Interview

Rakesh Kishore — interview (English translation) On throwing the at the Chief Justice! Just as he said: 

Q: Don’t you realize that throwing a shoe at a judge — and that too at the Chief Justice — is an unacceptable act?

Rakesh: I did not plan it. It happened in that moment, and then it was over. That’s all.

Regarding the Khajuraho Vishnu idol case — the plea may have been dismissed — but it hurt when the Chief Justice mockingly asked, “Are you a devotee of Vishnu? Go to your Vishnu and ask him to do something about this.” That remark bothered me.

Since September 16, I have been under great mental stress. I haven’t been able to sleep for days. It felt as if God himself came to me and said, “What are you doing, are you just sleeping?” That, more than anything, pushed me to act.

Q: How did the judge react when you did it? How did he feel?

Rakesh: The Chief Justice effectively let the matter go. He did not accuse me of any crime—so I don’t know whether to think of him as a god or a man.

Police took me to the station and questioned me for four hours. They gave me tea and biscuits and offered food. I am grateful to them.

Q: Because you threw the shoe, is a new caste-based narrative being created against you — upper-caste vs lower-caste?

Rakesh: I am from Paraiyapuram in Uttar Pradesh. My name is Dr. Rakesh Kishore. Can anyone determine my caste based on that? I am a Dalit, and so is he [the judge]. But some people, without knowing anything about me, label only him a Dalit and try to politicize it.

I say: Dalits have always been Sanatanis. They are Hindus. Did the Chief Justice convert to Buddhism? If he changed his religion, how can he still be politically called a Dalit? Has anyone asked that? People want to use this to build Dalit politics and divide the nation.

There is no point in blowing up this incident. Judges must focus on their work. There are millions of cases pending; justice has not been delivered. People waiting for justice are dying. I can point to countless cases. In ordinary matters, it is easy to find the guilty. But even such clear cases can languish for years in the courts awaiting decisions.

Instead of trying to seize administrative power, the judiciary should pay attention to issues like these.

Q: In what way should the judiciary intervene in administration?

Rakesh: In Haldwani city there is massive encroachment on both sides of the railway tracks. If you try to remove that encroachment, it goes to litigation and drags on for years without justice. It is a simple matter: find out who owns the land and give it back to them. Isn’t that justice? Why does the judiciary delay? Look at what is happening in Yogi’s state.

Q: What do you mean when you say “in Yogi’s matter”?

Rakesh: I slept peacefully the day Yogi put a ban on bulldozers [targeting illegal constructions]. Why would a Chief Justice say that bulldozers cannot run this country? I am from Uttar Pradesh — don’t they know what is actually happening there? Do they know what is happening across the country?

They are not controlled by any legal framework. The constructions there—places of worship, lodges, shops, houses, wedding halls—are all built without permissions. And now they are tearing down all those illegal buildings. The troublemakers’ assets are being checked and cleared.

Q: Akhilesh Yadav claims that all those buildings, including schools, will be demolished. How can that be allowed when those same people worship and have set up those institutions?

Rakesh: Saying that schools will be demolished is a lie. How can that happen? They receive funds from abroad. Anti-national propaganda is taking place there. Women are being hidden away in ghettos; hundreds of foreigners are coming and staying there. What work do they have here?

How long can one tolerate this? How long can one remain patient? I will say this: Hindus have a great capacity for tolerance.

What Yogi Adityanath is doing with bulldozers is legal. If the court restrains that, how will administration proceed? How is the country to be governed?

Look at how the judiciary functions — they will not let anything be done, and they themselves will do nothing. If the judiciary takes legal action, it is treated as a crime. I say again: Hindus have a high tolerance.

Q: What do you mean when you say Hindus have a high tolerance? Do you mean everyone should simply accept everything? Isn’t social justice about standing together?

Rakesh: For a thousand years we have been subjugated. Even when we protested, we did not succeed. We allowed ourselves to be ruled. We tolerate everything. Sanatanis have great patience. That has eroded our foundations.

So Sanatanis should not remain quiet any longer. Patience is useless. Don’t think I am inciting people. I am not. But people must recognize the great harm done to Hindu dharma and to our country and must get involved in protecting dharma through whatever means they can. That is my wish.

In 1947 there were only seven Muslim-majority countries in the world. Today there are 57. They divided our Bharat into parts. That was not enough; many within the country remained. Population growth is alarming. If we become a minority, who knows what will happen? This anguish in my heart is the background to why I threw the shoe at the Chief Justice.

Q: What do you think about your suspension?

Rakesh: The Bar Council’s suspension of me was wrong. Barring me from practicing in courts was wrong. They should have issued a notice first. I would have responded. Then they should have taken action. That is the principle of natural justice. Doesn’t the Bar Council know this?

Q: If you expressed regret for throwing the shoe, wouldn’t that have resolved the matter? Why not follow that route?

Rakesh: Yesterday I did not feel remorse for throwing the shoe. I am not going to apologize. God said to me: “I did it.” That’s it. Am I a criminal? Should I be punished? If I go out, will someone attack me? I don’t know.

I have left everything to God. Let Him look after it.

Supreme Court Happening!

When Anger Turns Symbolic: The Psychology of Defying Authority

History has often witnessed moments when people, in helpless rage, turn against those in power. When a leader, judge, or any authority figure takes a decision or makes a remark that hurts the sentiments of a section of people, emotions flare up. What begins as disagreement can quickly turn into anger — and sometimes into open defiance.

We have seen this many times in recent history.

Even former U.S. President George W. Bush faced the famous “shoe-throwing” incident in Iraq — a symbolic act of protest, more emotional than harmful.

When Mrs Indira Gandhi visited Tamil Nadu during her tenure, her convoy faced public attack, which a regional leader at that time called “public displeasure.”

Recently, a Supreme Court judge faced a shocking moment when someone attempted to throw objects at him.

Though such acts can never be justified, they raise an important question — why do people react this way to authority? What happens in the human mind when power meets emotion?

Authority and Emotional Reactions

An authority — whether a Prime Minister, Judge, or Officer — stands as a symbol of power, law, and control. When such a person speaks or acts, it is seen not just as an individual’s decision but as the voice of the system itself.

So, when that action or statement goes against a group’s belief, faith, or expectation, it is felt personally — almost like an insult or injury. People don’t just hear the words; they feel them. The hurt quickly turns into anger, especially if they believe that power has been used unfairly.

In psychology, this is often explained as an “ego threat” or “status frustration.” When people feel that their dignity or identity is being dismissed, emotions take control, and reason fades.

The Helplessness Behind Anger

One common thread in all these incidents is helplessness.

The individual or group reacting this way often has no real power to counter the decision or statement through official or legal means. They may feel unheard, ignored, or cornered. When frustration builds up without any proper outlet, it turns into aggression.

This is what psychologists call the “frustration–aggression response.”

In simple words — when a person cannot do anything about an injustice, the bottled-up frustration bursts out as an act of defiance — sometimes loud, sometimes dramatic.

So, the act of throwing a shoe, shouting in anger, or insulting a leader is rarely about physical harm. It is a symbolic protest — a way of saying, “I am not powerless; I can still express my anger.”

Symbolic Defiance: Speaking Without Words

Such actions — from shouting slogans to throwing objects — are not just emotional bursts, they carry meaning.

They are symbolic messages to the world:

“I am angry. I feel wronged. I want the public to notice.”

The person doing it often feels that no one is listening — that their pain or protest has no place in normal discourse. So, they act in a way that cannot be ignored.

It’s a desperate attempt to communicate in a language that power understands — shock.

In their mind, they are not doing something shameful; they are challenging injustice, even if the act itself is socially unacceptable.

The Role of the Crowd

Many of these incidents happen in public places, and that setting changes everything.

When a person is surrounded by a crowd sharing the same anger, their individual control weakens. The crowd’s emotion becomes the person’s emotion.

Psychologists call this “deindividuation.”

It means that in a crowd, personal identity dissolves; people act based on collective feeling rather than reason.

What one might never do alone, one may do in a group — because the sense of personal responsibility fades.

That is why crowd-based protests can sometimes turn violent or insulting without any one person truly intending harm.

When People Believe the System is Biased

The reaction also depends on how people perceive authority.

If they believe that the person in power is biased, prejudiced, or politically influenced, then their anger feels morally justified.

They think:

“I am not insulting the system — I am exposing its injustice.”

This gives a moral colour to emotional acts. In their eyes, they are not committing disrespect; they are making a moral statement.

They believe their act will make others notice that the system is not as neutral as it claims to be.

Historical and Cultural Layers

In societies like ours, where for long periods many people have felt unheard or suppressed, emotional expression becomes a substitute for dialogue.

Public anger is not always against a single decision — it often carries the weight of long-term mistrust.

When the public loses faith in institutions or feels that justice is reserved for the powerful, emotional rebellion becomes the only visible form of protest.

A Human, Yet Unacceptable, Reaction

None of these explanations mean such actions are right.

Throwing objects at a judge, insulting leaders, or humiliating officials cannot be accepted in a civilized society.

But to understand them is not to justify them — it is to recognise that anger against authority is often a symptom of deeper emotional wounds: helplessness, alienation, and lack of trust in institutions.

In Conclusion

Behind every such act of defiance lies a story — of frustration, emotion, and broken trust.

When authority speaks or acts, it is expected to represent fairness and neutrality.

When that trust is questioned, emotion replaces reason.

And when people have no other voice, their anger turns symbolic.

Understanding this psychology helps us not to excuse such acts — but to see what drives them.

The real solution lies not in punishing emotion, but in rebuilding trust between authority and the public — where decisions are explained, voices are heard, and dignity is respected on both sides.

Time to realize, Authorities need to understand the publics mentality and their wishes. They cannot utter words as they desire. Personal choices cannot  intervene  the law. 

IND vs PAK - Asia Cricket!

ACC Events: India vs Pakistan – Cricket Beyond the Boundary

Cricket and Emotional Charge

Whenever India plays Pakistan, it is never “just cricket.” The emotions run deeper than any other sporting rivalry in the world. For both nations, a cricket match is not limited to 22 players on the field—it involves millions glued to their screens, carrying their national pride in every ball bowled. India’s last India-Pakistan match in Asia Cup 2023, for example, had a record-breaking 2.8 crore concurrent viewers on Disney+ Hotstar, proving how emotionally charged such contests are.

Shadows of Terror and Public Anger

The Pehalgam terror incident only reignited old wounds. India has faced the brunt of terrorism for decades, with most attacks linked back to extremist networks from across the border. The 2001 Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai carnage killing over 170, the 2016 Uri attack, and Pulwama in 2019 claiming 40 CRPF lives are just some of the blood-stained chapters. Now, targeting tourists in Pehalgam touched an even more sensitive nerve.

This pattern of violence ensures that every India-Pakistan encounter carries undertones of grief, anger, and revenge—not just competition.

Jingoism or Natural Sentiment?

Critics often dismiss the charged atmosphere as “jingoism.” But in truth, it is a natural reflection of collective memory. 

Sports are never isolated from politics or history. They are often described as “bloodless wars.” Nations prepare their teams as seriously as they prepare their armies—because victory on the field is symbolic of supremacy.

The slogan “sports for sports” is a myth when national identity, security, and dignity are tied up with the result.

Historical Rivalries – Not Unique to India

This intensity is not unique to South Asia. The England–Australia Ashes series has, for more than a century, seen fiery exchanges both on and off the field. In 1932–33, the infamous “Bodyline” series turned cricket into outright hostility. Even in modern times, war of words in press conferences has been as sharp as the cricket itself.

If sports are seen as pure entertainment, why did the USA boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics or the Soviet Union retaliate in 1984 Los Angeles? Why do European football derbies so often end in riots? The answer is simple: sports mirror national rivalries.

The ACC Tournament – More Than Cricket

In the latest ACC tournament, the emotional intensity was visible. Refusals to shake hands, refusals to accept trophies—these weren’t trivial acts. They reflected the underlying hostility. For India, not playing Pakistan would have been spun as “fear.” Hence, BCCI chose to play, balancing both commercial logic and national sentiment.

