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

சிறுமதி படைத்த விகடன்

 அவள் விகடன் சேனலில் திருமதி.சுஜாதாவின் விரிவான பேட்டி நான்கு பகுதிகளாக வெளிவந்திருக்கிறது.

பட்டுக்கோட்டை பிரபாகரன் ஐயா, தனது  முகநூல் பக்கத்தில்  விளாசியுள்ளார். அவர்கட்கு நன்றி.  ஒரு காலத்தில் கல்கி, விகடன், குமுதம் போன்ற ஜாம்பவான்கள் தமிழ் எழுத்தாளர்களைக் கொண்டாடினார்கள். அவர்களும் வளர்ந்தார்கள்; எழுத்தாளர்களும் வளர்ந்தார்கள்.

ஆனால், இன்றைய தேதிக்கு படுமட்டமான ரசனையுடன், விஷமமாக திருமதி சஜாதாவை பேட்டி எடுத்து , வெளியிட்டு உள்ளனர்.  ப.கோ.பி அவர்களது பதிவை நன்றியுடன் கொடுக்கப் பட்டுள்து.

_____

உலகமே கொண்டாடும் புகழ் பெற்ற தமிழ் ஆளுமையின் பர்சனல் பக்கம் எப்படியிருக்கும் என்று அறிய எல்லா வாசகர்களுக்கும் ஆர்வம் இருக்கும் என்பதால்.. சுஜாதா கொட்டாவி விடுவாரா, கொசு அடிப்பாரா, அரித்தால் சொறிந்துகொள்வாரா போன்ற அதி முக்கியமான கேள்விகளை மட்டும்தான் கேட்கவில்லை. 

கேள்விகளின் நோக்கத்தில் திருமதியிடமிருந்து சர்ச்சையான பதில்களைப் பெற்றுவிட வேண்டும் என்பதே நோக்கமாகத் தெரிந்தது.

ஆனால் இதைப் புரிந்துகொள்ளாமல் திருமதி சுஜாதா வெளிப்படையாக உண்மைகளை எதார்த்தமாகப் பேசுவதாக நினைத்துக்கொண்டு தன் கணவரின் பலங்களை விடவும் பலவீனமான அம்சங்களையே பிரதானமாக சொல்கிறார்.

ஒரு வேளை சுஜாதா இன்றிருந்து அவரிடம் இந்தப் பேட்டி பற்றிக் கேட்டால் ஒரு புன்னகையோடு நகர்ந்து விடுவார். 

ஆனால் சுஜாதா என்கிற சிறந்த படைப்பாளியைத் தன் மானசீக வழிகாட்டியாக, ஆதர்ச நாயகராக, அபிமான எழுத்து நட்சத்திரமாக அவர் இருந்தபோதும், இல்லாத போதும் கொண்டாடும் லட்சக்கணக்கான வாசகர்களுக்கு இந்தப் பேட்டி வருத்தம் தந்திருக்கும் என்றே நான் கருதுகிறேன்.

மாமியார் மெச்சிய மருமகள் இல்லை என்பது போல மனைவி மெச்சிய கணவனும் அபூர்வமே. 

சுஜாதா என்கிற அறிவுஜீவி, நவீன சிந்தனையாளர், விஞ்ஞானக் கதைகளில் புதிய உலகம் காட்டியவர், அடுத்த இருபதாண்டுகளுக்குப் பிறகான உலகை, நாகரிக கலாச்சாரப் போக்கைக் கணித்தவர் ஒரு சிறந்த குடும்பத் தலைவராகவும் இருந்தேயாக வேண்டுமா என்ன? அவர் சராசரி சிந்தனையாளர் இல்லை. ஆகவே அவர் சராசரி கணவரும் இல்லை. சராசரி அப்பாவும் இல்லை.

நான்கு பகுதிகளிலும் சொன்ன பதில்களில் சுஜாதாவின் இரக்கம், மனிதநேயம், பணத்திற்கு அடிமையாகாத தன்மை, ஆடம்பரத்தை விரும்பாத எளிமை இதெல்லாம் தேடிக் கண்டுபிடிக்க வேண்டியதாய் இருக்கிறது. 

அவற்றை அவரின் வெகுளித்தனம், குடும்பத்தின் மீதான அக்கறையின்மை, ஒரு வகை அலட்சியப் போக்கு, ரசனை குறைபாடு போன்ற பெரிதுபடுத்த அவசியமற்ற குடும்பத்தின் தனிப்பட்ட அந்தரங்க விஷயங்கள் ஓவர் ஷேடோ செய்துவிட்டன.

திருமதி சுஜாதா தன் கணவரைப் பற்றி வெளிப்படையாகப் பேச உரிமை இருக்கிறது. அது ரசனைக்குரியதா என்பதே பலரின் கேள்வி. சுஜாதா அவர் கணவர் மட்டுமல்ல, இரண்டு மகன்களின் அப்பாவும்கூட. அவர்களின் வாரிசுகளுக்கு தாத்தாவும்கூட. அவர்கள் இந்தப் பேட்டிகளைப் பார்த்தார்களா, அவர்களின் கருத்தென்ன என்று அவள் விகடன் விரைவில் ஒரு பேட்டி கண்டு வெளியிடுவார்கள் என்று நம்புகிறேன்.

