Agitations and Governments

Agitations and Governments

In today's society, where social media is always in a hurry to sensationalize the news, public agitations have become an everyday reality. They seem almost impossible to prevent.

From basic demands like clean drinking water and better public transport to larger issues like NEET, people regularly take to the streets seeking justice. Every struggle has its own merits. NEET, for instance, isn't 100% right or 100% wrong—there are compelling arguments on both sides.

When these struggles spill over onto the streets, governments face immense paranoia. They cannot afford to openly take sides. After all, every country has its adversaries. Whether it's deep-state politics or right- and left-wing extremists, opportunistic forces are always waiting for the right moment to strike. They don't care about ethics or justice; their sole goal is to topple the government, and they will hijack any struggle to achieve it.

We have seen this happen in Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh, where rioters overthrew governments. But were their demands ever met? Was a paradise achieved after the fall? No.

Here in India, when the Delhi NEET protest was launched, hostile organizations quickly joined hands and jumped into the fray. Was it to find a solution to the exam issue? No. Their demand was the resignation of ministers. Are students really naïve enough to believe that resignations are a magic wand? No. Fortunately, before this street protest could be fully hijacked by these 'forces,' it subsided—much to the disappointment of social media opportunists who wanted the unrest to spread across the country.

At the same time, pro-government voices can be equally vociferous, demanding to know why the protests weren't simply crushed. These are thoughtless reactions.

History offers precious lessons on how such agitations unfold and how they should be tackled:

Chile: A simple truck drivers' strike was enough to collapse the government.

Europe: Massive protests in Germany and England often fail to alter government stances.

China: The infamous Tiananmen Square protests were ruthlessly crushed.

India: After the Emergency, Jayaprakash Narayan called for nationwide non-cooperation. Yet, Indira Gandhi was ultimately unseated through the electoral process, not through street violence.

Everyone has learned lessons about how to conduct—and manage—these struggles.

Unreasonably high-stakes demands, such as reinstating Article 370, are simply not going to happen. Even if the opposition or political outsiders were to win power, they could not easily override the consensus of the armed forces and the bureaucracy.

Today, the Government of India called the organizers for talks after three days, demonstrating a clear strategy. Instagram-style agitations might win clicks with memes, but they don't hold up in reality. Let the government reach a resolution with them. After all, the agitators' egos are usually satisfied just by having a platform at Jantar Mantar.

Let us hope things move toward a positive outcome.

 

Government Survival

 

Interesting article found in SM

The 8 Structural Requirements for Government Survival

Most conversations about governance focus on who should be in charge. This focuses on what structural properties a government needs to survive regardless of who's in charge.

These aren't ideological positions. They're engineering requirements. A government missing any one of these has a specific, exploitable vulnerability.

---

## 1. Continuous proof of operation

The government must continuously demonstrate that it's functioning. Not periodic elections. Not annual reports. Continuous, visible, verifiable operation. If the proof stops, that itself is the alarm.

**If missing:** The government can be silently captured between verification points. Nobody notices until the next election, review, or crisis.

## 2. Shared fate with citizens

The enforcement mechanism must depend on the same infrastructure as the people it protects. If the enforcer can survive the collapse of everything else, it has no structural incentive to prevent that collapse.

**If missing:** The enforcement class becomes insulated from consequences. They can allow degradation of public systems because it doesn't affect them.

## 3. Continuous verification against founding principles

The government must constantly check its current state against its defined correct state. Not just during crises. Not just when someone files a complaint. Continuously. Automatically.

**If missing:** The government doesn't know what "normal" looks like anymore. Slow drift goes undetected. Norms erode. Principles are violated incrementally. Each step is too small to trigger response, but the cumulative result is total departure from the original design.

## 4. Detection by one triggers response by all

When any branch or institution detects a violation, the detection must propagate to all other branches immediately and automatically. Detection cannot be contained or suppressed within the branch that found it.

**If missing:** Violations are discovered locally and buried locally. Corruption in one branch is invisible to the others. Sequential capture proceeds unchecked because each branch only sees its own compromise.

## 5. Multiple independent mechanisms prevent removal of checks

No single action, no single actor, no single branch can remove a check on power. Removing protections must require coordination across multiple independent trust boundaries that have no structural incentive to cooperate on removal.

**If missing:** The checks are a single point of failure. One sufficiently powerful actor removes the check and then operates freely. The protection existed only as long as nobody tried to remove it.

## 6. Capture is automatically visible

If any institution is captured (i.e., begins operating against its stated purpose), that capture must produce visible signals that cross into independent institutions automatically. Silent capture must be structurally impossible.

**If missing:** Institutions fail silently. The public doesn't know a branch has been captured until the damage is irreversible. Evidence of capture stays within the captured institution.

## 7. New rights integrate naturally

Adding new rights, new protections, or new checks must not require shutting down or reconfiguring the entire government. New protections must be adoptable without coordination from a central authority.

**If missing:** The government can't adapt to new threats. Every new protection requires supermajority consensus, which means it only evolves when there's overwhelming agreement, which means it's always behind the threat curve.

## 8. Constitutional violations trigger automatic response

Response to violations must be pre-committed and automatic. Not "we'll deliberate." Not "we'll investigate." The violation triggers the response. No evaluation gate. No committee. The response is structural, not political.

**If missing:** The response window is exploitable. The violator acts during the deliberation period. The committee debates while the damage propagates. Sequential evaluation cannot keep pace with exponential violation.

---

## The diagnostic

Governments don't fail because of bad people. They fail because of missing properties. Bad people are always present. The question is whether the architecture handles them or not.

For each requirement your government is missing, there is a specific vulnerability that will eventually be exploited. Not theoretically. Predictably.

Count how many your government satisfies. Then look at what's missing. Then ask yourself if you've seen that exact vulnerability exploited recently.

தமிழ் இனி மெல்ல வளரட்டும்.

நன்பர் ஒருவரை, என்ன செய்கிறீர்கள் என வினவ, ஒரு திரைப்படத்தின் பெயரைச் சொல்லி, "மூசிக் செம்மையாக அடிச்சிருக்கான்.. கேட்குக்கிணே, இட்லி சுட்டு தின்னேன்" என்றார்.

இசையை அடிப்பதும் , இட்லியை சுடுவதும் எங்கனம் என வினவ நினைத்தாலும், கேட்க அஞ்சி வாளவிருந்தேன்.

தமிழில் பிரத்தியேகமான வார்த்தைகள் இருக்கின்றன.

தமிழில் சமையல் செய்முறைகளுக்கே தனித்தனி வினைச்சொற்கள் இருந்தன. அவை வெறும் “cook” என்ற பொதுவார்த்தை அல்ல; உணவின் தன்மை, சூடு கொடுக்கும் முறை, நீர்/எண்ணெய் பயன்பாடு, பதம் ஆகியவற்றைக் கொண்டு வினைகள் மாறும்.

இட்லி — அவித்தல் 

தோசை — வார்த்தல்

அடை — தட்டுதல் வார்த்தல்

வடை — பொரித்தல்

அப்பளம் — சுடுதல்

காய்கள் - வதக்குதல்

சோறு வேகவைத்தல்

அல்லது சோறு வடித்தல்.

கஞ்சி — காய்ச்சுதல்

பாகு — காய்ச்சுதல் / பதப்படுத்துதல்

தாளித்தல்,

கிளறுதல் — கேசரி,உப்புமா போன்றவற்றை கிளறுதல்,

மசித்தல் — கிழங்கு போன்றவற்றை மசித்தல்

அரைத்தல்,

பிசைத்தல்,

உருட்டுதல்,  

நொதித்தல் — மாவு புளித்தல்

பொங்குதல் — பால்/சோறு பொங்குதல்

உலர்த்துதல் — வத்தல், வடகம் உலர்த்துதல்

புகையிடுதல் — சில பாரம்பரிய உணவுகளில் புகை காட்டுதல்

சுண்டுதல் — கடலை சுண்டல் செய்தல், சுண்டுமளவு கொதிக்கவிடல்,கிண்டுதல் — களி, கூழ் போன்றவற்றை தொடர்ந்து கிளறிக் கெட்டியாக்குதல்,

துழாவுதல் — சோற்றை துழாவுதல்

தமிழில் ஒரு செயலைப் பார்க்கும் பார்வை மிகத் துல்லியமாக இருக்கும்

“சுடுதல்” என்பது பொதுவாக நெருப்பு/சூடு கொடுப்பதை மட்டுமே குறிக்கும். ஆனால் இப்போது எல்லாவற்றையும் “சுட்டேன்” என்று சொல்லிவிடுவது அந்த நுணுக்கங்களை மங்கச் செய்கிறது.