The result? India beat Pakistan three times in the tournament. That itself sent a clear message. But when it came to receiving the trophy, Team India refused to accept it from the ACC president—representing a hostile nation. Symbolism spoke louder than words.

Politics in Sports – An Old Companion

From the 1969 “Soccer War” between El Salvador and Honduras, to Olympic boycotts, to modern-day bans on Russian athletes—sports and politics have always been intertwined. Expecting cricket between India and Pakistan to be immune from history, bloodshed, and geopolitics is naïve.

Accept and Move On

The fever around the recent events will fade in a few weeks, as it always does. But it is important to acknowledge that for India, every match against Pakistan is not merely about cricket—it is about dignity, justice, and resilience in the face of repeated provocations.

To act blind, preach neutrality, and say “cricket is only cricket” would be unfair to the realities we live with. For patriotic Indians, this rivalry will remain symbolic—a battle without guns, but still a battle.

Weldone Team India!! 

Home for aged

Homes for the Aged – A Social Need, Not a Stigma

From Joint Families to Nuclear Families

For centuries, India’s joint family system was the backbone of its society. The reason was simple: our economy was agriculture-based. From ploughing the fields to tending cattle, every task required manpower. The larger the family, the lighter the individual’s workload. Beyond economics, a cultural value grew — children must care for their parents and elders. Folklore, stories, and moral lessons all reinforced this duty.

But with the Industrial Revolution, the picture changed. Families moved to cities for jobs. The earning responsibility shifted from the whole family to the individual. The joint family gradually faded.

Now, in today’s world of electronic gadgets, social media, and dual-income households, the concept of the joint family has become almost irrelevant. Husband and wife themselves earn differently, live under different pressures, and share less interdependence with extended family.

The Rise of Old Age Homes

In this background, we see the rise of a new “industry” — homes for the aged.

In Western countries, the state had long foreseen this problem. Social security, old-age pensions, and retirement homes were built into the system. But in India, where respect for elders was once taken for granted, the idea of children sending their parents to such homes feels like a betrayal. Elders see it as abandonment. Children, on the other hand, often see it as a practical solution.

The emotional conflict does not solve anything. Instead, it makes the elders feel cheated, while silently giving the younger generation a convenient escape. What we need is an honest acceptance of the social changes that have brought us here.

The Generation Gap

Every generation has had differences. Our parents disagreed with us in music, clothes, and ideas — but still understood us. With today’s third generation, the gap is far wider. Grandparents often find it impossible to relate to their grandchildren’s approach to life, let alone their gadgets, tastes, or even pets.

Living together in such circumstances can easily lead to tension, quarrels, and unhappiness. In many cases, it may be healthier for elders to live independently or in a community with their peers, rather than under the constant stress of clashing with younger family members.

If health or age does not permit independent living, then homes for the aged are indeed a blessing. Better to part peacefully than to live together in daily conflict.

The Real Problem – Cost of Care

But there is a darker side. The “old age home” sector in India is becoming commercialized. In cities like Chennai and Coimbatore, decent facilities with privacy and medical support can cost ₹45,000 or more per month. And these charges rise every year.

For most residents, whose only income is a fixed pension or interest from deposits, such expenses are unsustainable. Worse, some institutions have no hesitation in asking residents to leave if they cannot pay. That is not care — it is business.

What Governments Can Do

Instead of offering endless freebies to the public for short-term votes, governments should focus on this pressing need. They need not give direct cash to old age homes, where corruption could creep in. Instead, they can provide targeted, practical support:

Subsidized medicines and essential food grains like rice

Reduced electricity tariffs for registered old age homes

Reserved emergency hospital beds for senior citizens in such institutions

Strict monitoring to prevent misuse

Such measures will ease the financial burden on elders, while ensuring they are treated with dignity.

Conclusion

The joint family system is gone, and it will not return. The world has changed, and so must we. Homes for the aged should not be seen as shameful, but as a practical and sometimes necessary choice. What matters is ensuring that our elders live their final years with comfort, dignity, and security.

And for that, both society and the state have a responsibility.

School Boy attitude.

Great leaders must carry themselves with dignity. To magnify petty glitches is not just laughable—it is shameful. 

And when such behaviour comes from the head of a nation, it drags the very prestige of the office into ridicule.

A President grumbling in public about a faulty escalator or a teleprompter slip? That is the stuff of comedy, not statesmanship.

The UN General Assembly has now shown the world how a high chair meant for visionaries, diplomats, and thinkers can be turned into a circus ring when occupied by a businessman with no sense of restraint.

Dress up a crow in silk and jewels, and it still caws “kaa kaa.” Those who mistook him for a “guardian” or a “shepherd” now realize they were duped by the noise.

Threats, tariffs, chest-thumping, insults, name-calling—these are not the tools of a statesman but the tantrums of a street bully.

Worse, despite his age and the counsel of so-called wise men around him, he still behaves like a schoolboy seeking attention.

Every other day he contradicts himself, blurts out self-defeating statements, and rants like a third-rate political speaker at a street corner.

The frightening part? The world has to put up with this for another three and a half years. A man with this erratic temperament sits over the control of the world’s deadliest weapons.

We always warn that dangerous arms should never fall into the hands of terrorists or extremists. But what happens when they rest in the hands of a clown?

Pity is he himself proposing for Nobel Prize. 

NRI கள்.

NRI க்கள், குறிப்பாக அமெரிக்க வாழ் இந்தியர்கள் குறித்து, பல ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன் திரு சுஜாதா அவர்கள், தனது மேன்மையான, தேர்ந்தெடுத்த வார்த்தைகளால் விவரித்திருப்பார். இன்றுகூட செல்லுபடியாகும் கட்டுரை அது.

ட்ரம்ப் அவர்களது புதிய 'டாரிஃப்' (வரிகள்) அதிரடிகள் ஆரம்பித்தபின், American NRI க்களை திரும்ப அழைத்துக் கொண்டால் என்ன / திரும்ப வந்துவிட்டால் என்ன என்னும் விவாதங்கள் பொது வெளிகளில் தவங்கியுள்ளன.

Facebook பதிவுகளில் எழுதுவது போல, அவ்வளவு எளிய காரிமா அது?  நடைமுறைப் படுத்தப்படுவது  கடப்பாரையை விழுங்குவது போல சாகசமான விஷயம்.

பொதுவாக NRI கள் என விளிக்கப் பட்டாலும், அடிப்படையில், அமெரிக்கா, கனடா, இங்கிலாந்தில் இருக்கும் NRIs-க்கும், கல்‍ஃப், ஆப்பிரிக்கா நாடுகளில் இருக்கும் NRIs-க்கும் வித்தியாசம் மிக அதிகம்.

கல்‍ஃப் அல்லது ஆப்பிரிக்காவில் இருக்கும் NRI ஒருபோதும் அங்கே நிரந்தரமாக வாழமுடியாது என்பதை மனதளவில் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டுவிட்டார். என்றேனும்  ஒருநாள் இந்தியா திரும்பியே ஆகவேண்டும் வேண்டும் என்று தெரிந்து வைத்திருக்கிறார். அவர்களில் பலர் ஒவ்வொரு வருடமும் இந்தியா வந்து செல்கிறார்கள். குழந்தைகள் பெரும்பாலும் கல்லூரி படிப்புக்கு இந்தியாவையே தேர்வு செய்கிறார்கள்.. ஆரம்ப சிக்கல்கள் இருக்கும், ஆனால் படிப்படியாக அனைத்தும் வழக்கமாகி விடுகிறது.  மேலும் கல்‍ஃப் NRIக்கு எவ்வித இல்யூஷன்களும் இல்லை; — “நான் வேலை செய்யவும், பணம் சம்பாதிக்கவும் தான் இங்கே வந்திருக்கிறேன்” என்பதை உணர்ந்துள்ளனர். 

அங்கே குடியுரிமை கொடுக்கப்படும் வாக்குறுதிகளெல்லாம் கிடையாது. இது ஒரு ஒப்பந்தம்; எல்லா விதிகளையும் தெரிந்து கொண்டே கையெழுத்திடுகிறார்கள்.

அங்கே குடியேற்றக் கொள்கைகளை ஒரே வார்த்தையில் சொல்வதானால், நேரடி “NO!”.   இது தெளிவானது; சிக்கல் மிகுந்த விதிகள் அற்றது.   இருதரப்புக்கும் பயனுள்ளதும்கூட.  ஆப்பிரிக்காவின் டான்சானியா, சாம்பியா, போட்சுவானா, கென்யா, உகாண்டா, நைஜீரியா, காணா போன்ற பல நாடுகளிலும் இதே போலத்தான்.

(இப்போது கல்‍ஃப்பில் அறிமுகமான Golden Visa வேறுவகை; செலவு பிடிப்பது. Workforece க்கானது அல்ல.)

அமெரிக்கா, கனடா, இங்கிலாந்து, ஆஸ்திரேலியா! இங்கேதான்  விஷயம் சிக்கலாகிறது.

இந்த நாடுகளுக்கள் நுழைவது நீங்கள் ஒரு “highway”-க்கு நுழைவது போல!  service lane-இல்லை, U-turn இல்லை, shortcut இல்லை. திரும்பி வருவது கிட்டத்தட்ட முடியாத ஒன்று.

சிக்கல்களின் நிலைகள்:

1. நீங்கள் நாட்டுக்குள் வந்த விதமே நேராக இல்லை. Student Visa, Skilled Worker Visa என்று பெயரிட்டு வந்தாலும், உங்களது உள்ளார்ந்த நோக்கம் குடியுரிமை தான் என்பதைக் குடியேற்ற அதிகாரிகள் நன்றாகவே அறிவார்கள். இந்த “நடிப்பு”தான் முதல் பெரிய மனஅடைப்பு. 

2. ஒரு வருடம் கூட service போடாமல் இல்லாமல் சொத்துகள் வாங்க அனுமதி கிடைக்கும். வீட்டுக் கடன் சுமை உங்களை கட்டிப் போடும். வயிற்றிலிருக்கும் குழந்தை பெரிதாகும் வரைகூட கடன் வாங்க வைப்பார்கள். Great Credit Nation the USA.

3. குடியுரிமை / Green Card / H1B என்று கிடைத்தவுடன் “புது பாஸ்போர்ட் = புது அடையாளம்” என்ற போலியான பெருமை வரும். உண்மையில், பாஸ்போர்ட் மாறினாலும், நீங்கள் இன்னும் வெளிநாட்டவராகவே, அங்கே  பார்க்கப்படுகிறீர்கள். இனரீதீயான பார்வை (ஆப்ரிக்க, காக்கேஷியன் இருவரிடமிருந்தும்) தொடரும். இருப்பினும், இந்தியாவுடனான இணைப்பு பாஸ்போர்ட் மாற்றத்துடன் துண்டிக்கப்படுகிறது. வயது அதிகமாகியதால், மீண்டும் மாற்றத்தை ஏற்கும் துணிவு கூட இல்லை. 

4. குழந்தைகள் அங்கே பிறந்துவிட்டால், அவர்களின் அடையாளம் அமெரிக்கர்/பிரிட்டிஷ் என்பதாகி விடுகிறது. நீங்கள் எவ்வளவு கீதா வகுப்பு, பாரதநாட்டியம், கர்நாடக சங்கீதம் கற்றுக் கொடுத்தாலும், அவர்கள் தங்களை அமெரிக்கராகவே கருதுவார்கள். No இண்டியன்.

5. ஒருவேளை ஆண் விரும்பினாலும், பெண் விரும்பமாட்டாள். குடும்பத்திற்குள் கருத்து வேறுபாடு. 

உண்மை நிலை ஏன்ன வென்றால், நீங்கள் விட்டுச் சென்ற இந்தியா, இன்றைய இந்தியா அல்ல. இங்கே நீங்கள் “special” இல்லை. சலுகையெல்லாம் கிடையாது.  