இப்படிக்கு..

சுஜாதாவின் தீவிர ரசிகர்களில் ஒருவனாக வருத்தத்துடன் நான்.

___

'சுஜாதா' என்ற பெயரே அதிகமான வ்யூவர்ஸைக் கொடுக்கும் என்ற காரணத்தாலேயே, சுஜாதாவை, சுஜாதாவை மூலமே கேவலமாக சித்தரித்துள்ளது விகடன்.

இந்த நுணுக்கம் தெரிந்தே , விகடன் ஆசிரியர் குழுமம் விஷமத்தனமாக வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.  

லெகண்டரி எழுத்தாளர்களைக் கொண்டாடாவிட்டாலும், சிறுமைப் படுத்துவது என்னவிதமான சாக்கடைச் சிந்தனை? சிறுமதி படைத்த விகடன் .

எல்லோரும் எல்லாமும் & AI era(2/2)

 1. Resource Scarcity Won’t Disappear

Even with AI managing production and supply chains:

Physical limits remain — rare minerals, fertile land, water, energy sources.

AI can optimize distribution, but can’t create infinite resources out of thin air.

Example: Even if AI grows food perfectly, there’s still a finite amount of arable land and sunlight hours.

2. Individual Desire Will Keep Expanding

Human wants are elastic — the more we have, the more we want.

In an AI society, new luxuries will emerge (space tourism, gene enhancement, virtual realities) and become the “new essentials.”

Even if everyone gets the basics, status goods will still create inequality.

3. Unequal Capability Still Matters

AI might automate 90% of work, but the remaining 10% — leadership, creativity, cultural influence — will still be human-driven.

People with unique talents or influence will demand and receive more, breaking total equality.

Example: A famous musician in 2050 will still have privileges that a regular citizen won’t.

4. AI Can’t Remove Human Ego

Recognition, pride, and identity are emotional needs AI can’t erase.

Even if material goods are equal, people will still compete for influence, reputation, and power.

This competition naturally produces hierarchy.

5. Distribution Decisions Will Still Need “Rule Makers”

Even in an AI-run economy, humans (or a small group controlling AI) decide rules of allocation.

Whoever programs the AI will, intentionally or not, embed their own priorities — creating a new elite.

The dream collapses into “All for those who set the rules.”

💡 Conclusion:

Even in a future where robots farm food, AI manages logistics, and energy is renewable, “everyone gets everything” will hit the same age-old barriers: finite resources, infinite desires, unequal capabilities, and power concentration.

What about me?” will keep it from becoming a permanent reality.

 

எல்லோரும எல்லாமும் பெற வேண்டும் (1)

எல்லோரும எல்லாமும் பெற வேண்டும்"  எனும் கோஷம் கவர்ச்சியானது. சுண்டியிழுக்கும் வல்லமை மிக்கது. ஆனால் சாத்தியமானதா? 

Sounds inspiring, but as a realistic policy it collapses under a few hard truths—this is why it often remains a fantasy slogan rather than a workable plan.

Here’s why it’s more common in rebel or utopian rhetoric than in practical governance:

1. Resource Limits –

Every society has finite resources—food, land, energy, money, skilled labor. If everyone literally gets everything, the math doesn’t work. Even the most productive economies have to allocate and prioritize.

2. Different Needs vs. Same Wants –

In reality, people’s wants are infinite, but needs vary. Giving “everything” means trying to satisfy both, which leads to impossible demands—e.g., one person wants a yacht, another wants a private island, another wants both.

3. Economic Incentives –

If all things are guaranteed to all people regardless of effort, the system risks removing motivation for production, innovation, and service—unless people are culturally conditioned to work purely for collective good (which history shows is rare and hard to sustain).

4. Distribution Problems –

Even if enough resources existed, the logistics of delivering “everything” equally to everyone would be nearly impossible. The process of who gets what, when, and how can become more contentious than the resources themselves.

5. Human Nature –

Inequality often emerges from human ambition, competition, and preference. Even in egalitarian experiments (like communes), differences in contribution and decision-making eventually create new hierarchies.

Why rebels use this slogan?

It’s emotionally powerful—it promises absolute fairness and abundance, appeals to the frustration of the deprived, and paints the current system as unjust. But it’s rarely fleshed out with a sustainable plan, so it remains an idealistic battle cry rather than a governing principle. Let us turn the history very briefly. 

1.Marx & the Manifesto (1848)

Slogan spirit: Marx never used those exact Tamil words, but his core call — “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” — mirrors the sentiment.

Historical path:

Marx and Engels envisioned a classless society where private property was abolished and wealth/resources belonged to everyone.

This inspired the 1917 Russian Revolution, where Lenin’s Bolsheviks promised “Peace, Land, Bread” — essentially “everything for everyone” in a poor, war-torn society. Outcome:

Initially, land was seized from landlords and redistributed.