சரியான சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்தும் பொழுது, மொழியின் சுவையும் செய்முறையின் நுணுக்கமும் காக்கப்படும்.தமிழில் சமையல் மொழி என்பது ஒரு பெரிய பண்பாட்டு களஞ்சியம் தான்.. அதேபோலத்தான் இசைக்கும்.    

கலைகளுக்கும் கருவிகளுக்கும் தனித்தனி வினைச்சொற்கள் இருந்தன.  

வீணையை மீட்டல்

 யாழை இசைத்தல்

(“யாழ் மீட்டல்” என்றும் வரும்; ஆனால் “யாழ் இசைத்தல்”தமிழ் நயம் உடையத

மிருதங்கம் வாசித்தல் வழக்கில் வந்தது.

குரலால் பாடுதல்

ஒத்து ஊதுதல்

புல்லாங்குழல் ஊதுதல்

நாதஸ்வரம் வாசித்தல் / ஊதுதல்

மணி அடித்தல்

பறை அறைத்தல்

தவில் கொட்டுதல்

சங்கு ஊதுதல்

கம்பி இழுத்தல் (சில நாட்டுப்புற இசை வழக்குகள்)

சிலம்பம் சுழற்றுதல்

கரகம் ஆடுதல்

கூத்து ஆடுதல்/கட்டுதல்.

இப்போது “music play பண்ணு”, “டிரம் அடிச்சேன்”, “song போட்டேன்” போன்ற பொதுவழக்குகள் அதிகமாகிவிட்டன. அதனால் செயலின் தன்மையும், கருவியின் அடையாளமும், மொழியின் நயமும் மங்குகிறது.

தமிழின் சிறப்பு என்னவென்றால்: ஒரு செயலை மட்டும் சொல்லாது —அது எப்படி செய்யப்படுகிறது என்பதையும் சொல்லும்.

இது தமிழின் தொழிலறிவு சார்ந்த செறிவு.

விவசாயம், சமையல், இசை, கைவினை — எல்லாவற்றிலும் இப்படிப் பட்ட துல்லிய வினைச்சொற்கள் இருந்தன.

மொழி என்பது வெறும் தொடர்பு கருவி மட்டும் அல்ல;ஒரு சமூகத்தின் அனுபவ அறிவு சேமிப்பகமும் கூட.

அரசியல் பரிணாமம்!

இளமைக் காலங்களில், இடது சாரி சித்தாந்தங்களினால் ஈர்க்கப்படாதவர்கள் இருக்க முடியாது. 'இழக்க அடிமைச் சங்கலிகள், பெறுவதற்கு பொற்காலம்' என்றால் யார்தான் மயங்க மாட்டார்கள்?

மெல்ல மெல்ல, கண்ணோட்டம் மாறிப்போய் விட்டது.

கொள்கை மோதல் மறக்கடிக்கப் பட்டு, ஈர்ப்பு அரசியலுக்குள் தள்ளப் பட்டு விட்டனர்.

“எது சரி? யார் சரி?” என்ற மோதல் தேவை இல்லை! 

யார் மக்கள் மனதில் பிம்பத்தை உருவாக்க முடியும் என்றாகிவிட்டது. 

சித்தாந்த வேறுபாடு தேவையற்றது என்பது விநோதம். 

நடப்பது சூழ்நிலைக்கேற்ப நடக்கும் வணிக அரசியல்.

தலைவர்கள் பிம்பங்களே (Brands).; கட்சிகள் இயக்கங்கள் அல்ல, மற்றும் ஒரு மேடை (Platforms); 

தொண்டர்கள் உறுப்பினர்கள் அல்ல; லைக்கர்கள் (like); மக்கள், வாக்காளர்கள் அல்ல, ட்ரெண்ட் ஃபாலோயர்கள்.

அவர்களின் சிந்தனையைத் தூண்டும் அவசியமே இல்லை.

Data க்களும் AI க்களும் மக்களை, வடிவமைத்து உணர்ச்சியமாக்கு கின்றன. .

ஒரு வணிக நிறுவனம் சந்தையை கைப்பற்ற திட்டமிடுவது போல,

இன்றைய கட்சிகள் தரவு சேகரிப்பு,

 உணர்ச்சி தூண்டல், (Emotional Targeting), மனப்பிம்ப உருவாக்கம் (Perception Building), போக்கு இயக்கம் (Trend Engineering), , கேலிச்சித்திர உளவியல் (Meme Psychology), (Image Calibration செய்கின்றனர் .

யார் உண்மையை பேசுகிறார்கள் என்பது லட்சியமே அல்ல. மக்களின் மன ஓட்டத்தை கட்டுப்படுத்தினாலே போதும்.  

இவை, ஜனநாயகத்தின் புதிய வடிவமோ, பரிணாமமோ அல்ல; 

இணையக் உளவியல் ஆட்சி (Digital Era Psychological Governance) மட்டுமே!

முரண்பாடுடைை சித்தாந்திகள், சண்டையிட வேண்டாம்.

கட்டிப் புரண்டு இசைந்து போகிறார்கள். Courtesy வேறு; நீர்த்துப் போதல் வேறு.

Mother's day

 நீரின்றியும் பெற்றோரின்றியும் உலகு அமைவதில்லை!!

அம்மாக்கள் லெக்சர்கள் கொடுப்பதில்லை;

அனுசரணையான போலி வார்த்தைகள் பேசுவதில்லை.

வாரிசுகள் பற்றி கர்வம் கொள்வதுமில்லை.

எல்லா உயர்விற்கும் காரணமாக இருப்பார்கள்;

ஆனாலும் அமைதியானவர்கள்.

கலங்கரை விளக்குகள் வழிகாட்டும்;

தனக்குத்தானே வெளிச்சம் அடித்துக் கொள்வதில்லை!

“ஈன்ற பொழுதிற் பெரிதுவக்கும்”

அந்த அன்னையர்க்கு

 நல்வாழ்த்துகள்!

பிறருக்கு இன்னா செய்யாமை..

 Why Do People Hurt Others? A Practical Reflection

All great teachers and moral traditions advise one simple principle: do not cause harm to others. Yet, in everyday life, people continue to hurt one another. This is not because human beings consciously decide, “Let me harm others.” In fact, most people do not take such a pledge. Still, harm happens—again and again.

If we observe closely, we will notice an important pattern:

A person usually hurts others only under certain conditions.

These conditions are quite common:

When one’s ego is hurt

When one feels insulted, whether in public or in private

When one suffers loss, or even fears a possible loss in business or career

When greed takes control

When a person gains power and wealth, and expects unquestioned obedience

When emotions are deeply involved, especially in matters related to relationships

Even in our traditional stories, we see that sages—people of great discipline—sometimes lost their temper and cursed others. Later, they would calm down and show a path for redemption. This shows that emotional disturbance is a human tendency, not limited to ordinary people alone.

If this is the reality, then a question arises:

Apart from police, courts, and government systems, what practical ways can help maintain discipline in society?

Moral advice alone is not sufficient. What we need are practical mechanisms within individuals and communities.

First, self-awareness is essential. A person must learn to recognise when anger, ego, or fear is taking control. Even a small pause before reacting can prevent harm.

Second, social accountability plays a major role. When a person is part of a circle—family, friends, or community—that questions and guides behaviour, there is a natural restraint.

Third, reputation and self-respect act as silent regulators. People behave better when they value their integrity and the respect of others.

Fourth, ego and ambition must be channelled, not suppressed. The desire to excel should be directed towards personal growth, not domination over others.

Fifth, many harmful actions arise from insecurity and fear of loss. A person who feels secure—financially and emotionally—is less likely to act unfairly.

Sixth, handling power responsibly is critical. Power without feedback or checks often leads to misuse. Even small systems of accountability can make a difference.

Seventh, there is a need for emotional education. People are rarely taught how to deal with insult, rejection, or anger. Without such skills, reactions become impulsive and harmful.

Eighth, discipline must become a habit. It is built not in big moments, but in everyday actions—honesty, respect, and responsibility in small matters.

Finally, the strongest control is an internal moral compass:

the ability to do what is right even when no one is watching.

In conclusion, people do not harm others by default. Harm occurs when emotions override thinking, ego overrides empathy, and fear overrides fairness. Therefore, the solution lies not only in external control, but in building inner discipline and supportive social structures.

Only then can the simple advice—“do not hurt others”—become a living reality

கட்சி ஜுரம்

திரு பட்டுக்கோட்டை பிரபாகரன் அவர்கள், ககிப்புத் தன்மை குறித்து தன்  கவலையைத் தெரிவித்திருந்தார். 