அமெரிக்கர்களோடு சேர்ந்து கொண்டு, பாம்பாட்டிகளும்-பரதேசிகளும் வாழும் நாடு இந்தியா என, இனி  வர்ணிக்க இயலாது.மும்பையில் iPhone வாங்க நிற்கும்  வரிசை, அமெரிக்க க்யூக்களை  விட பெரியது.

நீங்கள் கால்குலேட்டரில்,  டாலரை ரூபாயாக மாற்றி mall களில் கணக்கிடும் போது, அடுத்த டேபிளில் இந்தியக் குழந்தை, Mercedes-ல் வந்து, iPhone 17-ல் Apple Pay செய்து விட்டு போய் விடுகிறது.

பெங்களூரில் பள்ளி மாணவர்களே AI start-up நடத்துகிறார்கள்; ஆனால் நீங்கள் Excel Sheet, PMP, Zoom Call-களில் ஆண்டுகளை வீணாக்கியிருக்கலாம்.

அமெரிக்கா / இங்கிலாந்து / கனடா செல்லும் முடிவு — தீர்மானமான முடிவே.  திரும்ப வரும் வாய்ப்பு மிகவும் குறைவு.

அதனால் உணர்ச்சிவசப்பட்ட முடிவுகள் வேண்டாம். Pragmatic-ஆக இருங்கள். அங்கேயே நிலை கொண்டு, உங்களது hard work, value system, work ethics-ஐ நிரூபியுங்கள். அங்கேயே போராடி உங்களை நிரூபித்து தங்கிக் கொள்ள முயல்வதே புத்திசாலித்தனம்.

நீங்கள் இந்திய தூதராக — இந்திய கலாச்சாரத்தை உலகத்திற்கு பரப்பும் ஒரு பரப்பாளியாக நினைத்துக்கொள்ளுங்கள்.

இங்கேயும் பாதைகள் யாவும் மலர்ககளால் நிறைந்திருக்க வில்லை. போட்டிகள் இங்கேயும் உண்டு. Intellectual warfare  இங்கே அதிகம். தவிர மத, பிராந்திய மோதல்கள் இருக்கு! 

Be there! Best of luck NRIs! 

இந்திய மீடியாக்கள்

Mainstream Media, Narratives, and the Subtle War on India

In India today, most mainstream media is controlled by the Left and liberal groups. Apart from those who openly declare themselves liberal, there are also “masked players” like BBC India, which present themselves as independent and neutral. Unfortunately, many people still trust such outlets.

But in reality, these so-called media houses are not mere news agencies. They act as gatekeepers, deciding what information should reach the people, and in what form. 

Whether they present news as comedy, satire, or in a serious tone, their underlying intention often remains the same.

Globally, their operations may differ—but in India their target is clear:

India should never take pride in its culture, history, or heritage. Instead, they subtly cultivate a mindset among Indians to feel ashamed, embarrassed, and even disgusted about their own nation.

Take a small example. A person recently lost control of his new car and crashed into a showroom because he couldn't  judge the clutch and brake levers to grip properly. How was this reported? “While offering a lemon for the new car, it toppled!”—a sly jab, mocking Hindu traditions. This is exactly how liberal media twists even trivial events into ridicule against Indian culture.

The same bias extends to politics. They report with hidden agendas, steering narratives in ways that weaken national confidence.

Who funds or drives them? The answer lies in the global networks of mafias—medicine mafia, petroleum mafia, drug mafia, weapons mafia, and more. Indian media often dances to the tunes of these powerful international lobbies.

The core objective never changes:

To keep India weak.

To ensure India never rises as a strong military, industrial, or economic power.

To divert attention by stoking caste, religion, language, and regional conflicts.

We can see this playbook clearly in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, where every small issue is magnified into a major controversy. 

The immediate aim is to keep India in constant tension, wasting its resources on infighting. 

The long-term goal? Break India apart. If India can be divided into three parts, it would be a festival for these global mafias. Until then, liberals will continue to act as their loyal attack dogs.

If domestic news can be twisted this much, can we expect fairness from them on international issues? Certainly not.

Take the Israel–Palestine conflict. Here too, such media outlets exaggerate, distort, and push biased narratives. But thankfully, social media now provides a counterbalance. Without it, outlets like the BBC would have gone unchecked, causing immense damage.

Even those known for left-leaning sympathies have begun to call out the truth. Poet Thamarai, for example, wrote sharply about Hamas and its ideology, pointing out how their hostage-based strategies and extremist slogans brought disaster upon Palestinians themselves. She highlighted that Israel’s strong retaliation is not the cause of Gaza’s destruction—Hamas’s reckless politics is. அவரது வரிகள்: 

“Hamas and it's Jihadist ideology. சாதாரண குடிமக்களைப் பிணைக் கைதிகளாகப் பிடித்து ஓர் அரசியல் பிரச்சினையைத் தீர்த்துக் கொள்ளலாம் என்ற சின்னத்தனமான சிந்தனையின் விளைவே இன்றைய பேரழிவு!

‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine is free’ எனும் அவர்களின் முழக்கம் வெறும் கூவலல்ல, இஸ்ரேலை முழுமையாக ஒழித்துக்கட்டி தங்கள் மதவெறி ஆட்சியை நிறுவுவதற்கான சாரம்! இஸ்ரேலை ஒருபக்கம் கொண்ட 'இருநாடு' தீர்வு ஒருபோதும் ஹமாசுக்கு ஏற்புடையதல்ல!

பிணைக்கைதிகளுக்காகத்தான் இஸ்ரேல் முழுவலுவையும் காட்டாமல் இதுவரை பொறுமை காத்தது. மிச்சமுள்ள பிணைக்கைதிகளில் பலர் ஏற்கெனவே சித்திரவதை செய்யப்பட்டுக் கொல்லப்பட்டு விட்டனர். உயிரோடு எஞ்சியுள்ள சிலரும் சித்திரவதையால் நாட்களை எண்ணிக் கொண்டு இருப்பவர்களே! பரிதாபத்துக்குரிய அவர்கள் நிலையை ஐநா அளவில்கூட உரத்துப் பேசவில்லை. பொறுத்தது போதும் என இஸ்ரேல் பொங்கி எழுந்துவிட்டது.

.ஒரு பிணைக்கைதிக்கு பல  காஸர்கள் தான் அளவுகோல். ஈரானைப் பின்புலமாகக் கொண்டு, ஹமாஸ், ஹௌதி, ஹிஸ்புல்லா என நாலாபுறமும் வளைத்து வளைத்துத் தாக்கலாம் எனத் திட்டமிட்டே போரைத் தொடங்கினர் ஹமாஸ்+யூத வெறுப்பாளர்கள்.

இஸ்ரேலின் எதிர்பாராப் பதிலடியால் இன்று 'உள்ளதும் போச்சுடா' என்கிற இடத்துக்கு வந்தாச்சு! இனி 'குத்துதே, குடையுதே' எனப்புலம்பி என்ன பயன்?

இனி ஒருபோதும் இவ்வாறான, 'பிணைக்கைதி- அச்சுறுத்தல்-அடாவடி' தந்திரவுத்தியைப் (உலகில் எவரும்) பயன்படுத்த முடியாதபடி இஸ்ரேல் அறுதிப்போரை நடத்தி வருகிறது.

தொலைவில், கத்தாரில் உட்கார்ந்து கொண்டு கொக்கரித்துக் கொண்டிருந்த ஹய்யாவும், நூநுவும் இருந்த இடத்திலேயே சுக்குநூறாகிப் போனார்கள். இன்று ஹமாசுக்கு, பேசுவதற்குக்கூட ஆளில்லை. கத்தார்தான் அதிர்ச்சியில் திகைத்துப்போய் அரவம் எழுப்பி வருகிறது. அரவம் மட்டும்தான், ஆட்டம் இல்லை! 🤭

 பிணைக் கைதிகளும் மரித்துப் போகலாம். ஆனால், இனி ஹமாஸ் சார்பு பாலஸ்தீனம் என்கிற 'பேச்சு' எழ முடியாது! 

Well, you asked for it, got it! The destruction of Gaza is not on Israel but solely on Hamas!”.

நன்றி கவிஞர் அவர்களே!

Her words remind us that truth can no longer be monopolized by liberal media. The ground reality is different, and people are beginning to see it.

In the end, India must stay alert. Media is no longer just about reporting facts—it is a powerful weapon in psychological warfare. Recognizing this game is the first step in resisting it.

H1B and India (2)

Trump and H1B: Shock Therapy or Strategic Gamble?

The U.S. move to hike H1B visa fees to $100,000 is bound to create tremors worldwide. It is not merely an immigration tweak — it is a political and economic shock therapy that will impact both India and the United States across social, financial, and educational dimensions.

1. Impact on India

Social

Short Term: At least half a million Indian families are staring at disruptions. Educational loans, mortgages tied to foreign education, and career pathways suddenly look uncertain. Family separations will worsen stress levels.

Long Term: India’s resilience is proven. Much like during the pandemic, returnees could inject skills, capital, and global exposure back into India. A stronger domestic ecosystem may emerge.

Financial

Short Term: Real estate, banks, and education-loan portfolios will feel the pressure. Housing loans tied to overseas jobs may see defaults.

Long Term: Offshore work could grow significantly as U.S. companies shift projects abroad. India may also attract world-class faculty and talent at more affordable costs, strengthening local institutions.

Educational

Short Term: Students aspiring to U.S. universities face uncertainty and disappointment.

Long Term: India may be forced to revamp higher education to retain talent. Reverse migration of academics and collaborations with foreign universities could raise the bar domestically.

2. Impact on the United States

Social

Short Term: A wealthy, high-consumption immigrant group (Indian Americans with ~$120,000 median family income) may reduce inflows. This will affect U.S. housing, loans, and community spending.

Long Term: Disillusionment with the “land of opportunities” narrative will grow. Reverse migration will dent U.S. soft power.

Financial

Short Term: Tech giants will survive thanks to deep pockets, but mid-size and small companies dependent on affordable H1B talent may collapse.

Long Term: Talent pipelines for innovation and R&D will dry up. U.S. companies may lose their global technological edge.

Educational

Short Term: U.S. universities will be hit hardest. Foreign students bring in ~$40 billion annually. Shrinking inflows may cost up to 200,000 teaching jobs and 50,000 support roles.

Long Term: If H1B is no longer seen as a path to residency, U.S. universities will lose their magnetism. Competing destinations like Canada, Germany, and Australia will gain.

3. The Trump Layer

Trump’s team may invoke discretionary clauses to soften the blow, but this is typical of his strategy:

Announce a shocking figure ($100,000 fee).

Force stakeholders into panic.

Negotiate down to $50,000 or industry-specific slabs.

Present it as a “deal” in favour of America.

This is less about immigration economics and more about political theatre.

4. Tentative Conclusion

In the short term, India faces a 70:30 loss, while the U.S. bears 30:70.

In the long run, the ratio flips — the U.S. may bleed more deeply, while India adapts and gains.

U.S. tech majors will likely “wait out” Trump’s tenure (2–3 years) and restore the H1B carnival later.

For India, the shock could be a blessing in disguise. It may accelerate long-overdue higher education reforms, bring global faculty to Indian campuses, and expand offshore delivery models.

For the U.S., the danger lies in hollowing out its innovation engine. In trying to protect jobs today, it may lose competitiveness tomorrow.

 Final Note: This is not just about visas. It is about two nations testing their resilience — one under political theatrics, the other under forced reform. The next three years will decide who turns this shock into an opportunity.

H1B Visa

H1B Visa Fee Hike – Panic or Perspective?

The U.S. government’s decision to increase the H1B visa fee to $100,000 has sent shockwaves across social media in India. Influencers and commentators are working overtime, calling it unfair and discriminatory. But let us pause and ask: Is this really an “anti-India” move?

A Rule for All, Not Just Indians

The new fee structure applies to every nationality, not just Indians. Yes, Indians form the largest pool of H1B holders, which is why the impact feels sharper here. But the U.S. administration has not singled out India. Instead, it is signalling a larger policy shift — to push companies to prioritise American workers before hiring from abroad.