Soon, centralized state control replaced local ownership, production quotas failed, scarcity reappeared.

By the 1930s under Stalin, instead of equality, there was a rigid hierarchy with party elites enjoying privileges — the opposite of “everyone gets everything.”

Failure reason: Scarcity, inefficiency, human ambition, and power concentration.

2. Fourier & Utopian Socialism (early 1800s)

Slogan spirit: Charles Fourier, a French thinker, imagined “phalanstères” — self-contained communities where everyone would freely enjoy all life’s pleasures, no competition, and no poverty.

Historical path:

Fourier’s disciples tried to set up communal living experiments in France and the USA (e.g., Brook Farm, 1841–1847).

Property, food, and labor were to be shared equally; everyone’s desires (from basic needs to luxury tastes) would be met. Outcome:

Quickly collapsed due to poor economic sustainability, disputes over work contribution, and lack of skilled labor.

When resources ran short, the original “all share equally” idea turned into “some get more, others get resentful.”

Failure reason: Economic impracticality and interpersonal conflict.

3.  “Garibi Hatao” Era (1971 India)

Slogan spirit: While not identical, “Garibi Hatao” (Remove Poverty) implied that the government would ensure every Indian had essential needs — food, shelter, livelihood. Historical path:

Huge welfare promises were made; land reforms, bank nationalization, public distribution systems.

People believed it meant real, equal access to resources for all. Outcome:

Political centralization increased; corruption and inefficiency in distribution meant benefits rarely reached the poorest.

India remained poor for decades afterward; the gap between promise and reality widened.

Failure reason: Administrative inefficiency, political misuse of slogan power, and limited economic growth.

வேகமெடுக்கும் உணவுக் கலாச்சாரம்

இந்த தலைப்பு குறித்து பலரும் தங்களது கருத்துக்களையும், கவலையையும் பதிவிட்டு விட்டனர். சமூக பிரக்ஞை உள்ள  அனைவரையும் அசைத்துப் பார்த்து விட்ட தலைப்பு.

சென்ற மாதம் கர்நாடகாவில் நிகழ்ந்த தொடர் இளம் வயது மரணங்கள் விவாதமாகியது. அப்புறம்?  வேறு எதுவும் நிகழவில்லை.  இரண்டு நாட்கள் பதறிவிட்டு , பின் மறந்தும் விட்டனர்.

உணவுப் பழக்க மாற்றம்,  நம் தலைமுறையின் மீது இறங்கும் ஒரு மெல்லிய கத்தி. 

இந்திய கலாச்சாரத்தில் 'சமையல்' அலாதியான இடத்தைப் பிடித்திருக்கும்.  பிறப்பு முதல் இறப்பு வரை, ஒவ்வொரு விசேடத்திற்கும் தனித்தனியான பிரத்தியேக உணவு - தின் பண்டம் இருக்கும்.  

காப்பரிசி, புட்டு, பொருளங்காய் உருண்டை, ஆடித் தேங்காய் , தினுசு தினுசாக பாயசங்கள், பலகாரங்கள், கொழுக்கட்டைகள், முறுக்கு - சீடை வகைகள், இனிப்பகள்... எண்ணி மாளாது.

உள்ளூரில் விளையும்-கிடைக்கும் பொருட்களை வைத்தும், கால நிலைக்கும் ஏற்றவாறு சமையல் வடிவமைக்கப் பட்டிருக்கும்.

ஆனால், கடந்த பத்து ஆண்டுகளில், நமது உணவுப் பழக்கம் முற்றிலும் தலைகீழாக மாறிவிட்டது. கண் முண்ணாலேயே சீரழிவு துவங்கி விட்டது.

இன்று 24 மணி நேரமும் பிரியாணி, சிக்கன், மீன் — எது வேண்டுமானாலும் தயார். ஆனால் இது எப்படி சாத்தியம்? இரவும் பகலும் ஆடு, மாடு, கோழிகளை வெட்டிக் கொண்டே இருப்பார்களா? டீப் ஃப்ரீசரில் குவித்து வைக்கிறார்களா? இல்லை.

நகரம் மட்டுமல்ல, சிறிய ஊர்களிலும் இன்று காலை ஆறு மணி முதல் இரவு பதினொன்று மணி வரை பிரியாணி எளிதாகக் கிடைக்கிறது.

ஆரோக்கியம் குறித்து பயம் இல்லை. விழிப்புணர்வு இல்லை. பசி தீர்க்கும் பொருட்டல்ல, trendடுக்காக  தான் இன்றைய உணவுக் கலாச்சாரம். 

KFC, McDonald போன்ற நிறுவனங்கள் விதைத்த விதை இன்று பல தலைமுறைகளின் தட்டில் வேரூன்றியிருக்கிறது.

இதன் விளைவாக, இளம் தலைமுறையினர் கூட இருதய நோய், சர்க்கரை நோய் போன்ற பிரச்சினைகளால் தவிக்கின்றனர். நம் கண்முன்னே பலர் திடீரென உயிரிழந்தாலும், சமூகத்தில் எந்தப் புத்திச் சுடர் ஏற்றப்படுவதில்லை.