அலுவலகத்தி்ல், கட்சி நிலைபாடுகள், தனி நபர்களின்  நட்புகளைப் பாதிப்பது சகஜமாகிப் போயிருந்தது.

ஓய்வு பெற்ற பின்னரும் கூட அரசியலிலோ, நட்பிலோ, குடும்பத்திலோ மாற்றுக் கருத்து என்று எதையுமே வெளிப்படுத்த இயலாத ஒரு சகிப்புத்தன்மை குறைந்த மனநிலை நிலவுகிறது.

ஒரு பொருளுக்கே பல நூறு  கோணங்கள் சாத்தியப்படும் பொழுது, ஒரு கட்சியின்  கருத்துக்கு,  பல மாற்றுக் கருத்துக்கள் இருக்கத்தானே செய்யும்? 

ஒருவரின் ஒரு கருத்துக்கு மாற்றுக் கருத்தை அவரிடம் வெளிப்படுத்தும்போது, அந்த நபரின் மீதான எதிர் வினையாகவோ, விமரிசனமாகவோ எடுத்துக் கொள்வது நியாயமற்றது. 

குறிப்பிட்ட ஒரு கருத்தோடு மட்டுமே முரண்படுகிறேன் என்கிற நிலைப்பாட்டை புரியவைக்க முடியாமல் போகிறது; அல்லது மாற்றுக் கருத்து புரிந்தாலும் அதை ஏற்பது கெளரவ இழுக்கு போல  எடுத்துக் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது.

விளைவு, ஒரு நல்ல உறவில் கூட விரிசல் ஏற்பட்டு பலவீனமடைகிறது.

இனி, மாற்றுக் கருத்து தோன்றினாலும் அதை வெளிப்படுத்தாமல் தலையாட்டி பொம்மை போல ஆட்டிவிடுவதுதான் எந்தக் காயமும் படாமல் உறவைக் காப்பாற்றிக் கொள்ளும் வழியோ என்றும் தோன்றுகிறது.

நம் நிஜமான உணர்வை வெளிப்படுத்த வாய்ப்பில்லாமல் அமைதி காத்து,  அப்படி ஏன் அந்த உறவைக் காப்பாற்றியாக வேண்டியிருக்கிறது என்ற கேள்வியைத் தவிர்க்க இயலவில்லை. 

கட்சி அரசியல் இவ்வளவு வன்மம், குரோதம், வெறுப்பு, ஆவேசம் ஆகியவற்றை வளர்க்க இயலுகிறது  என்பது விநோதம்.

மாற்றுக் கருத்தை விவாதிக்க வேண்டாம்; குறைந்த பட்சம் வெளிப்படுத்தவாவது  செய்யலாமா என்றால், அதுவும் சாத்தியமில்லாத காலம் இது.

நமக்கு நாமே பேசிக் கொள்ளலாம்; சப்தமில்லாமல்.   

இல்லாவிடில், எங்கேயாவது நமது கருத்தை எழுதி, for me only என போட்டு வைக்கலாம்.

முக நூலில் ஏதாவது முரணான கருத்தை எழுதிவிட்டால், எங்கிருந்து அவ்வளவு ஆக்ரோஷம் வருமோ தெரியாது! பிய்த்து பிராண்டி வைப்பார்கள். 

இத்தனை வருட பழக்கம் என்பது சட்டென மாறி வன்மமே மேலிடும்.

முக நூல் நட்பு என்பதே  கட்சி சார்பாக மாறிப் போனது. 

பிரபலங்கள் கூட கமெண்ட் செக்ஷனை ஆஃப் செய்ய வைத்ததுதான்,  சகிப்புத் தன்மையின் வெளிப்பாடு. 

விதிவிலக்காக கொஞ்சம் இருக்கக் கூடும்.

Deep politics காரர்கள், இப்படி ஒரு பிளவைத்தான் விதைக்க எண்ண இருப்பார்கள்.  

கட்சி பேதம், மத, இன பேதம்  எங்கும்  நீக்கமற ஏற்பட்டு விட்டது.  

அழைப்பிதழ்கள் கூட, எதிர் காலத்தில் இப்படி மாறி விடுமோ என்னவோ? 

மக்களை சந்தே கண்ணோடு பார்க்க வைத்தது, சற்று அச்சத்துடனேயே வாழ வைத்தது,   ஒத்த கருத்துடையவர்களோடு மட்டும் பாது காப்பாக உணர வைப்பது நடைமுறையில் நிகழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறது.

Unheard Additions

Certain addictions are relatively uncommon in India. Benzodiazepine addiction is one such example. This does not mean there is no addiction here; rather, it often goes unnoticed. Many people take these medicines without being aware of their harmful side. Yet, evil is evil.

Just for fun, just for sleep, just for depression… this is how it slowly enters our lives. By the time it starts showing its ugly side, it may already be too late.

Here is a detailed explanation of why it is difficult to remain on benzodiazepines—even at a very small dose—for the long term.

PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS, TOLERANCE, AND THE BRAIN

People have tried to explain tolerance in many ways, but here is a simple perspective. Your brain is an incredibly complex and amazing organ. Its number one priority is to keep you alive.

One of the ways it does this is by maintaining an optimal balance between neurotransmitters—those that trigger the “fight or flight” response, helping you react to threats, and those that calm you down once the danger has passed. The brain is constantly adjusting to maintain this balance.

When any psychoactive substance is introduced, the brain senses it and responds.

When you first start taking a benzodiazepine, it works very well. In addition to the natural calming chemicals your brain produces, the drug adds more, making you feel even calmer. Many people initially feel it is a “miracle drug.”

However, the brain soon recognises that there is an excess of calming chemicals. This is not ideal for survival—because, over thousands of years, the human brain has evolved in harsh environments where alertness was essential.

Since the brain cannot physically remove the drug, it adapts. If it detects a steady external supply of calming chemicals, it reduces its own production. This leads to tolerance, where the same dose becomes less effective.

Typically, people respond by increasing the dose. This may work temporarily, but the brain again reduces its own production.

Eventually, the brain adopts another strategy—it starts reducing or shutting down the receptors that these chemicals act upon. This is actually a very clever mechanism. At this stage, no matter how much of the drug is taken, it becomes less effective because there are fewer receptors available.

The good news is that the brain is capable of recovery. Once the external drug is reduced or stopped, the brain gradually resumes its natural production and begins rebuilding the receptors.

However, this is a slow process. That is why tapering must be gradual—so the brain has enough time to adjust. Recovery will happen, but one must accept that it is neither quick nor easy. Still, it is absolutely doable.

The brain is like a computer—it can be reprogrammed. So, feed it with success stories, hope, and gratitude, and it will slowly rewire itself towards health.

Present Crisis snd apposition approach

 எரிபொருள் நெருக்கடி – அரசியலா? பொறுப்பா?

கடந்த சில நாட்களாக எரிபொருள் விநியோகத்தில் சிக்கல்கள், இடையூறுகள், அதிக விலை கொடுத்து வெளிநாடுகளில் வாங்க வேண்டிய சவால்கள் உருவாகியுள்ளன. 

இதற்கு மேலாக, யோசனையற்ற பேனிக் பையிங் காரணமாக சில இடங்களில் பெட்ரோல் பங்குகள் மூடப்ட்டன. தற்போது ஓகே.

இருப்பினும், சிரமங்களுடன் நிலைமை சமாளிக்கப்படுகிறது.

இந்த பிரச்சினை இந்தியாவுக்கு மட்டும் அல்ல — பாகிஸ்தான், இலங்கை, பங்களாதேஷ், வியட்நாம் போன்ற நாடுகளிலும் விலையேற்றம், ரேஷன், கட்டுப்பாடுகள் நடைமுறையில் உள்ளன.

அதாவது, இது ஒரு பெரிய பிராந்திய நெருக்கடி.

இந்நிலையில், இந்த சவால்கள் நீடிக்கலாம் என்று முன்னரே எச்சரிக்கை விடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ஆனால் இங்கு ஒரு கேள்வி:

இது போன்ற நேரத்தில் நமக்கு தேவையானது என்ன?

பொறுப்பான அணுகுமுறையா — இல்லையெனில் வழக்கமான அரசியல் கோஷங்களா? தேசீய எதிர்க்கட்சிகள் இரண்டாவதைத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்து விட்டன.