The Duty of Any President

The President of the United States is elected by Americans, for Americans. His foremost duty is to safeguard U.S. jobs and ensure opportunities for American citizens. Expecting him to place the interests of foreign workers above his own electorate is unrealistic. Every nation, including India, frames its policies with its citizens in mind.

Mutual Benefits – Until Now

It is also true that the U.S. has heavily depended on foreign tech talent for decades. Skilled professionals from India, China, and other Asian countries filled critical gaps in Silicon Valley, research labs, and healthcare systems. The benefits were mutual:

The U.S. got a steady supply of world-class skills.

Foreign professionals gained high salaries, exposure, and experience.

This wasn’t charity — it was a transaction that worked for both sides.

What Next for Asian Talent?

The world has changed. The U.S. is no longer the only dream destination for skilled migrants.

Canada, Germany, the UK, and Australia have simplified visa pathways for talent.

Gulf countries are diversifying economies and opening opportunities.

Even India’s own tech ecosystem is expanding rapidly, offering global-scale projects at home.

So, while the U.S. may be tightening its gates, doors elsewhere are opening wider.

Bottom Line

The H1B fee hike is not a personal attack on India. It is a political and economic choice by the U.S. government to put its citizens first. For Indian professionals, the message is clear:

Don’t panic.

Don’t depend only on America.

Build skills that are valued worldwide — because opportunities are now global, not U.S.-centric.

In short: This is not the end of Indian talent abroad. It’s simply the start of a new chapter where professionals must diversify their choices beyond the United States.

If financial viability is there, India may try to bring universities,  at the standard of US and educate,  train and utilize technocrats for her our own development.   

Don't get panicky dear Gen Z!

Arab Islamic Emergency Summit

Pakistan as NATO of the Islamic World? A Mirage, Not a Mission

Every now and then, the idea resurfaces: Can Pakistan be the “NATO” for Islamic countries? The proposition sounds dramatic, but the reality is far less flattering.

What Does Pakistan Bring to the Table?

Truth be told, not much. Pakistan’s military strength is not built on indigenous capability. Its arsenal is largely imported from China, while most Arab states rely on US and European suppliers. This mismatch kills any hope of a unified command. At best, Islamabad can offer boots on the ground – cheap troop supply. But modern conflicts aren’t won by headcount; they are won by technology, logistics, and strategy – areas where Pakistan falls short.

The Israel Factor: More Talk, Less Action

The recent summit that condemned Israel was more noise than substance. It wasn’t a war council; it was a political statement. No one around that table had the appetite for actual military confrontation with a US-backed Israel.

Turkey, Syria, and the Rest

Turkey is in no mood to play second fiddle. With its booming defence industry, Ankara is positioning itself as the Muslim world’s arms exporter, not a client of Pakistan.

Syria, shattered by war, can’t contribute meaningfully. Libya, Jordan, and even Egypt to some extent, are struggling with their own instability. The so-called Islamic bloc is fractured and fragile.

The American Red Line

The biggest obstacle is Washington. The United States has made it abundantly clear: it will not allow an Islamic NATO, let alone one anchored in a nuclear-armed Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan itself is under the American scanner – a country too unstable, too dependent, and too dangerous to be trusted with dreams of leading a military alliance.

The Self-Appointed Guardian

For decades, Pakistan has tried to sell itself as the “guardian of the Muslim ummah.” But the claim doesn’t stick. Others don’t buy it. Military-level cooperation against Israel – a state shielded by American power – is simply not viable.

Final Word

An Islamic NATO with Pakistan as its guard is nothing but a mirage. The summit was theatre, not strategy. And Pakistan’s self-proclaimed saviour role is just that – self-proclaimed. The Islamic world is too divided, too dependent, and too cautious to rally behind Pakistan’s banner.

Immigration issues

This has become a pattern of liberals to organize protests against immigrants, especially  in Europe and US.

They actually create a situation,  in their parent nations, through various kinds of protests, forcing the vulnarable section to migrate to other nations.  They also organize rally in host countries too.

Where,   it is not possible to 'create' migration issue, subtle deep politics conspirors, plan in other way.  They organise protests against all Developmental activities; once the Developments are forced to stop, again they organise protests 'demanding' Development.  

They organize protests in linguistic  basis whenever possible within the country.

 in Bangalore they shout against norths. In TN , against Biharis. MH too not irrelevant.

It seems, lefts and liberals in collocation with right extremists, create restlessness in many countries. Is that a deep politics?

Yes it is too sensitive to be touched;  but important dimension — the way migration, identity, and politics interact globally. Lets explain step by step, keeping it in a structured way so it’s clear.

1. Migration as a political tool

Migration is not only an economic or social process; it has become a political weapon.

Both liberals and extremists (left or right) use it:

Liberals / Left: Highlight migrants’ struggles, demand human rights, organize protests in host countries to pressure governments.

Right / Nationalists: Amplify fears of cultural loss, jobs taken away, rising crime, to mobilize voters.

In many countries (UK, US, France, Germany, India), migration is used to polarize society and gain political mileage.

2. The pattern the liberals  noticed

Yes its right: sometimes, migration pressures are not “natural,” but engineered through:

Wars (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan → refugee waves into Europe).

Economic collapse (Sri Lanka, Venezuela).

Organized trafficking networks (North Africa → Italy/Spain).

In such cases, liberal groups frame it as humanitarian duty, while right-wing groups frame it as invasion.

Result: street rallies, agitations, clashes — exactly what you pointed out.

3. Examples in India

Bangalore (Kannada vs North Indians): Fueled by local job insecurity + politics.

Tamil Nadu (against Biharis): Not always from masses, but political groups amplify it to gain local support.

Maharashtra (Marathi vs outsiders): Classic Shiv Sena & MNS agenda since 1980s.

In each case, there are economic issues at root, but political actors shape it into “us vs them.”

4. Are left & right working together?

On the surface, left-liberals and right-extremists look like opposites.

But in practice, both feed on each other’s presence:

The more liberals demand “open borders,” the stronger right-wing anger grows.

The more right-wing paints migrants as “threats,” the more liberals mobilize protests.

It becomes a vicious cycle where both gain visibility and votes, while the common people face unrest.

Some analysts call this “politics of polarization” → each side needs the other to survive.

5. Is it “deep politics”?

We could call it that. Migration and identity issues are too useful for politicians to ignore.

Instead of solving root causes (poverty, unemployment, conflict, poor governance), leaders often exploit migrant issues as a shortcut to mobilize masses.

Global NGOs, political parties, and even media sometimes magnify select narratives to keep tensions alive.

✅ In short:

Yes, it does look like a “designed restlessness.” Migration issues are amplified both by liberals (human rights angle) and right-extremists (nationalist angle). They appear enemies, but actually, they thrive on each other’s narratives. The losers are usually the migrants themselves and the ordinary citizens who face divided societies.

Nepal & Gen Z Awakening portion

 

Nepal, Gen Z and the Social-Media Awakening.

Nepal’s recent convulsions were not just the result of hourly politics or an economic wobble. They were a symptom of something deeper: a society moving into the information age while its institutions — especially its governing class — were still thinking in analogue. When a generation born and raised on smartphones and social platforms meets a government that treats information like a utility to be turned on and off, the result is predictable and explosive.

This piece examines what triggered the unrest, why abrupt bans on social media backfire, what lessons the world should learn, and why older generations — the Boomers and those who still look at governance through the lens of traditional media — must come to terms with Gen Z’s power and expectations.

What happened — the trigger, not the politics

In many accounts of Nepal’s crisis the immediate trigger was simple: a clampdown on social media. Multiple platforms were blocked or throttled at a critical moment. But that fact alone does not explain the scale of the reaction. To understand why streets filled with young people, angry and mobilised overnight, we must see social media not as a collection of apps but as the civic operating system for a new generation.

Gen Z in Nepal — as elsewhere — uses social platforms for news, organisation, solidarity, and grievance. Blocking these channels is like switching off the public square in a city where the public square is primarily digital. People did not rise because they wanted a political debate on television; they erupted because the channels that let them speak, share and organise were taken away. A ban on expression felt, to them, like suffocation.

Why an abrupt ban is combustible

Governments that come from a pre-internet mindset treat information as a resource to be regulated: licences for newspapers, access to broadcast frequencies, censorship in print. But social media is different in three important ways:

1. It is organic and decentralised. Unlike a newspaper or a state channel, social media fashions networks spontaneously. Information — and outrage — travels fast, reshaped by individuals rather than packaged by institutions.

2. It is both organiser and amplifier. A hashtag, a short video or a forwarded post can do what pages of mainstream media struggled to do: bring strangers together around a common purpose and give momentum to actions in hours.

3. It is the primary public sphere for Gen Z. For younger citizens, digital platforms are where identity, politics and community meet. Cut that off and you are not managing media — you are silencing civic life.

When a ban is abrupt, people do not calmly migrate to other channels. They perceive the move as an attack on freedom of expression. The natural human reaction to being denied a voice is anger; the digital reaction — amplified by the very networks being targeted — is mobilisation.

The information-era lesson: power, manipulation and trust

A second, less visible danger is subtler: the capacity for manipulation. Information platforms are not neutral pipes. Algorithms, promoted content, and coordinated campaigns can shape what audiences see and when. That capability is a tool — and it is a temptation.

Authoritarian impulses and commercial ambitions alike can exploit platforms. If a government or an aligned actor can calibrate the flow of information — slowing some topics, elevating others — it can nudify public opinion over time. This is not mere speculation: across the world we have seen soft-manipulation campaigns that use misinformation, bots, and algorithmic boosts to manufacture consent.

The important distinction is between gradual manipulation and sudden suppression. Gradual manipulation is stealthy and often hard to detect; it can erode public trust and skew democratic discourse slowly. Sudden suppression (like a blunt ban) triggers immediate backlash. Governments that ignore either risk losing legitimacy: one by erosion, the other by provocation.

Why governments are tempted to control — and why they are often trapped

When social unrest looks uncontrolled, governments feel naked. Their instinct is to reassert control over narrative and order. Banning platforms is a crude, fast way to do that. But it is also a trap.

1. Backfire effect. A ban validates and magnifies the narrative of grievance. Citizens go to the streets because they feel the need to reclaim their public voice.

2. Information refugees. People do not stop talking; they move to other channels — encrypted messaging, VPNs, underground networks — making oversight harder and increasing conspiratorial dynamics.

3. International optics. Abrupt digital suppression draws strong international attention and often condemnation, which can deepen domestic resentment.

Consequently, decision-makers who lack a nuanced understanding of the information ecosystem often cause the very unrest they hope to prevent.

Why think tanks prefer leaders to use social media — and why that matters

Think tanks and strategic advisers increasingly counsel leaders to speak directly on social platforms rather than rely solely on mainstream media. There are pragmatic reasons for this:

• Direct address reduces the risk of message distortion by intermediaries.
• It allows real-time feedback and rapid clarification during crises.
• It builds a rapport with younger audiences who primarily consume short-form, on-platform content.

But direct use must be responsible. Leaders who use social media can gain trust — and lose it rapidly if messages are perceived as manipulative or inauthentic.

The generational fault-line: Boomers and Gen Z

A core mismatch in this crisis is generational: older decision-makers often come from an era where gatekeepers controlled public discourse — newspapers, radio, TV. Those gatekeepers had slowness and predictability. Gen Z lives with speed and decentralisation. They expect immediacy, transparency, and agency.

This is not merely about taste. It affects how legitimacy is built and how consent is measured. A leader who believes that controlling TV narratives suffices will misunderstand where dissent now incubates. Conversely, Gen Z’s fluency with online organising makes them formidable civic actors — resilient, networked, and quick to act.

Practical lessons for governments and civil society

1. Treat information policy as infrastructure policy. Just as you would consult engineers for roads, consult technologists, sociologists and youth representatives before making decisions that restructure public communication.

2. Avoid blunt instruments. Shutdowns and bans are crude and counterproductive. Targeted, transparent measures — guided by rule of law and subject to oversight — are preferable.

