The world, read from New Delhi — add your voice to it.
The Indian Strategic Studies Forum publishes rigorous, original analysis on geopolitics, defence, strategic affairs, and soft power. We are building a platform where India’s perspective on global power is argued with evidence, clarity, and confidence — and we want serious writers alongside us: scholars, practitioners, diplomats, veterans, journalists, and emerging voices with something genuinely new to say.
Our contributors reach an audience of policymakers, researchers, students of strategy, and engaged readers across India and abroad. If your work belongs in that conversation, read on.
What we look for
A specific argument, not a survey. The strongest submissions take one question and drive it somewhere. “India–China relations: an overview” will be declined; “Why the next flashpoint on the LAC will be water, not territory” gets read twice. Before you write, ask yourself: what is my claim, why does it matter, and why now?
An Indocentric lens — or global relevance to India’s rise. We publish on the whole world, but our vantage point is New Delhi. Analysis of the Sahel, the Indo-Pacific, or transatlantic politics is welcome when it speaks to the strategic questions India faces.
Evidence over assertion. Ground your argument in data, documents, history, or first-hand experience. Tell us why you are the right person to make this argument.
Writing that carries. Our readers range from serving officials to first-year students of international relations. Write to be read: no jargon walls, no academic throat-clearing, no assuming the reader shares your background. Rigour and readability are not opposites — the best strategic writing has both.
Formats
Commentary — 800–1,200 words. A sharp, timely argument on a current development. One claim, well defended.
Analysis — 1,500–2,500 words. A deeper examination of a strategic question, trend, or region. The workhorse of our publication.
Research Paper — 3,000–5,000 words. A substantial, structured contribution with original research or synthesis. Reviewed more intensively and held to a higher evidentiary bar. Please pitch before submitting a full draft.
Book & Report Reviews — 800–1,000 words. Critical engagement with recent works of strategic significance, not summaries.
Young Voices — Students and early-career researchers are welcome in any format above. We edit developmentally: if the idea is strong, we will work with you on the craft.
House style
- Provide sources as hyperlinks embedded in the text, not footnotes or bibliographies. If a source is not available online, add a brief endnote.
- Cite credible sources: official documents, peer-reviewed work, reputable journalism, primary data. Pieces resting on partisan or unreliable sourcing will be declined.
- British English, sentence case, and a professional register. Strong argument, measured tone — we publish critique, not polemic.
- Submit as a Word document (.docx), single-spaced, with a proposed headline and a 2–3 sentence author bio including your affiliation.
- Disclose any affiliation or interest a reader could see as a conflict.
Originality, plagiarism, and AI
Submissions must be your own original, unpublished work. We do not accept pieces published elsewhere in whole or substantial part, and we ask that you not submit the same piece to other outlets simultaneously — if you do, tell us. Every submission is screened for plagiarism; lifting ideas or language without attribution, including from your own prior work, will end the review. If you used AI tools in researching or drafting, disclose it in your submission email; the analysis, argument, and accountability must be entirely yours.
How to submit
Email your pitch or draft to [[email protected]] with the subject line:
Submission — [Format] — [Working title]
A good pitch is one paragraph: your argument, why it matters now, and why you are the person to write it. Full drafts are equally welcome for Commentary and Analysis.
What happens next
Every submission is read by our editorial team, and selected pieces are reviewed by subject experts. If your piece is a fit, expect a collaborative edit for clarity, structure, and length — our goal is to make your argument land, and we will always send edits back for your approval before publication.
We receive more submissions than we can publish and cannot respond to every one. If you have not heard from us within 14 days, consider the piece free to place elsewhere — and please try us again. A pass on one piece is not a judgement on you as a writer.
The fine print
ISSF is a non-partisan institution. Published views are the author’s own and do not represent the position of the Forum. We do not offer payment for unsolicited contributions at this time; what we offer is a credible, growing platform, serious editorial attention, and a byline read by people who shape policy. We do not accept submissions from PR or communications firms on behalf of clients — we want to hear from you, not your intermediary.
Ready when you are. Pitch us something the world hasn’t read yet.