நெருக்கடி நேரத்தில் மக்களை அமைதியாக வழிநடத்த வேண்டியவர்கள்,

நிலைமையை விளக்காமல்,

பதற்றத்தை குறைக்காமல்,

தீர்வை பேசாமல்,

வெறும் கோஷங்கள், நடைமுறைக்கு ஒவ்வாத பேச்சுகள் — இவையிலேயே மாட்டிக்கொண்டால், அது யாருக்கு உதவும்?

மக்களுக்கா? நாட்டுக்கா? இல்லையெனில் அரசியல் லாபத்துக்கா?

இன்னொரு உண்மை:

நெருக்கடி நேரங்களில்,

பேனிக் பையிங், வதந்தி, அரசியல் சத்தம் — இவையே நிலைமையை மோசமாக்கும்.

அதே நேரத்தில்,

ஒழுங்கு, பொறுப்பு, புரிதல் — இவையே நிலைமையை காப்பாற்றும்.

அப்படியிருக்க,

மக்களை அமைதிப்படுத்த வேண்டிய குரல்கள்,

ஏன் சில நேரங்களில் குழப்பத்தை அதிகரிக்கின்றன?

இது தான் கவலை.

நாடு சவால்களை சந்திக்கும் போது,

அரசியல் போட்டி இரண்டாம் இடத்துக்கு போக வேண்டும்.

முதல் இடத்தில் இருக்க வேண்டியது — தேசிய பொறுப்பு.

மக்களுக்கு “யார் சரி, யார் தவறு” என்ற சண்டையை விட,

“நாம் எப்படி இந்த நிலையை சமாளிக்க வேண்டும்” என்ற புரிதலை கொடுக்க வேண்டும்.

அப்படிச் செய்தால் தான்,

மக்கள் யாரை நம்ப வேண்டும், யாரை தவிர்க்க வேண்டும் என்பதை தாங்களே தெளிவாக உணர்வார்கள்.

உள்ளுர் மேளங்கள்.  எப்போதும் போல இந்தியா ஒய்க; மோடி ஒய்க என ஆரப்பித்துவிட்டனர்.  பப்பு USA மீது படையெடுக்கலாம் என ஆலோசனை கொடுக்து விட்டு,  பட்டாயா போய்விடுவார். ஆல்பார்ட்டி மீட்டிங்கில் ஆப்சண்ட் ஆவவார்.

மக்களிடம் ,  உண்மையான நிலவரத்தை  சொல்லி, நாட்டிற்கு சிறந்ததை செய்யச்சொல்லி ஆலோசன் கூட செல்லமாட்டார்.

சானியாவுக்கும் இத்தாலி கட்சிக்கும், இந்திவை அமெரிக்காவிற்கு சண்டையிட வைக்க,  நாடு முழுவதும் கொரளி  வித்தை காண்பிக்கிறார்கள!  அப்பதானே இந்தியாவை  சீரழிக்க வைக்க முடியும்!

காங்கிரஸுக்கு  நாட்டில் கலவரம், ரகளை , அமைதியின்மை வர வேண்டும்! மக்கள் எரிபொருட்களுக்கு ஆலாய் பறக்கணும்; அன்றாட வாழ்க்கை சிரமமாக வேண்டும். போருளாதாரம் வீழ வேண்டும். பாக்கிஸ்தானைவிட கீழே போணால் கூட ப்புவிற்கு பரம திருப்தி.

ஒரே காரணம்! அவர்கள் இந்த நாட்டின் தேச அபிமாவிகள் அல்ல; அவர்களது தேசப்பற்று அக்மார்க் போலியோ என சந்தேகிக்க உள்ளது.

தேசம் நாசம் அடையணும்; இந்திய பொருளாதாரம் இறந்த பொருளாதார மாக வீழ்ந்துவிட்டால், பரம திருப்தி பப்புவிற்கு.

அதைவைத்தாவது அதிகாரத்தை பயன்படு்படு்த்தி பழையபடி  தங்களது லூட்களை தொடர லாம்.

அவலங்கள் முடிவுக்கு வரவேண்டும்! இத்தாலி பார்ட்டிக்கு புத்தி வர வேண்டும்.

LPG crisis

 India’s LPG 

India’s LPG system is not weak—but tightly balanced.

Every month, India consumes about 2.3–2.4 million tonnes of LPG—roughly 16–17 crore cylinders. Nearly 60–65% of this is imported, largely from the Middle East. That is the core vulnerability.

This is not new. During the Iraq war period, shortages were visible everywhere—petrol bunks ran dry, LPG cylinders took weeks, and even public transport was affected.

Back then, the system had another problem: poor control.

Waiting lists were maintained manually by local dealers

Booking lacked transparency

Allocation depended on local discretion

Mismanagement was common. Genuine users waited, while influence often decided priority

Today, this layer has improved significantly.

Digitisation has changed the system:

Refill requests are time-stamped and centrally recorded

Consumer data is cleaned and de-duplicated

Supply and delivery are tracked end-to-end

In simple terms, we have moved from a manual register to a controlled database system. Leakages are lower, and distribution is more disciplined.

But one thing has not changed: supply dependence.

In a severe disruption—say, Middle East supply drops—India could lose about 1.3 MMT per month. What remains would be around 1.0 MMT, or roughly 7 crore cylinders.

Even if commercial LPG is fully diverted to households, total supply remains the same.

Household demand: ~14–15 crore cylinders

Available supply: ~7 crore cylinders

Only about half the demand can be met.

This is the key point: redistribution cannot solve shortage—only supply can.

Today, shortages don’t appear as total collapse. Instead, they show up as:

Delayed refills

Longer waiting times

Controlled distribution

Earlier, crisis was loud. Today, it is managed and muted.

But if disruption is prolonged, even this system will come under stress.

The real issue is structural. India still lacks:

Large buffer reserves

Fully diversified imports

Scalable alternatives to LPG

So global shocks will continue to create local discomfEarlier, shortages used to shout from petrol bunks. Today, they whisper through delayed deliveries. The system has improved—but arithmetic has not changed.

Government & Temples

Temple Darshan — Devotion or an Endurance Test?

Last week, I happened to visit a few temples around Madurai.

Earlier, a temple visit meant peace of mind.

Now, it feels like a physical test—if you come out safely, consider it a blessing.

From the main road itself—iron barricades.

Not in dozens. In thousands.

One basic doubt:

Is this a temple… or a steel exhibition?

Crowd Management… or Cattle Handling?

Devotees are squeezed between iron grills

like paddy sacks packed inside a warehouse.

Breathing is difficult

Movement is forced

Exit? Almost impossible

If someone collapses, there is no system—only panic.

Is this how devotion should be treated?

 Ticket-Based Darshan — Pricing Faith

₹50, ₹100, ₹300…

Devotion has been neatly converted into slabs.

Pay less → stand longer, see less

Pay more → move faster, see better

And then come the “special passes”—

people walking across queues as if rules don’t apply to them.

This is not queue management. This is visible inequality.

 A Question That Cannot Be Ignored

In mosques and churches,

you don’t see this kind of paid, tier-based access to God.

People may gather in large numbers,

but entry to prayer is not sold in slabs.

So naturally, a question arises:

Why should Hindu temples alone turn darshan into a paid hierarchy?

Yes, temples have unique crowd patterns.

Yes, management is difficult.

But difficulty cannot become an excuse

to commercialise access to faith.

Artificial Delays, Real Frustration

Screens come down without warning.

Queues are halted. Crowd pressure builds.

Meanwhile, “special entry” keeps flowing smoothly.

This creates a dangerous perception:

delay for many, convenience for a few.

 The Hidden Problem — Too Few Functioning Temples

Here is a point rarely discussed.

Many temples today:

open only for limited hours

or remain closed for want of priests

Why?

Shortage of archakars (priests).

As a result:

Devotees are forced into a few major temples

Crowds explode

Management collapses

Commercial systems enter

 A Practical Solution — Expand the Priest Base

This is where reform is not just social—but essential.

Train archakars from all sections of society

Provide proper Agama education and certification

Appoint them across temples facing shortages

This is not about breaking tradition.

This is about keeping temples alive and functional.

More priests → more open temples → less crowd concentration.

 What Needs to Change Immediately

Extend temple timings, especially on peak days

Strictly limit or phase out paid darshan categories

Reserve special queues only for senior citizens and the differently abled

Reduce excessive barricading; improve open movement design

Introduce token / time-slot systems to avoid long physical queues

Bring transparency in VIP access

Improve basic safety and emergency exits

⚖️ Role of Government

Government is meant to regulate, not commercialise.

When administration becomes mechanical and revenue-focused,

devotion turns into frustration.

That is a dangerous shift.

 Final Word

Every ritual in a temple is man-made.

What is created by people can also be improved by people.