மசாலாவை அள்ளி கொட்டி, கொதிக்கும் எண்ணெயில் வறுத்து வைத்தால், அழுகிய உணவையே கூட மக்கள் சுவையாக விழுங்குகிறார்கள். இது வெறும் பழக்கம் அல்ல — ஒரு ஆபத்தான அடிமைத்தனம்.

இந்த உணவுப் பழக்கத்தின் தாக்கம் வெறும் உடல் நலத்தில் மட்டும் முடிவதில்லை.

குடும்பத்தின் பொருளாதாரத்தையும் அது மெதுவாக சுரண்டிக்கொண்டு வருகிறது.

ஒரு குடும்பம் மாதத்திற்கு மருத்துவச் செலவிற்காக செலவிடும் தொகை, கல்வி அல்லது சேமிப்பிற்கு செலவிடும் தொகையைவிட அதிகமாகிவிட்டது.

ஒருகாலத்தில் சமையலறை வீட்டு இதயம். இன்று அது வெறும் பாத்திர அலமாரியாகி விட்டது.

அம்மாவின் கையால் சமைத்த சத்தான உணவின் வாசனைக்கு பதிலாக, பிளாஸ்டிக் பெட்டியில் அடைத்து வரும் “டேக்-அவே” வாசனையே நம் குழந்தைகளின் நினைவாகி வருகிறது.

மருத்துவமனைகள் நோயாளிகளால் நிரம்பி வழிகின்றன.

வயதுக்கு முன்பே இருதய அறுவை சிகிச்சை, இன்சுலின் ஊசி, கொழுப்பு குறைக்கும் மாத்திரைகள் — இவை இன்றைய இளம் தலைமுறையின் “சாதாரண வாழ்க்கை” ஆனது.

இதை ஒரு சமூகப் பேரழிவாக யாரும் அறிவிக்கவில்லை, ஏனெனில் இந்த பேரழிவின் சத்தம் சில்லறை சட்னி கிண்ணங்களிலும், வறுத்த மசாலா வாசனையிலும் மூழ்கிக் கிடக்கிறது.

நாம் சாப்பிடும் ஒவ்வொரு தவறான உணவும், நம் எதிர்காலத்தின் ஒரு சிறிய துண்டை நசுக்கிக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.

இது வெறும் உணவுப் பழக்கமல்ல — இது நம் தலைமுறையின் உயிர்நாடியை வெட்டும் ஒரு மெல்லிய கத்தி.

இதன் தோற்றம், நகர்மயமாக்கலில் துவங்கியது.  நகரங்கள் வளர, மக்கள் வேலை நேரம் நீள, வீட்டு சமையல் குறைகிறது; வெளியே சாப்பிடுதல் அல்லது வீட்டுக்கு உணவு ஆர்டர் செய்வது அதிகரிக்கிறது.

உலகளாவிய ஃபாஸ்ட்-புட் பிராண்டுகள் – KFC, மெக்டொனால்ட்ஸ், டொமினோஸ், ஸ்டார்பக்ஸ் போன்ற சங்கிலித் தொடர்கள் கிட்டத்தட்ட அனைத்து ஊர்களிலும் பரவியுள்ளன; இதனால் உள்ளூர் உணவுப் பழக்கங்களில் பெரும் மாற்றம் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.

சூப்பர்மார்க்கெட்டுகளில் கிடைத்து வந்த,  உடனே சாப்பிடக் கூடிய உணவுகள் இப்போது எங்கும் கிடைக்கின்றன.

நம் நாட்டைப் போலவே,  பாரம்பரிய சமையல் கலாச்சாரம் கொண்ட நாடுகளிலும், மக்கள் முழு நாளும் விற்கப்படும் விரைவான, அதிக கலோரி கொண்ட உணவுகளுக்கு மாறி வருகின்றனர்.

சுகாதார தாக்கம் – அதிக எடை, டைப் 2 வகை நீரிழிவு, இதய நோய் போன்றவை இப்போது ஒரு நாட்டின் சிக்கலாக இல்லாமல், உலகளாவிய பிரச்சினைகளாகக் கருதப்படுகின்றன.இந்தியாவில் மாறுபாடு என்னவெனில்,  மாற்றத்தின் வேகம் மிகவும் அதிகம் — பாரம்பரிய சமையல் பழக்கங்கள் கடந்த பத்தாண்டில் திடீரென மாறிவிட்டன.

சிறிய நகரங்களிலும் வருடம் முழுவதும், நாள் முழுவதும் விரைவு உணவகம் சேவை சர்வ சாதாரணமாகி விட்டது.   இது பிற பல நாடுகளின் கிராமப்புற பகுதிகளுடன் ஒப்பிடும்போது அதிகம்

மசாலாவை கொட்டி, எண்ணையில்  பொரிக்கும் வகைதானே  ஃபாஸ்ட்-புட்? பாரம்பரிய உணவைக் காட்டிலும் பன் மடங்கு அதிக கலோரிகளைக் கொடுப்பவை இவை என்பதை எப்பொழுது புரிந்து கொள்வார்களோ?