3. Build digital literacy and trust. Encourage critical media skills so citizens can distinguish manipulation from genuine discourse. Transparency from platforms and governments helps reduce conspiratorial thinking.

4. Engage younger citizens directly. Token gestures won’t do. Sustainable engagement means including youth voices in policy design, communications, and crisis planning.

5. Plan for resilience. If platforms fail or are blocked, civic life must have resilient, lawful alternatives that preserve communication without empowering bad actors.

Conclusion — a call for respect, not paternalism

Nepal’s recent unrest is a case study in the collision between an information age public and analogue governance instincts. The core truth is simple: you cannot govern an information society with tools built for the broadcast era. Abrupt suppression is both morally fraught and strategically self-defeating. Manipulation is corrosive. The wiser path is transparency, inclusion and adaptation.

The longer-term message is to older generations and to institutions of power: respect Gen Z. They are not merely a demographic; they are the custodians of the new public square. If governments want to be effective, they must learn to speak the languages of the platforms, earn trust there, and design policies that protect rights without extinguishing voice. That is not weakness — it is the only sustainable form of strength in an age where information is the operating system of civic life.

Switzerland prickig India in UN

India’s Firm Reply to Switzerland at UNHRC

At the 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, which currently chairs the body, made remarks about India that can only be described as surprising and misplaced.

The Swiss representative called upon India to “protect the rights of minorities” and to “safeguard freedom of speech and media freedom.” At face value, these are generic phrases. But in the UN forum, such remarks carry undertones, and the subtext was clear: Switzerland was indirectly questioning India’s record on pluralism and democracy.

India did not let the statement pass unchallenged. Its representative delivered a reply that was firm, dignified, and cutting at the same time. He expressed regret that “a close friend and partner” like Switzerland had chosen to make superficial, inaccurate and misplaced comments. As the President of UNHRC, Switzerland should not waste the Council’s time by repeating false and fabricated narratives about India, the representative said.

Instead, the Indian delegate advised, Switzerland would do better to focus on its own internal challenges—issues of racism, systemic discrimination, and xenophobia that continue to trouble Swiss society. In a masterstroke, the statement concluded that India, as the world’s largest, most diverse, and vibrant democracy, stands ready to assist Switzerland in addressing these concerns.

The reply was applauded as a textbook example of diplomatic counteroffensive. Without raising its voice, India turned the tables: the accuser was shown the mirror. The punch line was unmistakable—“We know how to celebrate and protect diversity. You shut your own house and put it in order first.”

Why Switzerland spoke out

Switzerland prides itself on its “neutral” global image, but in Geneva—home to hundreds of NGOs—it often echoes the language of rights lobbies. With the UNHRC presidency in its hand, it also wants to appear proactive on global issues. Moreover, though not part of the EU, Switzerland often moves in step with European positions on human rights. In this case, the statement was less about India specifically and more about Switzerland’s own self-projection as a “principled” voice

Why India’s reply matters

New Delhi’s intervention was not just about answering Switzerland; it was about sending a larger message. India will not quietly accept lectures on democracy and pluralism from any quarter, however friendly. A democracy of 1.4 billion people, 22 official languages, hundreds of faiths and cultures does not need lessons on diversity from a country smaller than some of its states.

This episode also highlights the hypocrisy of certain Western narratives. Nations that struggle with rising xenophobia, systemic bias against migrants, and the politics of exclusion are often the first to preach tolerance to others. India’s firm reply exposed this double standard.

A pattern of new assertiveness

What makes this exchange significant is that it is not an isolated case. In recent years, India has consistently responded with firmness whenever outside powers have tried to comment on its internal matters:

Canada: When Canadian leaders made remarks on farmers’ protests and Sikh separatism, India firmly reminded Ottawa about its own issues with radical extremism and interference in India’s sovereignty.

Turkey: When President Erdogan raised Kashmir in the UN, India hit back by pointing to Ankara’s poor human rights record and its treatment of minorities, including Kurds.

OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation): Whenever OIC members issue statements on Kashmir, India flatly rejects them as biased and irrelevant, reminding the world that Kashmir is an internal matter.

Western NGOs and think tanks: Critical reports on Indian democracy or freedoms are regularly countered by pointing to India’s constitutional framework, vibrant elections, and deep-rooted pluralism.

Seen in this light, India’s reply to Switzerland is part of a larger diplomatic trend—an India that is self-assured, unapologetic, and no longer willing to be “lectured.”

The bigger picture

In world politics today, power equations are shifting. The unipolar world dominated by the West is fading; multipolarity is the reality. In this new order, countries like India will be expected to stand their ground. What happened in Geneva is a sign of this confidence.

The essence of India’s response is clear:

Pluralism is not a lesson to be taught to us—it is our civilizational strength.

Diversity is not a slogan—it is our lived reality.

Unity in crisis is not alien to us—it is our democratic practice.

Switzerland’s words may fade in memory. India’s reply, however, will stand as an example of how a confident nation rebuts misplaced criticism—with facts, firmness, and just the right touch of sarcasm.

9/11 – A Day the World Cannot Forget

September 11, 2001, is a day etched forever in history. For the United States, it was a tragedy of unimaginable scale, with nearly 3,000 innocent lives lost. But for the world, it was more than just America’s grief—it was the day terrorism revealed its true face.

The 9/11 attacks changed the way every nation looked at extremism. For years, many countries had nurtured, trained, or supported such groups for short-term political gains, without realizing that the “snake” they fed would one day bite them back. That was the unwritten law of terror.

Even closer to home, we remember how Bhindranwale in Punjab or extremists in Sri Lanka once received support from ruling powers of the day. As per the eternal Dharmic principle, what is sown is eventually reaped. History shows us how those decisions came back to haunt them.

After the Cold War, one might have expected such dangers to fade. But instead, the extremist networks built and fueled by the US and the USSR during their rivalry did not disappear—they spread like wildfire. During that era, nations were compelled to align either with Washington or Moscow. This global polarization created fertile ground for extremist ideologies to grow unchecked.

It was in this environment that the Taliban emerged, a creation of the US itself. America did not realize that terrorism is a double-edged sword—one that can cut its master as well. The result was the tragedy of 9/11.

In its aftermath, President George W. Bush declared that those responsible would be brought to justice. The US shifted its stance completely: from selectively backing extremists abroad to launching an all-out hunt against them, regardless of whether they operated in friendly or hostile territories.

The American public too rose in unity. Citizens stood behind their nation. There were no calls for the President’s resignation in newspapers, no rumors to weaken national morale. Instead, the world saw how a united people should respond to crisis. Thankfully, social media like WhatsApp did not exist then—otherwise panic and misinformation might have multiplied the chaos.

India, under Prime Minister Vajpayee, extended unconditional solidarity. He conveyed clearly that extremism has no place in democracy. Despite the US often working against India’s strategic interests, Vajpayee chose principle over politics and stood firmly with America. That gesture is remembered even today by older generations in the US. It was a turning point that elevated Indo-US relations to a new level.

Now contrast this with our own internal politics. When Pulwama or Pahalgam attacks occurred, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with the government and the armed forces, opposition voices began questioning them. This is the tragedy of India—where national security often gets reduced to party politics. True statesmanship demands unity in times of crisis, not point-scoring.

Looking ahead, the global order itself is shifting. The era of a unipolar or bipolar world is gone. What lies ahead is a multipolar system, where cooperation is no longer optional but necessary. The United States and other powers must accept this reality.

Above all, the world must unite—if not on every issue, then at least on one: the fight against terror. Let us hope common sense prevails among nations, for humanity can no longer afford otherwise.

Fall of Nepal Government

Nepal government Collapsed like card building .  As usual the 'thinkers' are busy in liking their fall with US, China and India.

One need to understand that external forces can only trigger the protests and cannot they cannot be a 100% interference.  

At the outset, we can be sure that India doesn't want any burdens across the border; instead we need a stable neighbor governments.  We have already filled our belly with lot of issues; it's  not our priority or agenda to topple any neighbor governments.

Let's see what has happened in South East Asia, after the Covid Pandamic .  Every neighbour country has suffered in Covid. Fortunately India has fundmentally a strong economy and vaccine formulated intime.  We are lucky enough to got a dynamic leadership; but Bangladesh, Srilanka and Nepal were not.

The Fragile Politics of South Asia: Why Nepal Fell So Fast

The sudden collapse of Nepal’s government in just two days shocked many observers. While it is easy to blame outside players—the US, China, or India—the truth is more complex. Time and again, South Asian instability shows that domestic weaknesses create the cracks; foreign powers only widen them.

Three Different Collapses

1. Bangladesh – The Authoritarian Fall

Bangladesh’s political crisis was not sudden. The ruling party gradually tightened its grip: suppressing opposition, curbing media, and centralising power. The resentment among people built over years, finally boiling over in the form of movements against authoritarianism.

2. Sri Lanka – The Economic Fall

Sri Lanka’s downfall came from within the economy. Lavish spending, populist tax cuts, dependence on tourism, and Chinese loans weakened the state. When COVID and fuel shortages hit, resentment exploded. People marched on the streets, forcing leaders to flee.

3. Nepal – The Dramatic Political Fall

Nepal’s collapse is unique. Its economy is weak, but not bankrupt like Sri Lanka’s. Its political order is democratic, but not suffocatingly authoritarian like Bangladesh’s.

Instead, Nepal suffers from chronic coalition politics:

Multiple parties, mostly Left factions and Congress, shifting loyalties for short-term gains.

Governments formed and broken on the basis of “ministerial share,” not national policy.

Popular trust already eroded by corruption, unemployment, and slow development.

Thus, a single switch in alliance triggers an instant collapse—like a termite-eaten house falling at once.

India’s Viewpoint

For India, stability in the neighbourhood is not a luxury, but a necessity:

Security: Instability in Nepal affects India’s long open border and can create safe havens for hostile groups.

Economy: India absorbs Nepali exports, labour, and also invests in hydropower. Instability delays projects and increases migration pressures.

Geopolitics: A weak Nepal is more vulnerable to Chinese influence, which India wants to check.

Therefore, India’s interest under Modi has consistently been stable and friendly neighbours, not burdens on its diplomacy and economy.

The Record of Lefts and Liberals

A hard truth, often overlooked:

In Nepal, the Left succeeded in unifying to bring down the monarchy and repeatedly toppling governments—but failed in building a stable, growth-oriented state.

In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too, “liberal” or “left-oriented” promises often turned into populism and factionalism, weakening institutions.

These groups often excel in mobilising protests and dismantling structures, but rarely in sustaining governance.

This is not about bias—it is borne out by repeated experiences in South Asia: political creativity in opposition, but administrative weakness in power.

Conclusion

The fall of Nepal’s government was dramatic, but not surprising. Bangladesh fell to authoritarianism, Sri Lanka to economic mismanagement, and Nepal to chronic coalition fragility. Foreign powers may stir the waters, but the roots are internal.

For India, a stable Nepal is a strategic need, not just neighbourly goodwill. Yet as long as Nepali politics remains a game of shifting alliances, sudden collapses will remain the rule rather than the exception.

எங்கு சென்றாலும் நாம் நாமே!

நரேந்திரன் என்னும் அமெரிக்க வாழ் இந்தியர் எழுதிய கட்டுரை! அவருக்கு மிக்க நன்றி தெரிவித்துக் கொண்டு , அவரது கட்டுரை கீழே! 

ஒரு பழைய,  திரைப்படத்தில் வரும் ஒரு பாட்டில் இப்படியொரு வரி வரும்,

"உலகில் உள்ள நாடுகளில்என் கால்கள் படாத இடமில்லை....உங்களைப் போலேகும்பலும், கூச்சலும் இதுவரை கண்களில் படவில்லை....."