If Tirupati can evolve systems,

other temples can too.

Make temple visits peaceful again.

Because today, for many devotees,

Darshan is no longer spiritual…

it is becoming a test of patience, money, and survival.

“The current system is making temple worship unnecessarily difficult and undignified. If this continues, people may drift away—not by force, but by frustration.” Conversions.

Nationalism

Nationalism: The Emergency Medicine of Politics

Whenever governments run out of answers, they rarely run out of slogans.

The most reliable slogan in political history is nationalism.

When the economy falters, when policies fail, or when public anger rises, a familiar prescription appears: “The nation is in danger.” Immediately the debate changes. Prices, unemployment and governance quietly move to the background, while patriotic emotion takes centre stage.

The formula is ancient and remarkably effective. From dictatorships to democracies, leaders have discovered that nothing unites a restless public faster than the fear of an external enemy. Citizens who were arguing yesterday about taxes and fuel prices suddenly find themselves waving the same flag.

History shows that this instrument has been used by rulers of every ideology. The wording may differ — security, sovereignty, civilisation, national pride — but the political mathematics remains unchanged.

None of this means love for one's country is false. Nations cannot survive without a sense of shared identity. But when patriotism becomes a convenient shield against legitimate questions, citizens would do well to pause and ask a simple question:

Is the nation truly in danger, or is the government merely in difficulty?

When parties run out of Answers!

The Political Science Behind Nationalist Slogans

Throughout history, rulers have discovered a very effective formula to consolidate power: appeal to collective identity. The identity may be nation, religion, race, language, or culture. But the mechanism remains the same.

When people are made to feel that “our group is under threat,” they instinctively unite behind authority. This instinct is not accidental; it comes from the deep evolutionary past of human society.

1. Human beings evolved as group-defending communities

Early humans survived in tribes. Survival depended on protecting one’s group from other groups competing for food, territory, and security.

Because of this long history, human psychology still responds strongly to three emotional triggers:

Fear of an external enemy

Pride in belonging to a group

Desire for collective protection

Modern politics often activates these same instincts.

Today the “tribe” has simply become the nation.

2. The “Rally Around the Flag” phenomenon

Political scientists use a term called the “Rally Around the Flag Effect.”

When a country faces a real or perceived external threat, citizens temporarily set aside internal disagreements and support the government.

This phenomenon has been observed repeatedly:

United States after 9/11

Britain during the Falklands War

Many nations during World Wars

Several regimes facing external confrontation

Leaders know this psychological pattern very well. When crises arise, nationalist language becomes louder.

It is not necessarily unique to one ideology or one country.

3. Nationalism as a political instrument

Nationalism itself is not inherently negative. It played a constructive role in many historical movements:

India’s struggle for independence

Anti-colonial movements across Asia and Africa

Nation-building after colonial rule

However, the same emotion can also become a political instrument.

At such times nationalism may be used to:

divert attention from economic or political problems

silence internal criticism

unify fragmented political support

portray opposition voices as “anti-national”

This transformation of nationalism from collective pride into political strategy is what many scholars have warned about.

4. Leaders across the world have used it

History shows that very different leaders, ideologies, and regimes have relied on this mechanism.

Examples frequently discussed in political literature include:

Hitler in Germany, who mobilised national humiliation after World War I

military regimes in many regions, which used external threats to justify authority

democratic leaders, who during wars or geopolitical crises strongly invoke national unity

The method may vary.

The emotional appeal remains similar.

5. Modern media amplifies these emotions

In earlier centuries, nationalist mobilisation required speeches and newspapers.

Today, television, social media, and instant messaging can amplify emotional narratives extremely fast.

Within hours:

fear spreads

pride spreads

anger spreads

As a result, the emotional environment becomes intense, leaving little space for calm reasoning.

6. Geopolitical conflicts often ignore cultural unity

Your example about Iran affecting neighbouring Arab economies illustrates another reality of geopolitics.

In international relations, strategic interests usually outweigh cultural or regional solidarity.

Even nations sharing religion, language, or ethnicity may compete if their strategic interests differ.

History is full of such examples:

conflicts among European Christian nations

conflicts among Arab states themselves

ideological divisions within the same cultural regions

So the idea of a natural “civilisational unity” often collapses when power, security, and influence become the priority.

7. Economic issues quickly become political battles

In democracies, even everyday economic issues—fuel prices, cooking gas, food inflation—quickly turn into political narratives.

Opposition parties frame the issue as government failure.

Governments frame it as global circumstances or geopolitical pressure.

The public is then exposed to two competing explanations, both emotionally presented.

8. The responsibility of citizens

The health of a democracy ultimately depends on how citizens respond to these narratives.

A thoughtful citizen may ask:

Is the threat real or exaggerated?

Is nationalism being used to solve a problem or to hide one?

Are economic and social issues being honestly addressed?

When citizens ask such questions calmly, national pride and democratic accountability can coexist.

Final reflection

Human societies need some degree of national identity to function. Without it, collective institutions collapse.

But when nationalism becomes only a political slogan, detached from responsibility and policy, it risks turning into a tool of manipulation.

Understanding this distinction is part of political maturity.

People often hear patriotic language in politics, but the real test of patriotism is whether it improves the life of the people and strengthens the nation’s institutions.

South India

 Historically speaking, South Indians have had almost no direct experience of modern warfare. Except for the oft-repeated hearsay about the “Emden bombing of Madras” during World War II, everything else has mostly remained as interesting stories rather than lived reality.

Situations such as stretching out one’s hand for food, shortages of fuel, and endless queues for essential items are things many people here simply cannot imagine.

Many are not even aware that such possibilities could arise in India.

War, wherever it happens and between whomever it is fought, inevitably creates ripple effects across the world. No country can fully escape its consequences.

The biggest immediate concern at present is fuel.

Russian gas that goes to Europe is not used merely for cooking; it is equally vital for heating homes during their harsh winters. Putin believed that Europe would not antagonize Russia precisely because of this dependency.

Yet Europe took the bold step of blocking it and began importing gas from Qatar and other sources.

Now, due to the Iran war, Qatar has halted 50% of its production. This has already led to a global rise in gas prices and shortages.

Will this affect India? Yes, certainly.

This situation will have some impact across the world, especially on major economies like China and India.

India had anticipated such possibilities and made several preparations in advance. Even so, shortages of cooking gas may arise. Hoarding, of course, is another story altogether.

Although emergency reserves exist, the interruption of supplies from countries like Qatar means that when India shifts procurement to alternative sources, some delays are inevitable.

Modi did not travel across Africa, Arabia, Malaysia, Russia, and South America merely for ceremonial visits. He returned after signing multiple agreements with each of these countries.

This is no longer the old India that depended on a single nation. Today, India has arrangements with multiple partners so that if one country fails to supply, others can step in.

Therefore, a shortage of cooking gas may become a subject of debate for media houses, certain political parties, and YouTube commentators. But it is unlikely to push the nation into a major crisis. There may be inconveniences and delays.

Reports about oil tankers being sunk or strategic straits being blocked may appear as mere news items to us. Yet every time a tanker sinks or a sea route is disrupted, such delays and disruptions do occur.

Even though human beings draw borders between nations, each human being ultimately depends on another. That is the nature of human civilization. When one country faces trouble, it inevitably causes tremors elsewhere. In that sense, this war will certainly bring changes to the lifestyles and economic conditions of many nations.

It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. But in rushing to kill it even faster, some Tamil media outlets seem to take a peculiar enthusiasm.

If people blindly believe everything they say, they may end up like Kamal Haasan’s confused character in Thenali. Indian Tamils would do well to remember that.

Ignorance — especially the kind that focuses only on regional or linguistic sentiments without understanding the nuances of global politics — is the real enemy.

Sri R N Ravi

The DMK’s ideological position has generally been opposed to the institution of the Governor. Only during the period of Surjit Singh Barnala was there an exception; he and Karunanidhi shared a cordial rapport, almost as admirers of each other. Perhaps it was the natural sympathy that arises between those who had once experienced the frustrations of separatist impulses.

Whether one likes it or not, the Constitution of India has created several institutional linkages that prevent states from breaking away into isolated corners and running entirely according to their own will.

One such constitutional restraint is the office of the Governor. When laws are brought forward driven excessively by regional sentiments—laws that run contrary to the broader spirit of national unity and reflect narrow political calculations—the Governor has the authority to intervene and withhold assent.

In today’s climate of sensational politics, where even trivial matters are blown out of proportion without thoughtful reflection, such constitutional safeguards are indeed necessary.

