the eyes of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Bitcoin is simply one specific type of "Cryptocurrency," and all cryptocurrencies are legally classified under the umbrella term Virtual Digital Assets (VDA). 
Whether you are trading Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), or any other altcoin, the tax law makes no distinction between them. They are all treated as the same high-tax asset class.
Here is a breakdown of how Bitcoin is classified and treated under the Act:
1. Legal Classification: Section 2(47A)
The Act defines a "Virtual Digital Asset" under Section 2(47A). Bitcoin falls into this category because it is:
A number, token, or code generated through cryptographic means.
A digital representation of value that can be traded, stored, or transferred electronically.
Not "Indian currency" or "Foreign currency" as defined by law.
2. Tax Category: Section 115BBH
The taxation of Bitcoin is governed by Section 115BBH, which treats it as a special class of asset. Unlike traditional stocks or gold, Bitcoin is subject to a flat tax rate of 30% (plus applicable surcharge and 4% cess) on any income derived from its transfer.
Key features of this asset class:
No Deductions: You cannot claim any expenses or allowances (like brokerage, mining costs, or electricity) except for the Cost of Acquisition (the price you paid to buy it).
No Loss Set-off: If you make a loss on Bitcoin, you cannot set it off against gains from other Bitcoins, stocks, or your salary.
No Carry Forward: Losses from one year cannot be carried forward to future years to reduce tax liability.
3. Classification Based on Usage
While Section 115BBH sets the tax rate, the "head of income" depends on how you hold the Bitcoin.
4. TDS Requirements: Section 194S
To track transactions, the government treats Bitcoin as a "specified asset" subject to 1% TDS (Tax Deducted at Source).
This applies to any transfer of a VDA where the consideration exceeds ₹10,000 (or ₹50,000 for specified persons like individuals not having business income) in a financial year.
The exchange or the buyer is responsible for deducting this 1% and depositing it with the government.
It is important to note that In late 2025, the definition of VDA was further refined to explicitly cover assets relying on "distributed ledger technology" to ensure all emerging crypto-assets are captured under this 30% tax bracket.
In the Finance Act, 2025, the definition of Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) was expanded to explicitly include any asset that relies on "cryptographically secured distributed ledger technology" (DLT).
This move was designed to future-proof the law against new forms of decentralized technology and align India with the OECD's Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
1. What does the "Distributed Ledger" clause cover?
By using this specific technical language in Section 2(47A), the government ensures that even if a new digital asset isn't called a "cryptocurrency" or "NFT," it is still taxable if it:
Uses a decentralized network (like a Blockchain) to validate transactions.
Functions as a digital representation of value.
Uses cryptographic keys to secure ownership.
2. Tax Treatment of DLT-based Assets
Whether your asset is a Bitcoin, a governance token, or a new DeFi-based DLT asset, the rules remain the same.
3. Reporting Requirements (Starting April 2026)
One of the biggest changes in the 2025 Budget is the introduction of Section 285BAA. This mandates that any entity facilitating transactions in assets relying on distributed ledger technology must:
Maintain detailed records of the beneficial owners.
Report all transaction values to the Income Tax Department.
Correct any inaccuracies in filings within a strict timeframe or face heavy penalties.

Indo-Bangla trade row hitting West Bengal #jute industry hard

India-Bangladesh trade row is hitting Bengal jute mills and mill workers badly. Jute industry in West Bengal is currently navigating an unprecedented crisis in late 2025. What began as a mismatch in supply has intensified into a deep-rooted structural and financial crunch that is forcing mills to shut down and putting thousands of livelihoods at risk.  

The crisis is primarily driven by three interlocking factors: raw material scarcity, record-high prices, and declining demand.  

1. Raw Material Scarcity and Price Surge

The most critical issue right now is the extreme shortage of raw jute.  

Acreage Shift: Due to unremunerative prices in previous seasons, many farmers in Bengal have shifted to more profitable crops like maize. Jute acreage dropped significantly to around 5.56 lakh hectares in 2025.  

Price Explosion: Raw jute prices have skyrocketed, crossing ₹11,000 per quintal in December 2025—more than double the rates from a year ago.  

Bangladesh Unrest: Supply chains have been further choked by political unrest in Bangladesh, which has restricted its own raw jute exports, cutting off a traditional backup supply for Indian mills.  

2. The "Price Cap" Trap

Mills are caught between high costs and fixed selling prices:  

Cost vs. Selling Price: While raw material costs have doubled, the government's pricing formula for the finished jute bags (sold to the government for food grain packaging) hasn't kept pace.  