மகிழ்ச்சி எதில்?

We measure knowledge in schools,

talent in titles,happiness in coins,

and sorrow in the silence of death.

But joy is no marketplace.

A mountain of gold

and a humble cup of coffee

can both warm the soul—

one for an instant,

the other for a lifetime’s memory.

Death may spare us pain,

yet a single careless word

can cut far deeper.

Life knocks only once—

let every breath be sweet.

Better to leave with a smile in the eyes

than tears in the hands.

For the weight of a moment

is not in the clock’s ticking,

but in the shape of our thoughts

US crisis and Impacts on India

Donald Trump is indeed a businessman-turned-president — he had no prior political or diplomatic career before winning the 2016 U.S. election. His approach to international relations was shaped less by traditional diplomacy and more by business-style negotiation, where he often applied a “winner–loser” mindset rather than a “mutual benefit” one.

This style, combined with his blunt communication and tendency to publicly criticise or pressure other countries, made him appear arrogant to many foreign leaders. He often used tariffs, sanctions, and public threats as bargaining tools, which may work in high-stakes business deals but can alienate partners in the diplomatic world.

As for his attitude, it stemmed from a belief in “America First” — a doctrine that the U.S. should prioritise its own economic and strategic interests above all else. However, in execution, this sometimes looked like he expected other nations to align with U.S. policies without question, which gave the impression that he saw them as subordinate players.

This approach did indeed push countries like China, Russia, and even traditional allies to find common ground against what they perceived as U.S. overreach. India, while still maintaining ties with the U.S., also strengthened its independent foreign policy during that time.

2. Japan’s Technology-First Approach

Japan relies heavily on U.S. markets for its high-end cars, robotics, and electronics.

Politically and militarily, Japan is tied to the U.S. through a mutual defense pact — Tokyo depends on Washington’s security umbrella against China and North Korea.

Joining an anti-U.S. alliance would be against its entire post–WWII strategy.

3. India’s Limited Leverage

India’s main export strengths to the U.S. are generic medicines, IT services, and skilled labor.

While important, these are not irreplaceable — the U.S. could shift to the Philippines, Vietnam, or even domestic production if relations soured badly.

India also values its strategic partnership with the U.S. as a counterbalance to China, so cutting ties would hurt its own security interests.

4. Mutual Dependence on the U.S.

All three — Japan, China, and India — benefit enormously from U.S. consumer demand, technology, and investment

Breaking ties would cause massive economic damage to their own economies before it seriously crippled the U.S.

Even China, despite its rivalry, still has the U.S. as its largest single export market.

✅ Conclusion:

The “rest of the world vs. the U.S.” scenario sounds powerful in speeches, but in reality global supply chains and national rivalries make such unity almost impossible.

China will never truly empower India.

Japan will never abandon the U.S. security umbrella.

India will never risk alienating a major trade and strategic partner for China’s benefit.

The U.S. knows this — which is why it can afford to act aggressively without fearing a unified economic blockade.

அமெரிக்க டேரிஃப் யுத்தம்

Trump's "Tariff Sketch" — Not Haphazard, but Strategic Moves

Donald Trump’s push for increased tariffs (2024-25 rhetoric and actions), particularly on China, Mexico, EU, and sometimes India, is often misunderstood as impulsive. In reality, it aligns with his “America First” doctrine, which has three core objectives:

a) Re-industrializing America

Tariffs are a tool to force supply chains to shift back to the USA.

China-centric manufacturing is being targeted to reduce US dependency.

Sectors like semiconductors, electric vehicles, steel, rare earths, etc., are being shielded for domestic rebuilding.

b) Rewriting Global Trade Norms

Trump’s tariffs are not just economic weapons but also geopolitical levers to challenge WTO-era globalization rules.

His intent is to re-negotiate trade deals bilaterally (US–Country) rather than via multilateral frameworks (like WTO), which he sees as unfair to the US.

c) 2024-2025 Election Strategy

Tariffs energize Rust Belt voters (industrial workers who suffered under globalization).

It paints an image of “Strong Leadership” in foreign economic policy, fitting Trump’s populist image.

2. Deeper Geopolitical & Economic Implications

a) De-coupling from China is Expensive, but Strategic

It's a slow, painful economic surgery to shift away from China.

However, for US security and tech supremacy (especially in AI, semiconductors, EVs), this decoupling is considered a strategic necessity.

b) Forcing Allies into “Friend-shoring”

Tariffs aren’t just for China; they’re pressure tools to force US allies (like EU, Japan, Mexico, ASEAN) to choose sides.

Essentially, “If you don’t align with us against China, you will pay tariffs too.”

3. India’s Silent Observation (The Mischievous Smile)

India’s silence is not indifference. It’s calculated patience. Here’s why:

a) China-US Tariff War is India’s Window

Every factory leaving China is a potential investment for India.