1960-களில் வந்த திரைப்படமென்று நினைக்கிறேன். துரதிருஷ்டவசமாக இந்த மாதிரியான கும்பல்களை, விசிலடிச்சான் குஞ்சுகளை வளர்த்துவிட்டவர்களில், அந்த ஹீரோவே முக்கியமானவர். அவரது திரைப்படங்கள் வெளியாகும் நாளெல்லாம் தியேட்டர்கள் அமளி துமளிப்படும். அவரது திரைப்படம் வெளியாகும் நாட்களில் பல நூற்றுக்கணக்கானவர்கள் தங்களின் வேலை, வெட்டிகளைக் கைவிட்டுவிட்டு தியேட்டர் வாசலில் டிக்கெட் வாங்குவதற்காகத் தவம் கிடப்பார்கள். இரவெல்லாம் தியேட்டருக்கு முன்பாக உறங்கிக் கிடக்கிறவர்களும் இருந்தார்கள். அவரது ஒரே திரைப்படத்தை திரும்பத் திரும்ப பார்த்த வெட்டிக் கூட்டங்களும் இருந்தன.

டிக்கெட் வாங்குவதற்கான கவுண்டர்களுக்குச் செல்லுவதற்கான குறுகிய வழிகளில் நூற்றுக்கணக்கானவர்கள் அடைபட்டுக் கிடப்பார்கள். பலபேர் அந்தக் கூட்ட நெரிசலில் சிக்குவர்களும் சகஜம். தண்டையார்பேட்டை "அகஸ்தியா" தியேட்டரில் வெளியான அவரின்  ஒரு திரைப்பட டிக்கெட் வாங்குவதற்காக நடந்த தள்ளுமுள்ளுக்களில் சிக்கி பலருக்கு  மூச்சுத்திணறல் ஏற்பட்ட சம்பவமும் உண்டு.

இதற்கு ஹீரோ மட்டுமே குற்றம் சொல்லுவது தவறு. வயதாகியும் மூளை வளராத, அறிவிழந்த முட்டாள் கூட்டத்திற்கு இதில் பெரும் பங்கு உண்டு. சினிமாவையும், தனிப்பட்ட வாழ்வையும் பிரித்தறியத் தெரியாத தற்குறிகள் நிறைந்த ஒரே இடம் இந்த பூவுலகில் தமிழ்நாடு மட்டும்தான். தியேட்டருக்கு வெளியே மட்டுமல்லாமல், தியேட்டருக்கு வெளியேயும் இந்தத் தற்குறிகள் ஆட்டம் போட்டார்கள். ஒவ்வொரு திரைப்பட வெளியீட்டின்போதும் கட்டவுட்டிற்குப் பாலூற்றுவது, ஆளுயர மாலை சாற்றுவது போன்ற கேவலங்களை அவர்கள் நிறைவேற்றத் தவறுவதேயில்லை. அது இன்றுவரையில் தொடர்வதுதான் அவலம்.

இது அவருக்கு மட்டும் நிகழவில்லை. எல்லா பிரபல தமிழ் சினிமா நடிகர்களுக்கும் இது நடந்தது. இன்னமும் நடக்கிறது. உலகமெல்லாம் நம்மைப் பார்த்துச் சிரிக்கிறது என்பதனைப் பற்றி எந்தத் தமிழனும் நாணுவதில்லை. மாறாக பெருமை கொள்ளுகிறான் என்பது ஆச்சரியத்திலும் ஆச்சரியமானது. உளவியல் ரீதியாக நிச்சயமாக இது ஆரயப்பட வேண்டிய ஒன்று என்பதில் எனக்கு எந்தச் சந்தேகமுமில்லை. தனக்குப் பிடித்த பலான் சினிமா நடிகனை யாரேனும் கேலி செய்துவிட்டால் அவனுக்கு வருகிற ஆத்திரமும், கோபமும் அளவிடற்கரியது. அவனது பிரியப்பட்ட சினிமா நடிகன் நடித்த சினிமாப்படம் ஓடுவதற்காக அல்லது வசூலில் வெற்றி காண்பதற்காக மண் சோறு தின்பதில் ஆரம்பித்து, மொட்டையடித்துக் கொள்வது, அலகு குத்துவது என ஆரம்பித்து கடா வெட்டுவதுவரையில் வந்து நிற்கிறான்.

சினிமாவில் நடிக்கிற அவனுடைய பலான நடிகனும் தன்னைப் போல ஒரு மனிதன் மட்டும்தான் என்பதனை அவனுக்குச் சொல்லிப் புரிய வைப்பது சிரமம். அவனைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் அந்த சினிமா நடிகனே அவனுக்குக் கடவுள். அவன் உத்தரவிட்டால் மறுபேச்சு பேசாமல் மலத்தையும் நக்கித் திங்க அவன் தயாராக இருக்கிறான். தன்னுடைய பிரியப்பட்ட பலான சினிமா நடிகன் உண்மையில் ஒரு சதாாணமாாவன் என்பதையோ, முழு மூடன் என்பதனையோ, தனக்கு உயிரைக் கொடுக்கத் துடிக்கும் தன்னுடைய ரசிகனுக்காக ஒரு சிறிய துரும்பைக் கூடத் தூக்கிப்போடாத ஒரு சுய நலவாதி என்பதனையோ, போதை மருந்துகளுக்கும், பலவித பால்வினை நோய்களுக்கும் ஆளானவன் என்பதனையோ அவன் பொருட்படுத்துவதில்லை. கீழ்த்தரமான, நாயினும் கடையனான அவனது பிரியப்பட்ட சினிமா நடிகனை அரியணையில் அமர்த்த அவன் துடிக்கும் துடிப்பு விசித்திரமானது. யோசித்துப் பார்க்கையில் மிகவும் பரிதாபகரமானது.

இப்படியாகப்பட்ட மூடர்கள் தமிழ்நாட்டில் மட்டுமே வாழ்கிறார்கள் என்று நினைப்பது மகாப் பெரிய தவறு. இப்படியாகப்பட்ட, அசிங்கம்பிடித்த, புத்தியில்லாத தமிழர்கள் அவர்கள் செல்லுமிடமெல்லாம் இதே கேவலத்தைச் செய்கிறார்கள். காண்போரை முகம் சுளிக்க வைக்கிறார்கள். 

கல்வி அவர்களைப் பண்படுத்தவில்லை. நாகரிகமான நடத்தையையும், பொது அறிவையும், ஒழுங்கையும் இழந்த இந்த மூடர்கள் அமெரிக்காவிலும் அசிங்கப்படுத்திக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். படித்து, பல பட்டங்களைப் பெற்ற, ஒரு நல்ல வேலையில் இருக்கிற பெரும்பாலான தமிழர்கள் தங்களது பிரியப்பட்ட சினிமா நடிகனின் திரைப்படம் அமெரிக்கத் தியேட்டர்களில் வெளியாகுகையில் செய்கிற அநாகரிக, அனாச்சாரச் செயல்கள் ஒவ்வொரு தமிழனையும் தலைகுனிய வைக்கும். அந்தத் தமிழனுக்கு ஓரளவேனும் சிந்திக்கும் திறன் இருந்தால் தான் வாழ வந்த ஒரு இடத்தில் இந்த நாகரிகமற்ற கும்பல்கள் செய்யும் கேவலங்களைக் கண்டு அவன் நிச்சயமாக நிச்சயமாக வருந்துவான். வருந்தவேண்டும்.

ஆனால், அந்தோ!

தலை நரைத்து, மண்டையில் மசிர் கொட்டிப் போன கிழட்டுத் தமிழனிலிருந்து, நேற்று வந்தவன்வரையில் அமெரிக்கத் திரையரங்குகளில் செய்கிற அனாச்சாரங்கள், அட்டூழியங்கள் மிக, மிகக் கேவலமானவை என மெய்யாகவே, மெய்யாகவே உங்களுக்குச் சொல்லுகிறேன். இந்தக் கேடுகளைக் கண்ட வெள்ளைக்காரன் அவர்களை விரட்டியடிக்க முனைவதில் என்ன ஆச்சரியம் இருக்கப்போகிறது?

இதனைக் குறித்து ஏராளமாக எழுதலாம். ஆனால் எழுதி என்ன ஆகப்போகிறது?

இயல்புக் குணம் மாறுதில்லை; அமெரிக்காவாக இருந்தாலென்ன? இயல்பு  மறந்துவிடவா போகிறது? நம் மீது பட்டுவிடாமலிருக்க முடிந்தவரையில் விலகி நடப்பதுதான் சரியானது. நான் அப்படித்தான் இவர்களிடமிருந்து விலகி இருக்கிறேன்.

நண்பர் ஹரிஷ் ராகவேந்திராவின் ஆதங்கம் மிகச் சரியான ஒன்று.

"அமெரிக்காவில் இந்தியர்கள் அதிகமாகக் குறியேறியுள்ள இடங்களில் ஒன்று டெக்ஸாஸ் மாநிலத்தின் 

டாலஸ்(Dallas) மாநகரம். 

பொதுவாகவே அமெரிக்காவின் குடியிருப்புப் பகுதிகளில் இரைச்சல், காட்டுக் கூச்சல், தேவையில்லாத ஆரவாரம், அடிதடி அக்கப்போர்கள் இவற்றையெல்லாம் பார்க்க முடியாது. பக்கத்து வீட்டில் என்ன நடக்கிறது யார் இருக்கிறார்கள் என்பது கூட பலமுறை நமக்குத் தெரியாமலேயே இருக்கும். ஒருவரை ஒருவர் தேவை இல்லாமல் அனுமதியின்றி சந்திக்கக்கூட முயல மாட்டார்கள். இவ்வாறிருக்க, தமிழ் தெலுங்கு போன்ற படங்கள் வெளியானால், ரஜினிகாந்த், பாலய்யா, மஹேஷ் பாபு, போன்ற திரை நடிகர்களுக்கு, தனது வீட்டின் உயரத்தையும் மிஞ்சும் வகையில் கட்டவுட் பதாகைகள் வைப்பது, அவற்றிற்கு, பாலாபிஷேகம் தீப ஆராதனை போன்ற சாங்கியங்கள் செய்வது டாலர் நோட்டுகளால் செய்யப்பட்ட மாலைகள் அணிவிப்பது போன்ற செயல்களை, சமீபத்திய ஆண்டுகளில் இயல்பாக்கிக் கொண்டு வருகின்றனர் பல இந்திய வம்சாவழியினர். அப்போது "தலைவா..." "தேவுடா..."என்றெல்லாம் உரக்கக் கத்திக் கொண்டு நடனமாடுவதும், மேள தாளங்கள் கொட்டுவதும் கூட நடைபெறத் தொடங்கி ஆண்டுகளாகின்றன. போக்குவரத்து நெரிசல் ஏற்படுத்துவது, வாகனங்களை இஷ்டத்திற்கு நிறுத்தி விடுவது போன்றவையும் இதில் அடக்கம். இத்தனை ஆண்டுகளும் பொறுமை காத்த பல அமெரிக்கர்கள் தற்போது வெறுப்பைக் காட்டத் தொடங்கி இருக்கிறார்கள். "I want my children to live in America, not India" என்றெல்லாம் பகிரங்கமாக பேசவும் எழுதவும் ஆரம்பித்திருக்கிறார்கள். 

நம்மவர்களில் இரண்டு வகையினர் உள்ளனர்.

"அவர்கள் சொல்வது சரிதான், நாம் தான் அந்த நாட்டின் கலாசாரத்திற்குத் தகுந்தவாறு நமது விழாக்களையும் பண்டிகைகளையும் கொஞ்சம் மாற்றி அமைத்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும், அதிக ஆரவாரம் கத்தல் காதைக் கிழிக்கும் சத்தம் எல்லாம் கூடாது. போன இடத்தில் நம் இனத்தின், இந்தியாவின் மானம் மரியாதையை நாம் தான் காப்பாற்றிக்கொள்ள வேண்டும்" என்ற தீர்க்கமான எண்ணம் கொண்ட சிலர். 