Therefore, the departure of Governor Shri R. N. Ravi from Tamil Nadu does evoke a certain sense of regret.

Like many Governors serving in states ruled by opposition parties, he had to confront numerous challenges. Yet, Shri R. N. Ravi handled them with considerable composure.

The experiences he had in Tamil Nadu might well have caused him personal discomfort. Nevertheless, he never allowed that bitterness to show in public and continued to discharge his duties with patience and dignity.

Except for a few controversial bills that he felt he could not in good conscience approve, he gave assent to most other bills without delay. Likewise, he chose not to read certain passages of the Governor’s Address when he believed they were inconsistent with facts, as doing so would have placed him in a moral dilemma.

For this, he faced severe criticism and even personal humiliation. From the gesture reportedly made by a minister when he walked out of the Assembly, to remarks such as “Who are you? You are only a postman,” he endured many such provocations. Yet he did not stoop to responding in the same manner. Instead, he conducted himself as a gentleman who preferred restraint over cheap retaliation, even when confronted with the pettiness of certain political actors.

He is perhaps one of the few Governors who received both praise and ridicule in equal measure.

And he accepted both with the equanimity of a sthithaprajna—a person of steady wisdom.

Even though he himself was treated in this manner within Tamil Nadu, he never failed, on public platforms outside the state, to speak with pride about Tamil Nadu and highlight its achievements.

Such maturity is rarely seen among those occupying high public office.

Shri R. N. Ravi possessed these qualities in abundance.

He is, truly, a gentleman.

He certainly has the stature and capability to hold even higher offices in the years to come.

“We wish him the very best in upholding the integrity of the nation while discharging his responsibilities as Governor of West Bengal, where the present state government often takes a politically hostile stance towards New Delhi, though the people of the state have long stood aligned with the integrity of the nation.”

Indian liberals & current war!

The Current War and the Dilemma of IndianLiberals.

Whenever international crises erupt, an interesting pattern will emerges in India’s left & liberal political circle. 

This time they fall into a peculiar silence. 

The reason is not lack of opinion, but the collapse of an old ideological templates. 

For decades, they used to oppose US & West; no reasoning or analysis required. 

It was simple and convenient for them to shout; "Down with USA!"  US representing imperialism & West means symbolized exploitation. So simple😂 . 

This template worked for them well during the Cold War era. But the neo geopolitical changes has become far too complex for them to understand. Simplified binaries didn't work .

The current tensions in the Middle East illustrate this perfectly. 

The region today is a map of competing interests. the USA, Iran, Israel, the Gulf states, Russia, and China all pursue overlapping and sometimes contradictory activities. 

They couldn’t persue the age old “West versus Islam” narrative .

Traditional slogans no longer fit comfortably with present realities.

India, maintains strategic relations with several nations simultaneously. The US for technology & Iran for energy & connectivity. Israel for critical defence .

In such a landscape, simplistic ideological positioning becomes difficult.

Meanwhile, the Indian government has adopted a pragmatic foreign policy based on balancing interests across power centres.

This approach requires careful diplomatic manoeuvring. 

International relations rarely operate on ideological purity. They operate on national & illuminati interest.

Thus a visible discomfort settled on them. A perfect collapse of outdated ideology .

நல்லகண்ணு!!

ஒரு இயக்கமாகவே வாழந்து காண்பித்த ,  சரித்திர நாயகனின்  சகாப்தம் இது! 

மாபெரும் தலைவர்!  தோழர் !! இப்படி ஒரு,  தவப்புதல்வனை  இந்த நாடு, இனி காண இயலுமா  என்ற ஏக்கப் பெருமூச்சை தவிர்க்க இயலவில்லை! 

எளிய மக்களின் தோழன்! 

எப்பொழுதும் சமரசமில்லாத  நேர்மையின் அடையாளமாக வாழ்ந்து  காட்டிய மகான்! 

எட்டு தசாப்தங்களுக்கும் மேலாக, பொதுவுடைமைத் தத்துவத்தின் மீதும் கட்சியின் மீதும் அவர் கொண்டிருந்த விசுவாசம் துளியும் அசையாதது.

ஆடம்பரங்கள் நிறைந்த அரசியல் சூழலில், தன் கிழிந்த சட்டையைத் தானே தைத்து உடுத்திக் கொண்டும், வாடகை வீட்டிலேயே தன் வாழ்நாளைக் கழித்தும் அவர் காட்டிய எளிமை நம்மை நெகிழச் செய்கிறது.

அவருக்குக் கிடைத்த கோடிக்கணக்கான ரூபாய் நிதியையும், விருதுத் தொகைகளையும் ஒரு கணம் கூட யோசிக்காமல் மக்கள் நலனுக்காகவே திருப்பிக் கொடுத்த அந்தத் தியாகம், இன்றுள்ள தலை முறையினருக்கு ஒரு பெரும் பாடம்.

விவசாயிகளுக்காகவும், இயற்கை வளங்களைக் காக்கவும் அவர் நடத்திய போராட்டங்கள் எண்ணற்றவை! 

வெறும் அரசியல்  களம் மட்டுமல்ல; இந்த மண்ணின் மீதும் மக்கள் மீதும் அவர் கொண்டிருந்த ஆழமான காதல் அளப்பரியது.

சிகப்பு கொடியைத் தன் உயிர்மூச்சாகக் கருதிய அந்த உன்னத மனிதர்! 

ஒரு நேர்மையான தலைவர், தொண்டர்,  மனிதர்,  எப்படி வாழ வேண்டும்/ முடியும்  என்பதை பாடமாக நடத்திக் காட்டியவர்.

அவர் ஏற்ற  தழும்புகளும் தியாகங்களும்  அழிக்கவியலா சாட்சியங்கள்! 

அவரைச் சந்தித்த தலைவர்கள், அருமைத் தலைவர் நல்லகண்ணுவின் எளிமையும், நேர்மையும் குறித்து அத்தியாயம் அத்தியாயமாக எடுத்துரைத்தாலும், அட்சய பாத்திரம் போல எடுக்க எடுக்க வற்றாத உதாரணங்கள் வந்து கொண்டே இருக்கும்.  ஏனெனில், அவர் வாழ்ந்து முடித்த ஒவ்வொரு கணமும் 'சத்திய நிரூபணங்கள்'

தோழர் ரகு தனது பணி நிறைநிறைவுப் பாராட்டு விழாவில் சொன்னார்;  இந்த தவப்புதல்வனின் கால் படுமென்றால் , இன்னும் பலமுறை பணி ஓய்வு பெறுவேன் என.

நமது  ஒவ்வொரு அன்றாட செயலில் நேர்மையையும், அர்பணிப்பையும், தன்னல மறுப்பையும்  மிகச் சிறிய அளவில் நடைமுறைப்படுத்த வேண்டும் எனும் தீப் பொறியினை,  அவரை  சாதரண  வழிப் போக்கன் அளவில் பார்த்த எவருக்கும் கூட தோன்றுவது இயல்பு.  

அதுதான்  நேர்மையின் 

ஈர்ப்பு! 

வாழ்க நீ எம்மான்!

ஒரு ஆட்சி–மாதிரியாக, அவர் ஏற்ற கட்சிக் கொள்கைகள் உலகளவில்,  தோல்வியடைந்திருக்கலாம். ஒரு பொருளாதாரத் தீர்வாக பல இடங்களில் செயல்படாமல் போயிருக்கலாம்.

ஆனால்,

நேர்மையாக வாழ்வதற்கான கோட்பாடாக அது தோல்வியடையவில்லை.

அதைத்தான் நல்லகண்ணு போன்றவர்கள் வாழ்ந்து நிரூபித்தார்கள்.

அமைப்பு தோற்றது;

ஆனால் மனிதன் தோற்கவில்லை.

அரசியல் கணக்குகள் சரியில்லை;

ஆனால் நெஞ்சுக் கணக்குகள் தவறவில்லை.

இன்றைய அரசியல் சூழலில் பெரும்பாலானோர்

“ideology வேலை செய்யல என்று சொல்லிஅநாகரிகத்துக்கும், ஊழலுக்கும் அனுமதி வாங்கிக் கொள்கிறார்கள்.

ஆனால் நல்லகண்ணு, சொல்லாமல் சொன்னது இதுதான்:

“கோட்பாடு ஆட்சி செய்ய முடியாவிட்டாலும்,

அது என் வாழ்க்கையை ஆளலாம்.”

அதுதான் அவரை பெரிய தலைவராக அல்ல

பெரிய மனிதராக நிறுத்துகிறது.

சிவப்பு கொடி அரசியல் தோல்வியடைந்திருக்கலாம்.