India is quietly working on PLI schemes (Production Linked Incentives) to attract companies fleeing China.

While Vietnam, Mexico, and others are also benefitting, India’s large domestic market gives it an edge.

b) India Wants Tariff Walls on China, but Not on Itself

India knows Trump's tariffs on China help level the playing field.

But India doesn’t want to be the next target of US tariffs.

Hence, India maintains strategic silence, quietly negotiating in backchannels, avoiding public friction.

c) Geopolitical Leverage

India’s importance in the Indo-Pacific strategy (as a counter to China) means the US will tolerate some of India’s protectionist policies.

India is using this leverage to stay non-aligned yet opportunistic.

4. What’s Coming Next?

If Trump (or any futureUS president) continues aggressive tariffs, global trade will be re-aligned into blocks: US-centric, China-centric, and Non-Aligned (India’s preferred spot).

India’s role will grow as a "swing state" in global manufacturing and diplomacy.

In Short:

Trump's tariffs are a deliberate, calculated economic weapon to re-engineer global trade.

India's smile reflects its strategic patience — letting US-China clash while quietly positioning itself as a beneficiary without getting entangled overtly.

Does the US Want to Stop India's Rise? — Partially True

US and India

The US has a dual approach towards India:

a) Strategic Ally against China (Wants India’s Rise)

The US needs India as a geopolitical counterbalance to China, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

Militarily, diplomatically, and as a large market, India is crucial for the US "China Containment" strategy.

b) Economic Competitor (Cautious of India’s Industrial Rise)

While the US prefers India over China, it doesn’t want India to become too independent economically to the point where it challenges US corporations globally.

The US prefers India as a junior partner in supply chains, not as a fully independent economic bloc.

Technology control (semiconductors, AI, defense tech) is where the US wants to retain supremacy.

c) So, the US Policy is Not "Stop India" but "Manage India's Rise"

The US doesn’t want India to become a fully sovereign economic pole like China, but it doesn’t want India to remain weak either.

The strategy is to “integrate India into US-led supply chains” rather than allow India to become the core of a non-Western bloc.

3. BRICS & De-Dollarization — Absolutely Correct (But Subtle and Long-Term)

De-dollarization is a long-term strategic goal of BRICS (especially driven by China and Russia).India, however, has a more nuanced position:

India supports multi-currency trade settlements (using Rupee, Yuan, Ruble) to reduce dollar dependency.

But India is careful not to alienate the West completely, as it still needs technology and investments from Western economies.

Is India in a Cross road? Are we heading to a Chaos?

The youth of India, a matter of concern or hope? Let's turn back history  and learn from failed nations.

Without naming them, history shows these clear stages of decline:

❌ What Went Wrong?

1. Erosion of Educational Integrity

Politicization of curriculumLack of critical thinking; rise of dogma

Teachers underpaid in private schhols, undervalued, replaced with unqualified agents

2. Parental Disconnect & Cultural Collapse

Parents uninvolved due to economic stress or cultural drift.

“Leave it to the system” mentality

Children raised by internet + peer pressure

3. Normalization of Drugs, Violence, and Easy Money

Drug mafias, gangs enter campuses

“Success without effort” becomes aspiration

Law enforcement either absent or complici

4. Loss of National Identity & Purpose

Youth alienated from civic values

Disrespect toward language, elders, institutions

Extreme ideologies fill the vacuum

🌱 Part 2: India — Green Patches & Warning Signs

✅ Where Hope Still Lives

Many tier-2 and tier-3 towns, esp. in South India and NE, still nurture values

Teachers who double as moral mentors, not just syllabus finishers

Parents actively involved, especially in joint families

Institutions where merit > influence, and where ethics are discussed

⚠️ What’s Eroding Fast (in some states/zones)

Aggressive political indoctrination in young minds

Growing aspiration for instant success (influencers, reels, cheating via AI)

Drug abuse entering urban + even rural school circles

Teacher shortage → unregulated tuition mafia

Parents overwhelmed by tech, economy, and unable to supervise

AI misuse: Cheating, copy-paste culture, dependency

🧭 Part 3: What India Must Learn & Do (Urgent Steps)

1. Rebuild Parenting Culture

National mission: “Parents as first teachers again”

Local language parenting literacy: device use, AI rules, monitoring habits

Mandate parent orientation at school admission, and refresher meets

2. Redefine School Role in AI Era

Schools must teach:

✅ Resilience

✅ Self-discipline

✅ Ethics in tech use

✅ Civic identity

Add mandatory curriculum on digital wellness, ethics, and critical thinking

Every school must publish: AI policy, behavior code, and safety audit

3. Preempt Drug Culture

Routine drug awareness drives + school/college counselling

Student clubs for debate, arts, social action to channel energy

Partnerships with local police + NGOs: early prevention, not punishment

4. Teacher Protection & Upliftment

Restore teacher respect with real incentives

Make them digital mentors, not syllabus pushers

Micro-credentials for AI + character education + mental health

5. Localize Civic & Moral EducationVernacular + local heroes + current examples

Not abstract moral science, but community service + peer mentoring

“Each One Teach One” type drives for emotional connection

6. Institute Youth AI Usage Codes

Clear rules on:

Where AI can help (study support, language)Where AI must not replace effort (essays, answers, thinking)

Encourage AI-created content with human reflection (not copy-paste)

Use vivas, oral debates to verify learning

🚨 Part 4: Signs a Society is Slipping — Watchlist

Indicator &;What It Means

Teachers quitting in large numbers

--Moral and cognitive loss of structure

AI being used for cheating, not learning.