Losses per Day: Many mill owners report losing substantial amounts daily because the cost of raw jute is far higher than the price they receive for the finished bags.

3. Falling Demand and Plastic Competition

Packaging Dilution: Due to the shortage of jute bags, the central government has allowed a "dilution" of the Jute Packaging Materials Act, permitting more food grains and sugar to be packed in plastic bags.

Demand Slump: Demand for jute bags has dropped by nearly 30% in the 2024–25 period. This creates a vicious cycle: when jute is scarce, plastic takes its place, and once the market shifts to plastic, it is hard for jute to win it back.  

Impact on Workers

The human cost of this crisis is severe. As of late 2025:

Mill Closures: Several major mills (like those in Jagatdal and Mahadev) have suspended operations indefinitely.  

Shift Reductions: Many remaining mills have cut down to just 10–15 shifts per week, leading to massive wage losses for daily-wage workers.  

Uncertainty: Over 5,000 workers in a single mill alone were recently left in limbo, and industry experts warn that without policy intervention, large-scale permanent shutdowns are likely.  

Possible Solutions Under Discussion

Export Bans: Industry bodies like the IJMA have called for a ban on jute seed exports to ensure domestic farmers have what they need for the next season.

Formula Revision: Constant pressure is being put on the Ministry of Textiles to update the pricing formula for B.Twill bags to reflect current market realities.

Anti-Hoarding Measures: There are calls for strict regulation to prevent stockists from hoarding raw jute to drive prices even higher.

As of late December 2025, the crisis in West Bengal’s jute sector has shifted from a general slowdown to an active industrial emergency. Several major mills have officially suspended work, and the state government is now launching specific revival plans for older units.

1. List of Recently Closed or Distressed Mills

Several mills have issued "Suspension of Work" notices this month, citing the unviable price of raw jute and a lack of stock.

Industry experts warn that if the current "price freeze" on finished bags continues, up to 50% of the state's 60+ mills could face closure by March 2026.

2. Government Response & Policy Shifts

Both the State and Central governments have taken contrasting stances to manage the fallout:

West Bengal State Government Actions:

Revival of Sick Units: The state has launched a structured revival plan for the New Central Jute Mill (NCJM). A transaction advisor has been appointed to find a financier, aiming to make this a "model" for other defunct units.

Direct Intervention: Following the closure of Mahadeo Jute Mill, the state labor department has been mediating between mill owners and unions to prevent long-term lockouts.

Political Pressure: CM Mamata Banerjee has criticized the Central government’s "price freeze" on jute bags, arguing it makes production impossible when raw jute costs ₹11,000/quintal but the selling price is pegged to much lower historical costs.

Central Government & Jute Commissioner Office:

Inventory Caps: On December 18, 2025, the Jute Commissioner issued orders fixing maximum holding limits for raw jute to prevent hoarding by stockists and middlemen.

Minimum Support Price (MSP): The MSP for the 2025-26 season was set at ₹5,650 per quintal, but market rates are currently nearly double that, rendering the MSP irrelevant for farmers but a hurdle for millers who want the government to pay more for bags.

Plastic Dilution: To avoid a packaging crisis for food grains, the Centre has officially allowed the use of plastic (HDPE/PP) bags for a large portion of the 2025-26 Kharif season.

3. The "Bangladesh Factor"

A major driver of the December surge is the trade dispute with Bangladesh. Bangladesh has restricted raw jute exports to India to protect its own industry. In response, the Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA) has formally requested the Indian government to ban the export of jute seeds to Bangladesh to safeguard India's future crop.

Former #Bangladesh PM & BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia passes away today

Former prime minister and BNP leader Khaleda Zia has died today at 6:00 a.m at Evercare Hospital in Dhaka Bangladesh from complications of liver cirrhosis, arthritis, diabetes, and heart and lung problems; she had been hospitalized since late November. Zia first took office in 1991 after helping end military rule, serving again from 2001 to 2006 amid economic reforms and a fierce rivalry with Sheikh Hasina known as the 'battling begums.' Released from prison in 2020 and freed fully in 2024 after Hasina's ouster, she remained BNP chairperson until the end, even nominating for upcoming elections while bedridden. Tributes from interim leader Muhammad Yunus and supporters worldwide remember her as a resilient fighter for democracy. Official announcement of her death was made by Bangladesh Nationalist Party today morning.