ஆனால்

நேர்மையாக இருப்பதற்கான தடையாக அது ஒருபோதும் இருந்ததில்லை.

இந்த வாக்கியம் மட்டும் இன்று பேசப்பட்டால் போதும் —

பலர் அசௌகரியப்படுவார்கள்.

அதே தான் சத்தியத்தின் power

கனவான்களின் அராஜகம்!

Democracy at the Crossroads: Elected Authority vs Unelected Power

In contemporary democracies across the world, a silent but consequential conflict is unfolding. It is not merely a battle between political parties, ideologies, or personalities. Rather, it is a deeper struggle between elected authority and unelected power—between governments chosen by the people and institutions or elites that increasingly claim moral or intellectual supremacy over those choices.

This debate is often framed superficially as support for or opposition to leaders like Donald Trump. That framing misses the point. Whether one likes or dislikes Trump—or any elected leader—is a matter of political preference. The more fundamental question is this:

Who ultimately governs in a democracy—the voters, or self-appointed guardians of virtue and intellect?

The Sanctity of the Electoral Mandate

Elections are not ceremonial rituals. They are the very mechanism through which popular sovereignty is expressed. When a political leader or party contests an election with a clear agenda, wins, and assumes office, that agenda carries democratic legitimacy—even if it is controversial.

Disagreement with policies is natural. Opposition is healthy. But systematically obstructing a democratically elected government because its worldview is disliked undermines the very logic of elections. If every major policy choice is stalled, rewritten, or nullified by unelected actors, one must ask:

Why hold elections at all?

Policy disagreement should be resolved at the ballot box, not neutralized through administrative paralysis.

Judiciary: Guardian, Not Governor

The judiciary has a vital and indispensable role in any democracy. It exists to:

Uphold the constitution

Protect fundamental rights

Prevent clear abuses of power

However, when courts move from constitutional review into policy arbitration, a dangerous line is crossed. Courts are not designed to govern; they are designed to restrain excess. When judges begin to believe they know what is best for society—better than voters themselves—judicial review mutates into judicial supremacy.

The question is not whether courts should intervene, but where they should stop.

Constitutional violation? → Judicial intervention is justified.

Policy disagreement or ideological discomfort? → That belongs to politics, not the courtroom.

The Rise of Elite Moral Authority

Across the United States, Europe, and India, a recognizable pattern has emerged. An interconnected ecosystem—comprising sections of the judiciary, media, academia, NGOs, and intellectual elites—often operates with a shared ideological orientation. When electoral outcomes disrupt this worldview, resistance does not remain political; it becomes institutional.

This is where dissent transforms into something else.

Dissent is essential to democracy. But permanent opposition, reflexive contrarianism, and automatic hostility toward elected power are not democratic virtues. Opposition itself cannot be treated as moral righteousness. To oppose everything a government does, regardless of outcome or intent, is not vigilance—it is dogma.

The troubling feature of this phenomenon is that it frequently arrives wearing the mask of “justice,” “values,” and “democracy,” even as it subverts the electorate’s will.

Trump as a Symptom, Not the Cause

Donald Trump’s confrontational response to this ecosystem—often angry, blunt, and institutionally disruptive—is widely criticized. Yet his reaction resonates with many precisely because it exposes a real tension. His stance signals that elected governments are no longer willing to silently accept being governed from above by unelected authorities.

This is not unique to Trump. Similar tensions are visible in:

European governments pushing back against judicial overreach on immigration and national identity

India witnessing friction between executive authority and judicial intervention in administrative matters

These reactions are not necessarily signs of authoritarianism. They are often counter-reactions to perceived elite overreach.

The Real Danger: Institutional Breakdown

There is, however, a grave risk on both sides.

If unelected institutions consistently overstep their boundaries, elected governments may respond by weakening those institutions altogether. When that happens, the judiciary loses public trust—not because it defended the constitution, but because it appeared to govern.

The ultimate casualty in this cycle is not a party, a leader, or an ideology.

It is democratic balance.

Democracy survives not by moral grandstanding, but by respecting boundaries:

Governments must govern within constitutional limits.

Courts must adjudicate without governing.

Intellectuals must persuade, not impose.

Conclusion

The crisis facing modern democracies is not the rise of strong leaders or populist politics alone. It is the growing belief among unelected elites that they are wiser than voters and therefore entitled to override electoral outcomes.

When moral certainty replaces democratic humility, even the language of justice can become a tool of domination.

At its core, democracy demands a simple discipline:

Respect the people’s choice—even when you disagree with it.

Time Travel

சலிப்பான நிகழ்வுகள் சில,  சுவாரஸ்மானதாகவும்,  எதிர்பார்த்து சென்ற நிகழ்வுகள் 'கொட்டாவி' யாக முடிவதும் கூட  நடப்பதுவே!  

 It was a closed family function invitation

ஆனால், சுவாரஸ்யம் நிகழ்வில் இல்லை.

அதில் கலந்து கொண்ட, எனது ஒரு நன்பரின்  சந்திப்பில்தான்.

முப்பத்தைந்து ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன் தொடங்கிய நட்பு அது.

வாழ்க்கையின் அசுர வேகம், 

மூச்சை அடக்கி தெறித்தோட வைக்கும் பொழுது, நட்பை நினைத்து அசைபோட

நமக்கு அவகாசமிருக்காதல்லவா? இன்று அது கிடைத்தது.

எங்களின் நட்பும் அப்படித்தான. 

காலத்தின் ஓட்டத்தில், 

காலமும் சூழலும்

எங்களை எல்லாம்

மூலைக்கு ஒருவராகச் சிதறடித்துப் போட்டிருந்தன.

எத்தனையோ சுழல்கள்,

சடார்சடாரென மாறிய காட்சிகள்.

அவரவர் போக்கில்

அவரவருக்கான அனுபவங்கள்—

சிலரை மென்மைப்படுத்தி இருக்கும்;

சிலரை முற்றிலும் வேறொரு மனிதராக மாற்றியிருக்கும்.

ஆனாலும்,

நன்பர்கள் சந்திக்கும் பொழுது

விட்ட இடத்திலிருந்தே தொடங்குகிறார்கள்.

அந்தத் தருணம்

nostalgic…

thrilling…

curious…

என்று எல்லாம் சேர்ந்து

ஒரே உணர்வாக மாறுகிறது.

இவரைச் சந்தித்த போதும் அப்படித்தான்.

சில நிமிடங்கள்

2013-இல் சிக்கிக் கொண்டதுபோல் தோன்றினாலும்,

அந்த நினைவுகள் இனிமையான அசைவுகளாகவே இருந்தன.

இடையறாது பேசவும்,

தடையின்றி தொடரவும்

சற்று வெகுளித்தனம் வேண்டும்,

சற்று innocence வேண்டும்,

பாசாங்கில்லாத வாஞ்சை வேண்டும்,

சிறிதளவு உண்மையான அக்கறையும் வேண்டும்.

இப்படி மனிதர்கள் அமைவது அரிதுதான்.

ஆனால், அப்படிப்பட்வர்கள் இல்லாமலில்லை.

இந்தக் காலமும் கூட,

இன்னமும் எளிமையோடும்

பாசாங்கற்ற இயல்போடும் வாழ்பவர்களை

அவர்கள் போலவே தொடர உலகு அனுமதிக்கிறது என்பதே

ஒரு பாலைவனச் சோலை போன்ற உணர்வு.

இரண்டு மணிநேரம்!

அது நேரம் அல்ல—

ஒரு time travel.

ரிடையர் ஆனதை மறந்து,

பேரன்களையும் பேத்திகளையும் மறந்து,

நாங்கள் திரும்ப 90-களில் நின்றிருந்தோம்.

இருபது வருடங்களை

இரண்டு மணிநேரத்தில் கடப்பது

வேறொரு நிலை அனுபவம்.

அடுத்தமுறை சந்திக்கும் பொழுது,

விட்ட இடத்திலிருந்தே

மீண்டும் தொடரலாம்.

அழைக்கப்பட்ட நிகழ்வு முடிந்ததும்,

அவரவர் வாழ்க்கையின்

அடுத்த நாளின் அன்றாட கவலைகளோடு

பயணம் தொடரத்தான் போகிறது.

ஆனாலும், இந்தச் சிறு refreshment,

நட்பு வருடிய ஹிதம்,

சில நாட்களுக்கு

மனதில் தங்கி விடும்.

ரயில் நட்புகள் மறந்துபோகலாம்.

ஆனால் வாழ்க்கையே

ஒரு நீண்ட ரயில் பயணம்.