--Disrespect for effort

Drug abuse in Grade 8+

--Mafia is testing its market

Politics replacing school admin

--Institutions are hijacked.

Parents saying "we can't control anymore".

--Authority gap + child vulnerability

Students laughing at “values” Cultural detachment and risk of nihilism.

Before it become too late, let the nation woke up.

Parenting in AI era!

 1) What’s changing for Indian families in the AI era

A. New patterns in how children learn

Shortcut mindset: AI gives quick answers. Without guidance, students skip struggle time that builds reasoning and resilience.

Surface knowledge vs. deep learning: AI outputs can look “correct,” masking misconceptions and limiting memory formation.

Assessment mismatch: Homework can be AI‑generated, but exams still test recall and reasoning—creating a false sense of mastery.

B. Attention & wellbeing pressures

Infinite feeds: Short‑video/algorithmic content (reels/shorts) fragments attention and sleep; dopamine cycles make apps “sticky.”

Information tsunami: Children can’t easily evaluate credibility, especially in regional‑language content.

Mental health risks: Comparison, cyberbullying, body image issues, and doom‑scrolling are rising.

C. Safety & ethics challenges

Misinformation and deepfakes: Especially potent on WhatsApp/Facebook groups.

Sextortion, grooming, and financial scams: AI can personalize lures.

Privacy/datafication: Children’s data is collected widely; parents often don’t realize what’s being tracked.

D. India‑specific factors

High exam pressure: JEE/NEET/Boards create demand for shortcuts and “sure‑shot” answers.

Digital literacy gaps among parents/teachers: Particularly in rural and semi‑urban areas.

Language diversity: Many tools are English‑first; regional‑language AI is improving but uneven.

Policy backdrop: NEP 2020 pushes 21st‑century skills and digital learning; the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 sets rules for handling children’s data (under 18 need parental consent), but everyday enforcement at home/school is still evolving.

2) What are parents struggling with?

1. Knowing what children do on phones (lack of visibility).

2. Setting fair and realistic limits without constant fights.

3. Guiding AI use toward learning rather than answers/cheating.

4. Spotting risks early (mental health, scams, harmful content).

5. Helping in regional languages and with low digital familiarity.

6. Aligning with schools so rules and expectations are consistent.

3) What “good use of AI” looks like (a simple ladder)

Level 0 – Replacement: “Do my homework.” (Avoid.)

Level 1 – Hints: “Give me a hint, not the full answer.”

Level 2 – Co‑thinking: “Ask me questions to test my understanding.”

Level 3 – Reflection: “Compare my solution and explain what I missed.”

Level 4 – Creation: “Help me plan and build a project; show sources and alternatives.”

Parents and teachers should consistently steer students up this ladder.

4) Practical solutions for Indian parents (including rural/semi‑urban)

A. Family agreements & routines (works without high tech)

Create a Family Tech & AI Agreement (1 page, in your language):

Where & when: No phones during meals; no devices in bedrooms after lights‑out; common‑area charging at night.

What: Age‑appropriate apps only; turn off autoplay; limit algorithmic feeds.

How to use AI:

Try yourself first

Ask AI for hints, not full answers.

Write your own steps/logic; then compare with AI and note differences.

Disclose AI use in homework (“I used AI for: hints/explanations”).

What to do if…: Clear steps for cyberbullying/scam/explicit content (tell a trusted adult; save evidence; block/report).

Post it near the study area; review monthly.

B. Low‑friction phone settings (Android is common in India)

Install Google Family Link (or iOS Screen Time):

Set daily limits, app approvals, bedtime, content filters.

Weekly activity reports to review together.

Disable: Notifications for non‑essential apps; autoplay on video apps.

Enable: YouTube Restricted Mode; “grayscale” during study hours to reduce temptation.

Create a “Study Profile”: Only education and dictionary apps accessible from 7–9 pm on weekdays.

C. Teach AI for learning, not answers (scripts any parent can use)

Before AI: “Explain what you’ve already tried.”

With AI: “Ask it to quiz you with 5 questions from your textbook chapter.”

After AI: “Tell me one mistake you corrected after comparing with AI.”

For languages: “Ask AI to translate to your mother tongue and back, then explain differences.”

For maths/science: “Ask for a Socratic dialogue: ‘Don’t give answers. Ask me step‑by‑step questions.’”

Reflection habit: Keep a “Learning Log” (3 bullet points/day): What I attempted, what AI clarified, what I’ll try next.