"அமெரிக்கா வந்தேறிகளின் பூமி, இங்கு வெள்ளைக்காரனும் வந்தேறிதான் நானும் வந்தேறிதான், எனக்கு இஷ்டப்பட்டதை எல்லாம் நான் செய்தே தான் தீருவேன், அவன் யார் என்னைக் கேள்வி கேட்க?" என்று முழங்குவதும், தன் குறைகளைச் சுட்டிக் காட்டும் அமெரிக்கர்களை, "நிறவெறி பிடித்தவன், பழுப்பு நிற சருமத்தினருக்கு எதிரானவன்" என்று சாயம் பூசம் செயலையும் செய்யும் அடுத்த வகையினர். 

புதுப்பட வெளியீடுகளின் போது இந்தியர்கள் திரையரங்குகளை சேதப்படுத்துவது உலகெங்கும் நடந்து வருகிறது. இந்தியத் திரைப் படங்களுக்கு திரையரங்கம் தர மறுப்பதும் ஒரு சில இடங்களில் நடந்து தான் வருகிறது. 

என் வெள்ளைக்கார நண்பர் ஒருவர் கூறுகிறார். 

"உங்கள் சினிமா நடிகர்களின் பேனர்கள் மீது நீங்கள் பால் ஊற்றுவதையும் அங்கே பட்டாசு வெடிப்பதையும் டாலர் மாலை போடுவதையும் அவர்களைக் கடவுளாக ஆராதிப்பதையும் பார்க்கும் எங்கள் குழந்தைகளுக்கு இதையெல்லாம் தாமும் செய்து பார்க்க வேண்டும் என்ற ஆசை வருகிறது...இது எங்களைச் சூழ்ந்துள்ள ஒரு பேராபத்தாகவே படுகிறது" என்று வேதனை தெரிவித்தார். 

இதெல்லாம் போதாது என்று அண்மையில் சூப்பர் மார்க்கெட்களில் திருடுவதை வழக்கமாகக் கொண்டிருந்த சில பல இந்திய பெண்மணிகள் வேறு பிடிபட்டு வருகின்றனர். 

இது போன்ற செயல்களை எல்லாம் நாமாகவே உடனடியாக நிறுத்தா விட்டால் விளைவுகள் மிக மோசமாக இருக்கப் போகின்றன. எந்த வம்பு தும்புக்கும் போகாமல், எந்தக் குற்றச் செயல்களிலும் ஈடுபடாமல், சட்ட திட்டங்களை நேர்மையுடன் கடைபிடித்து, நியாயதர்மத்துடன் வாழும் லட்சக்கணக்கான இந்திய அமெரிக்கர்களும் கடுமையான பாதிப்புகளுக்கு உள்ளாவது நிச்சயம்.

Medicine/Vaccines for Cancer

A reader-friendly elaboration that explains what mRNA is, why it’s important, and why this Russian breakthrough could matter for cancer treatment. 

Russia’s New mRNA Cancer Medicine: A Breakthrough Worth Welcoming

News agencies have reported that Russia has developed a new mRNA-based medicine aimed at treating certain types of cancer.

To understand the significance, let’s recall what mRNA technology is.

mRNA stands for messenger RNA. It is a molecule that carries instructions from our DNA to the cell, telling it what proteins to make. Scientists have learned to design synthetic mRNA so that our own body can produce specific proteins that fight disease. Instead of injecting a weak or dead virus, as in traditional vaccines, mRNA medicines “teach” the body to recognize and fight harmful cells more precisely.

This technology gained worldwide attention during the Covid-19 pandemic, when mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna saved billions of lives by offering rapid, effective protection. What took decades in traditional vaccine research was achieved in months with mRNA.

Now, Russia is reportedly extending this approach to cancer treatment. Cancer is not a single disease but a group of diseases caused by abnormal cell growth. Traditional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation damage both cancerous and healthy cells, often with painful side effects. The hope is that an mRNA-based therapy can train the immune system to target only cancer cells, sparing healthy tissues.

Unsurprisingly, some groups — particularly liberal critics — have raised objections. They argue that more clinical trials are needed before this medicine is approved for public use. Some even suggest that the announcement is part of the ongoing U.S.–Russia rivalry, more about geopolitics than science.

It is true that every medicine must undergo rigorous trials. But reports indicate that this formula has already been under development for nearly ten years. Further progress can only come through real-world testing.

Even if political or commercial motives are involved, the potential benefit to humanity cannot be ignored. 

Nearly 30,000 people die every day worldwide from cancer. For those patients, where death is otherwise inevitable, participating in trials may give them a chance at survival. If successful, the patients benefit directly, and the medical world gains knowledge that can lead to even better treatments.

The principle is simple: without trials, there can be no breakthroughs.

So, instead of dismissing this discovery as a geopolitical stunt, let us remain positive. If mRNA could revolutionize our fight against Covid-19, perhaps it can also transform the battle against cancer. Humanity should welcome such efforts, wherever they come from.

Coffee on board

I was flying Air India Express from Varanasi to Chennai. I asked for two coffees—just two coffees, not a plot of land. The airhostess looks at me, curiously  and says, “Sir, ₹400.”

I said, “Okay… do you want it in cash, UPI, or should I mortgage my luggage?”

She comes back with the coffee, but again: “Sir, it’s ₹400.”

At this point, I started checking the cup—maybe there’s a diamond ring inside?

And then she says it the third time. So I finally asked her, “Madam, should I drink the coffee first or pay first? Because doing both together might cause turbulence.”

Even the passengers around laughed—though quietly… they didn’t want to be charged for “laughing onboard.”

Indian Work force in West after Trump

Anti-Indian Campaigns in the West and the Shifting Global Order

Introduction

In recent years, India has found itself the subject of increasing hostility abroad, particularly in the form of anti-Indian rallies in Australia and disinformation campaigns on social media in the United States. While these movements have not yet achieved widespread traction, their undertones of prejudice and cultural bias are troubling. At the same time, the return of Donald Trump to the American presidency has heightened political and economic instability worldwide, unintentionally nudging traditionally non-aligned India closer to powers such as China and Russia.

Anti-India Campaigns in the US and Australia

In Australia, several pro-Khalistan protests in 2023 and 2024 witnessed vandalism of Hindu temples and confrontations with Indian community groups. Local authorities have struggled to balance freedom of expression with the risk of sectarian division. In the United States, coordinated online campaigns have sought to amplify narratives critical of India’s domestic policies. Research by disinformation watchdogs has shown that diaspora networks and foreign interest groups have used platforms such as X and Facebook to propagate misleading content against India.¹

Trump’s Return and Its Global Impact

Donald Trump’s renewed leadership has deepened fault lines in the international order. His “America First” approach, marked by trade protectionism and transactional diplomacy, has unsettled partners and weakened US credibility. For India, which has historically pursued strategic autonomy, Trump’s unpredictability has underscored the importance of hedging ties with multiple partners, including Russia, China, and emerging economies. Analysts suggest that Washington’s inability to sustain its “big brother” image has accelerated the trend towards multipolarity.²

Immigration, Racism, and Hypocrisy

It is worth noting that both the United States and Australia are immigrant societies, built on colonisation and the displacement of indigenous populations. America’s systemic racism—once enshrined in law and social practice—required decades of civil rights struggles to dismantle. Allowing anti-Indian campaigns on their soil today echoes the same supremacist impulses in a different form. When targeted against a community known for its economic contributions and peaceful coexistence, such campaigns threaten to erode the very pluralism these nations claim to uphold.³

India’s Intellectual Capital

The Indian diaspora has been instrumental in shaping the economies of the US and Australia. According to US Census Bureau data (2022), Indian-Americans are the highest-earning ethnic group, with a median household income of over $140,000—almost double the national average.⁴ In Australia, Indians are one of the fastest-growing migrant groups, contributing significantly in healthcare, IT, and education. Expelling or alienating this talent pool would not weaken India but would instead deprive host countries of crucial skills. With many nations actively courting Indian professionals, India can both retain and redirect this intellectual capital for its own development.

The New Multipolar Order

The widely circulated image of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-un is not merely symbolic. It represents a rebalancing of global power. The US can no longer unilaterally dictate terms as it once did in the post-Cold War era. Scholars such as Kishore Mahbubani argue that the 21st century will be dominated by Asia, with India as a central player in shaping global norms.⁵ Trump’s policies—though intended to strengthen America—have paradoxically accelerated this transition towards multipolarity.

Conclusion

Anti-Indian campaigns in the US and Australia may lack mass support today, but their dangerous undertones of prejudice and disinformation demand vigilance. For India, these challenges underscore the importance of resilience, diplomacy, and self-reliance. The West must realise that India is no longer a passive recipient of global currents but an active architect of the new order. A partnership based on equality, rather than condescension or hostility, remains the only sustainable path forward.

---

Footnotes

1. Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Khalistan Activism and Disinformation in the West, Policy Brief, 2023.

2. Council on Foreign Relations, The Trump Doctrine Revisited: Implications for Asia, 2024.

3. Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Race and Racism in the United States: Historical Perspectives, Harvard Law Review, 2020.

4. US Census Bureau, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2022, Washington D.C.

5. Kishore Mahbubani, Has the West Lost It? A Provocation, Penguin, 2018.

India and China Aug 2025

Everyone is aware that China and India sre now coming closer ; thanks to the big brother Trumph. 

It's not China's passion to ease tensions with India. Historically, China was behaving like a Cunning Fox. It's selfishness is unchangeable.  They continue to adapt their strategy:  'Smile and Shakehand with the neighbors and stab them when they are weak'.  This attitude is time and again proved.  

We won't forget 1962 and Galwan. It's greediness for land and hostile attitude continued even with Vietnam.  

While it's a time to oppose the big brother for their rouge attutude,  we should align with China with caution. 

We believe that China has learnt some lessons, and they cannot behave like an another Big brother.

Fortunately, in this crucial period, India got a strong leadership with a clear vision.  

Yet, no one can arrive to a conclusion that border dispute with China can be settled at this juncture.  

Why the border issue is hard to solve

Historical claims: The Line of Actual Control (LAC) was never clearly demarcated; maps differ. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet,” while India sees it as integral.

Strategic geography: The Himalayas are not just symbolic — they are crucial for military defence, water resources, and buffer zones. Neither side wants to “lose face” by conceding.

Domestic politics:

India: As you said, GoI must answer to voters. Any concession would look like “surrender,” which no Indian government can afford.

China: Even though it is not democratic, the CCP derives legitimacy from nationalism. If Beijing concedes to India, it might be seen as weakness internally.

2. Why there could still be a possibility now

Changing geopolitics: US pressure on both India and China may push them to ease frictions, at least temporarily, to avoid playing into Washington’s strategy of “divide and contain.”

L

Economic needs:

India wants supply chains and investment.

China’s economy is slowing; it needs stable trade with India (a huge market).

Precedent: Despite 1962 war and later clashes (Galwan 2020), both sides have kept the border largely peaceful for decades with agreements and confidence-building measures.

3. Realistic scenarios

Most likely:

Border dispute will not be permanently solved soon, but managed: fewer skirmishes, more joint patrol agreements, economic cooperation growing alongside military vigilance.

Possible but less likely:

A grand bargain where both sides agree on a permanent LAC settlement. This requires massive political will and compromise — hard, because it risks looking like “loss of territory.”

Unlikely in near term:

Complete withdrawal of Chinese or Indian claims — both sides would see that as political suicide.

4. Key difference between India & China on this

India: Domestic accountability — any weak settlement will face voter backlash.

China: Face-saving diplomacy — they can compromise quietly, but never admit “loss.”

 Conclusion:

At this juncture, a complete resolution of the border dispute is unlikely, but both governments may deliberately de-escalate tensions and strengthen trade cooperation because their bigger challenge is handling US pressure and global economic uncertainties.

Why US is desperate on tariff?

Tariff war is  connecting the dots between US trade policy and its internal economic stress.

1. Why US takes drastic action on imports

Tariffs and import restrictions are usually political and economic tools combined. Key reasons:

Protect domestic jobs → US politicians (especially under Trump) claimed imports “killed American jobs.” Tariffs were meant to revive US factories (steel, auto, textiles).