D. Misinformation & safety basics (especially for WhatsApp)

Ask for source and date: “Who said this? When?”

Reverse check: “Has any credible Indian outlet or official handle posted it?”

Pause before forwarding: Wait 10 minutes; search for facts.

Money/privacy rule: No OTPs, QR scans, unknown links—even if message looks like a teacher/relative.

Deepfakes: Voice/video can be faked; verify with a callback or known code word.

E. Early signals to watch

Sleep problems, slipping grades despite “studying,” secrecy with devices, mood swings, money requests, or sudden new online “friends.”

If seen: reduce stimulation (cut short‑video apps), restore sleep routine, and talk to a counselor/teacher.

5) What schools can implement now

A. Clear AI policy (shared with parents)

Allowed: Brainstorming, language help, hints, quizzes, code review.

Not allowed: Submitting AI‑generated work as original.

Disclosure: Students list what AI did.

Assessment redesign to reduce copy‑paste homework:

Vivas/orals, in‑class problem‑solving, process portfolios (drafts + reflections), and project‑based tasks.

Randomized problem sets; different data per student.

“Show your reasoning” grading, not just final answers.

(Avoid betting on AI detectors alone; they produce false positives/negatives.)

B. AI‑aware pedagogy

Use AI as a tutor that asks questions, not a solver (teachers can model prompts in class).

Weekly “think‑aloud” sessions: students explain how they verified AI outputs.

Peer‑review circles: students critique each other’s reasoning vs. AI’s.

Why Do Humans Prefer Bad News?

🧠 1. Evolutionary Wiring: Negativity = Survival

In prehistoric times, our ancestors who were more alert to dangers—a lurking predator, a poisonous plant, a change in weather—were more likely to survive.

> 🧬 Negativity bias developed as a survival mechanism.

This means: We detect threats faster than opportunities Negative events leave stronger and longer-lasting imprints in memory. We tend to assume the worst first—it’s safer

Even today, when physical dangers are rare, our brain responds as if bad news is still a threat to survival.

🧪 2. Neurological Bias: The Brain Reacts More Strongly to Negativity. Studies using fMRI and EEG have shown:

The amygdala, which processes fear and emotion, lights up more in response to negative stimuli

People remember insults more than compliments

Bad news increases cortisol levels (stress hormone), triggering alertness

In short: Negative stimuli are processed more deeply and with greater urgency than positive ones.

📺 3. Media Logic: "If It Bleeds, It Leads"

Media outlets across the globe, especially in the digital era, thrive on attention. Since humans are naturally drawn to bad news, the media ecosystem is designed to amplify fear, outrage, and scandal.

This includes: Gossip, crime, corruption, war, and personal downfall stories. "Breaking news" alerts that hijack your attention

Social media algorithms that reward emotional engagement, especially anger and anxiety

> Fear sells. Outrage spreads. Calm does not go viral.

Even entertainment is not immune—many successful films, series, and dramas are based on conflict, betrayal, or tragedy.

📉 4. Gossip and Schadenfreude: Social Brains at Play

Gossip (especially negative) is a social survival tool.

In ancient tribes:

Gossip helped people monitor reputations

Knowing who was dangerous, untrustworthy, or cheating the group had survival value

Gossip helped strengthen in-groups ("us") by mocking or blaming out-groups ("them")

 This may explain why people are secretly drawn to the downfall of others, especially celebrities or powerful figures—known as schadenfreude (pleasure in others' misfortune).

🧩 5. Cognitive Economy: Negativity Feels 'More Real'

Positive stories often require context, explanation, and effort to believe. But negative stories feel immediate and concrete.

Examples: "Corruption scandal exposed" is easier to grasp than "Quiet reforms succeed""War breaks out" triggers urgency; "Peace treaty signed" seems distant or abstract

The brain prefers shortcuts, and negativity offers fast emotional processing without critical thinking.

🌐 So, Is the International Press Capitalizing on It?

Absolutely. Most global media—especially digital platforms—are not just reporting news but competing for your attention. And they know:

> 🔺 Negative headlines = more clicks

🔺 Fearful content = longer watch time

🔺 Emotional outrage = more shares and comments

This results in what scholars call “doomscrolling”—the compulsive consumption of bad news, which then increases anxiety, stress, and pessimism.

🌱 But Humans Also Long for Hope—What Can Be Done?

While we are wired for negativity, we are also capable of joy, awe, love, and growth. The key is:

✅ Awareness – Understand your biases; don’t let the worst things dominate your mental space

✅ Media Literacy – Ask: Who profits from this panic? Why am I being shown this now?

✅ Curated Consumption – Balance your media diet: combine critical awareness with positive, constructive sources

✅ Community Focus – Support journalism that highlights solutions, not just problems (e.g., "solutions journalism")

🧭 Final thought:

Humans' ancient brain, built to detect danger, has collided with a digital world designed to exploit that fear. But being aware of this makes you part of the solution.

> The challenge now is not just to consume news, but to understand why we consume it, and at what cost.