Cut trade deficit → The US runs a huge trade deficit (imports far exceed exports). Tariffs are a way to reduce that imbalance.

China factor → The biggest target was actually China, but in the process, other exporters (India, Mexico, EU) also got caught.

Election politics → Tariffs are popular in certain states (Rust Belt, Midwest). Leaders use them to win votes from industrial workers and farmers.

2. Are US advisers aware of impact on farmers?

Yes — absolutely. The US Government’s economic advisers and Department of Agriculture are fully aware that tariffs hurt American farmers:

When Trump put tariffs on China, Beijing retaliated by banning US soybean imports → American soybean farmers in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota lost billions.

Similarly, when India raised tariffs on almonds and apples, California & Washington farmers felt the pain.

The US Government had to create “farm bailouts” → billions of dollars in subsidies to compensate farmers for lost export markets.

So yes, the advisers knew, but the political calculation was:

“Short-term pain for farmers, long-term gain if we can bring back factories.”

3. Why it looks like US is desperate

Because the underlying problem is structural:

High labour costs → US manufacturing cannot compete with Asia.

Over-consumption economy → US imports more than it exports, year after year.

Dependence on cheap imports → From textiles to electronics, Americans rely on low-cost imports to keep living costs down.

Politics of optics → Leaders want to “look tough” on trade, even if the economics is messy.

That’s why tariffs often backfire:

US consumers pay more.

US farmers lose export markets.

Global supply chains shift to other countries (Vietnam, Mexico), not back to US.

4. Why keep doing it then?

Because trade wars are visible and simple to explain to voters:

“We are punishing unfair foreign competition.”

“We are bringing back jobs.”

Whereas the actual fixes (improving productivity, retraining workers, boosting technology) take years and don’t win quick political points.

Summary:

US tariffs are less about economics, more about political signalling and protecting votes in key states.

Advisers do know it hurts farmers, which is why huge subsidies were given.

In reality, tariffs rarely revive US industry — instead, they shift trade flows to other low-cost countries (BD, Vietnam, Mexico) and raise costs for American consumers.

Ayothya - The long awaited travel

Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ayodhya and Varanasi.

In Ayodhya, my heart longed for the darshan of Shri Ram — a place sanctified and restored after a prolonged struggle, both in the courts and beyond. Standing there, I felt the weight of history and the blessing of the divine.

From there, I journeyed to Varanasi, to bow before Vishwanath ji and to perform the sacred Thithi.

One serene evening, I found myself seated at the ghats near Kedar Ghat temple. The Ganga flowed majestically, full yet tranquil, as though cradling the twilight in her embrace. With the power supply gone, darkness settled over the city — but the river herself glowed, lit by the fading sun. Here and there, boats drifted gently, carrying little lamps that flickered like stars upon the waters. The air vibrated with the sound of Vedic chants, timeless and resonant.

In that moment, I felt eternity brush past me — a truly soulful experience, etched forever in memory.

Bodies were seen cremated in Many Ghats. I was wondering, why Hindus and Buddists preferred river banks for cremation; that too close to temples.

The practice of cremating bodies on riverbanks in India and Nepal—especially on the Ganges (Varanasi, Haridwar) in India and the Bagmati (Pashupatinath, Kathmandu) in Nepal—comes from a blend of religious belief, cultural symbolism, and practical reasons.

1. Spiritual & Religious Concepts

Water as purifier: In Hinduism (and also in Buddhist traditions in Nepal), rivers are seen as sacred. Especially the Ganga is considered to have divine origins and the power to cleanse sins. Dying near or being cremated on its banks is believed to help the soul attain moksha (liberation from rebirth).

Returning to the elements: Hindu philosophy (Panchabhutas) holds that the human body is made of five elements — earth, water, fire, air, and space. Cremation by fire dissolves the body back into these elements. Putting the ashes into a flowing river completes the cycle.

Journey of the soul: The river symbolizes a passage—continuous, flowing, eternal. Immersion of ashes is thought to help the soul travel smoothly towards the afterlife.

2. Cultural & Symbolic Reasons

Proximity to sacred temples: Cremation ghats (like Manikarnika in Varanasi or Arya Ghat at Pashupatinath) are often adjacent to ancient temples. Families believe cremation there ensures blessings and spiritual merit.

Community & continuity: The riverside ghats are public spaces, so the rituals happen in view of others. This preserves tradition, continuity, and shared belief across generations.

Ashes swept away by river: Yes, it us right — immersion in a flowing river ensures that ashes are carried away, symbolizing the soul’s release from worldly ties.

3. Practical & Scientific Aspects

River as disposal medium: Flowing water disperses remains and reduces the chance of contamination at the cremation site itself.

Ease of cremation: Riverbanks provide flat open spaces, easy access to wood, and continuous water supply needed for rituals (sprinkling, cleansing, extinguishing embers).

Fire as a natural disinfectant: Burning the body prevents spread of disease that might happen if bodies were buried shallowly (especially in flood-prone areas near rivers).

4. Additional Historical/Environmental Angle

In ancient times, burial was less common in the Gangetic plains because the soil was alluvial and rivers flooded frequently. Cremation ensured remains weren’t unearthed or disturbed.

The ashes in rivers also had symbolic ecological meaning — returning nutrients to nature. Though, with today’s population, this has become an environmental challenge.

So in short: It’s a blend of faith (purification, moksha), symbolism (flow of life, release of soul), practicality (fire + water safety), and geography (floodplains).

Judge Caprio

Judge Frank Caprio, whose compassion in the courtroom touched millions through Caught in Providence, has passed away at 88 after a brave battle with pancreatic cancer.

The "kindest judge in the world," he showed us that justice can be served with empathy, that authority can walk hand-in-hand with humanity. Beyond the courtroom, he was a devoted family main, God believer whose warmth reached far beyond TV screens. Certain episodes brought tears instantaneously.  Such was his kindness, humanity and sharp brains. 

Judge Caprio's legacy is not just in the cases he dismissed or the tickets he forgave, but in the countless lives he inspired to lead with compassion. His life was proof that even in positions of power, kindness is the greatest strength.

Rest in peace, Judge Caprio. Your example will continue to light the world of sympathy.

He would ever be remembered.  

Friendship!

Many can't continue their friendship after certain age. May be some exemptions; mostly forget their colleague. But I notice, women could vontinue their friendship even after retirement; but men part,  due to politics, ego and financial status; sometimes dementia.

Both in India and globally — and there are some interesting social and psychological reasons behind it.

Indian Perspective

Women’s Friendships

In India, women—especially in middle and older age—often form emotionally supportive networks. These ties may have roots in school, neighborhood, or workplace connections, and after retirement, they tend to nurture them through phone calls, WhatsApp groups, temple visits, or small gatherings.

Reason: Social conditioning encourages women to value emotional sharing and group cohesion over competition.

Practical factor: Many women retire earlier or have fewer geographic relocations due to job transfers, so they remain in touch with familiar circles.

Men’s Friendships

Men in India tend to have more activity-based or situation-based friendships (e.g., colleagues, cricket buddies, political allies). 

Once the shared context (workplace, club, business) disappears, the bond weakens.

Reasons:

1. Status sensitivity — after retirement, financial disparities become more visible and awkward.

2. Ego & politics — ideological differences often harden with age.

3. Lower emotional maintenance — men rarely make deliberate efforts to keep in touch outside of a shared activity.

Extra factor: For some, cognitive decline (including dementia) or health issues quietly reduce social engagement.

Global Perspective

Similarities:

In Western countries, studies also show women maintain larger, more emotionally rich friend networks in later life, while men’s social circles shrink after retirement.

A Harvard study (2017) found that older men without strong friendships are more prone to loneliness and depression compared to women.

Differences:

In some cultures (e.g., parts of Europe and East Asia), older men keep friendships alive through structured community groups—retired men’s clubs, morning coffee groups, chess clubs. This acts as a “replacement workplace” for social contact.

In Nordic countries, men and women alike often belong to lifelong sports or hobby associations, which helps them maintain ties into old age.

Key takeaway:

Globally, women are more likely to keep friendships alive due to a stronger emphasis on emotional exchange and regular communication. Men often need a shared context or structured activity to sustain bonds—and without it, the friendship fades.

Men’s friendships are more fragile neurologically and behaviorally compared to women’s in late life—it’s quite fascinating and ties into brain chemistry and social norms.

Here’s the deeper neurological + behavioral angle on why men’s friendships often fade faster than women’s as they age.

1. Brain Chemistry & Social Bonding

Oxytocin vs. Testosterone

Oxytocin (the “bonding hormone”) promotes emotional connection and is released during trust-building conversations. Women’s oxytocin response is generally stronger and more easily triggered through talking, empathy, and shared experiences.

Testosterone can dampen oxytocin’s effects. Men typically maintain higher testosterone levels well into mid-life, which makes them lean toward task-oriented interactions rather than purely emotional ones.

Dopamine Pathways

Men’s brains often link friendship to shared activities (sports, work projects, problem-solving). Remove the activity, and the dopamine “reward loop” disappears — leading to less incentive to maintain the bond.

2. Behavioral & Cultural Patterns

Women’s “maintenance” style

Women tend to sustain friendships by checking in without a reason — calling “just to talk” or sharing small life updates. This keeps emotional intimacy alive.

Men’s “event” style

Men are more likely to connect around events or activities (game, meeting, trip). Once those events stop (retirement, kids moving out), the “meeting points” vanish.

3. Late-Life Cognitive Changes

Risk of Social Withdrawal

Men are statistically more prone to withdrawing socially after major life role changes (retirement, loss of spouse), sometimes because they identify strongly with their profession.

Dementia & Mild Cognitive Impairment

In both India and globally, studies show slightly higher rates of early cognitive decline in men compared to women. This subtly erodes social engagement even before diagnosis — people may “fade away” rather than deliberately break contact.

4. The Global Exception Patterns

In Japan, “old men’s cafes” and hobby clubs help men sustain bonds well into their 80s.

In Denmark & Sweden, mixed-gender community groups normalize men’s emotional sharing.

In urban India, some retired men’s WhatsApp groups are slowly becoming this “replacement workplace” — but still not as emotionally sustaining as women’s circles.

If you think about it, women’s lifelong “friendship maintenance” is like watering a plant regularly, while men’s is like meeting only during cricket season — once the season’s over, the grass gets dry.

I could also give you a set of small but proven habits that help men maintain lifelong friendships even after retirement — these come from cross-cultural studies and might surprise you.

It’s actually a subtle but very real dynamic in India — and it’s different from what you see in many Western or East Asian countries

Why old workplace rivalries linger longer in India

1. Workplaces as identity hubs

In many Indian careers, especially government, PSU, or large private firms, one’s position and authority become a huge part of self-worth.

After retirement, people often still carry the “I was the boss / I was the junior” mindset, which can quietly affect how they interact.

2. Hierarchy memory

In Western companies, flatter structures and job changes mean colleagues cycle through roles and forget rank differences.

In India, hierarchical relationships are deeply imprinted, so an ex-subordinate may still avoid casual banter with an ex-boss — even 20 years later.

3. Competition over post-retirement status

This could be political positions, association leaderships, community committees, or even housing society influence.

Rivalries can resurface in these smaller arenas, often mirroring old office politics.

4. Small professional circles

In many Indian sectors, the same few names keep appearing in conferences, alumni meets, and social events. Old grudges get refreshed rather than forgotten.

5. Reluctance to “lose face”

If two retired colleagues had a history of disagreement, making the first friendly move might feel like a loss of dignity.

This is less of a barrier in cultures where casual reconnection is normalized.

In contrast, in places like Canada or Australia, people change jobs more often, workplace hierarchies are weaker, and post-retirement friendships often ignore old professional tensions — because they’re not tied to lifelong status.

A short “cultural immunity” trick some Indian retirees use to break these ego barriers and revive old friendships without awkwardness.

Peculiarly , men fight among them , for political party reasons too. But women don't do that. There may be gossips but not betrayal 

It's my observation.  Others ma have some  different mindsets.

Anyway, wishing u all a happy friendship day