இந்த வகை நட்பு

இடை நிலையத்தோடு இறங்குவதில்லை.

மறக்கப்படுவதுமில்லை.

இறைவன் அனுமதிக்கும் காலம்வரை, அவரது காலம்

சந்தோஷத் தருணங்களால்

வாழ்வு ததும்பட்டும்.

Isha

 We suffer from many diseases today—not of the body, but of the mind.

One such condition is the compulsive urge to shout, “Stop corporate power!”

The same voices once screamed “Stop Tata! Stop Birla!” as if possessed.

Now the targets have changed: Ambani, Adani.

The noise remains the same. Only the names rotate.

This reflexive outrage isn’t accidental. It’s a worldview carefully manufactured by sections of the media and self-styled liberals.

Ask them basic, kindergarten-level questions: 

How much can one individual realistically invest?

How far can personal effort go?

Who funds large-scale experimentation?

Even if something succeeds, how is it taken to millions?

Silence.

That’s how effectively common sense has been anesthetized.

The latest punching bag is the Isha Foundation.

Its founder has been neatly boxed as a “corporate godman.”

“Aren’t there ancient temples? Why go to the Dhyanalinga for Mahashivaratri?”

This question doesn’t come from curiosity—it comes from intellectual conspiracy.

Only those wearing the costume of devotion ask it.

If you truly are a Shiva devotee, try this:

Can you gather even a hundred people—forget a thousand—in one place and make them chant “Om Namah Shivaya” together?

You can’t.

Yet through Isha, over 140 million people, online and offline, chanted AUM Namah Shivaya at exactly midnight yesterday, Indian time.

Instead of scoffing, try replicating it.

Gather just 1,000 people.

One open ground.

One night.

Then reality will introduce itself.

“Yes, but he has corporate money.”

Take one step forward yourself. Money will appear—from many directions.

And with it will come layers of chaos you didn’t budget for.

For a thousand people alone: Food, toilets, parking.

Police permissions.

Midnight sound regulations.

Crowd control that prevents even a single mishap.

Sustaining energy so no one feels drained or disengaged.

Add to that: Security for global dignitaries.

Volunteers who work without pay, credit, or expectation.

Feeling dizzy yet?

“I don’t know all that… but still, he’s corporate.”

Even my own favorite temple needs structure.

Order is not oppression.

Discipline is not arrogance.

On that count, Isha has delivered—flawlessly.

Please don’t rush to the tired accusation of “money arrogance.”

What you see is not control, but organic order rooted in devotion.

Yes, Mahashivaratri is about chanting the Panchakshara mantra.

I can do that alone on my terrace.

But solitary prayer and collective transcendence are not the same.

Standing for hours under the open sky, immersed in Shiva’s songs, surrounded by thousands whose minds slowly sync to the same frequency—

and then, at the stroke of midnight, when countless voices collapse into a single chant of His name—

That experience cannot be explained to those who’ve already decided to dismiss it.

Isha isn’t alone.

Nithyananda. Sri Sri.

Slander comes easily when the goal is clear.

And the goal is simple:

Erase Sanatana Dharma.

When someone achieves what we cannot, the dharmic response is not suspicion or fault-finding, but grace.

Sometimes, the most authentic service to Sanatana Dharma

is knowing when to step aside—and let devotion do its work.

2k kids

 A year ago, a relative of mine complained that her daughter was not willing to get married and asked me to “advise” her.

Being the girl’s Thatha, I was also—very modestly—interested in finding a suitable bridegroom. After all, old habits die hard. 😄

However, I am fully aware of the 2K kids’ approach towards life and their uncompromising respect for personal choice. So I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about talking to her.

Since I couldn’t avoid it altogether, I kept it simple. I told her that it was entirely her choice whether she wanted to tie the knot or not, and that I had no right to compel her. I only added one small thought:

“Just think about life in your 40s and 50s—when parents may no longer be around and family circles become smaller.”

As expected, she brushed me aside instantly.

“I know better than you, Thatha. Everyboy is a rogue today!”

Conversation over.

Last month, she returned—this time with a request.

She has a love boy, and now I am expected to convince her mother, who is not willing to accept the alliance.

When I gently pointed out the contradiction, I told her calmly:

“That was my opinion then, and this is my stand now.”

She had no reply.

And that made me think.

When I look at these 2K kids, I feel both fear and amazement.

Fear—because of how confidently they take life-altering decisions.

Amazement—because of how lightly they carry them.

They seem to live life with ease, without unnecessary complications.

They don’t hold on to rigid stands or permanent positions.

What they believe today is valid for today.

If tomorrow brings a new understanding, they accept it without embarrassment or regret.

They don’t wrestle with life.

They simply flow with it.

Time does change—everyone knows that.

But has it really changed this fast?

Another day wasted....

 For four consecutive days, Parliament has remained stalled. The reason for this deadlock is not procedural complexity or legislative confusion, but a political standoff driven by the insistence of Rahul Gandhi. Parliamentary business has come to a standstill. The House was scheduled to debate the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply—a long-standing constitutional and parliamentary tradition.

The Prime Minister was to deliver his response on Thursday. However, even before he entered the House, the Congress leadership had formulated a strategy to prevent him from speaking. Priyanka Gandhi openly declared that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, no one from the ruling side would be allowed to speak either. This was not a spontaneous protest but a deliberate warning.

What followed inside the House was unprecedented. For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, Congress women MPs physically surrounded the Prime Minister’s seat—blocking access from both front and rear—so that he could neither reach nor occupy his chair. The Bharatiya Janata Party has alleged that this amounted to a planned attack on the Prime Minister. Whether that allegation is entirely accurate is debatable, but what cannot be disputed is that such conduct has never been witnessed in the Indian Parliament before.

No opposition, however strong or weak in numbers, has ever behaved in this manner. What is unfolding under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership has no parallel in parliamentary history.

Rahul Gandhi and his party repeatedly claim that he was not allowed to speak. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. He was allotted a full 40 minutes to speak on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. Yet he did not utter even four words related to the President’s speech. His insistence was singular: he wanted to quote from an unpublished book and was unwilling to speak on any other subject. The Speaker ruled clearly that parliamentary rules do not permit such a reference.

This has led to widespread confusion and debate about parliamentary procedure, especially since BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was allowed to display books. The rules are unambiguous. Any Member of Parliament—regardless of whether they are Leader of the Opposition or an ordinary MP—has the right to quote from books, documents, magazines, or newspapers. However, this right is subject to two mandatory conditions.

First, the source being quoted must be authenticated and formally placed on the table of the House. The MP must take responsibility for its contents, accepting accountability if any claim is proven false. This accountability can invite privilege motions, disciplinary action, or even loss of membership, depending on the Speaker’s decision.

Second, and more fundamental, the quotation must be directly relevant to the subject under discussion. If the House is debating the Budget, one cannot raise unrelated controversies. In this case, the House was debating the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address. Rahul Gandhi had no intention of addressing that subject at all.

Instead, he arrived with a book he claimed was authored by a former army general. The book, by his own admission, has not been published. He claimed it was published abroad but refused to disclose how he obtained it, responding with a cryptic smile when questioned. Logically, a foreign-published book cannot reach India within 24 hours. Moreover, past incidents—such as displaying a Constitution copy that turned out to contain blank pages—have already raised doubts about such theatrics.

Rahul Gandhi remained adamant that he would speak only from this alleged book, irrespective of the topic being debated. Parliamentary business, however, is not decided by individual insistence. The agenda is fixed by the Business Advisory Committee. Debate on the Motion of Thanks was scheduled until the 4th of the month, with all members—including the Leader of the Opposition—given time to speak, followed by the Prime Minister’s reply.

Two unprecedented developments occurred simultaneously. For the first time, a Prime Minister was prevented from replying to the President’s Address. And for the first time, a Leader of the Opposition openly refused to speak on the President’s Address at all. This makes it clear that disruption—not debate—was the intended objective.

Rahul Gandhi understood that parliamentary proceedings are broadcast live. Disruption guarantees visibility. Quiet speeches do not. In pursuit of spectacle, several Congress MPs climbed onto desks and threw torn papers at the presiding officer, leading to their suspension. Rahul Gandhi himself was not suspended.

In fact, the argument can be made that if any suspension was warranted, it should have applied solely to Rahul Gandhi. Once the Speaker delivers a ruling, it is binding on all members—regardless of position. Rahul Gandhi’s refusal to accept that authority lies at the heart of the deadlock.

The solution to this crisis, in the author’s view, is absurdly simple. Parliament should pass a resolution declaring that whenever a member of the Gandhi family—particularly Rahul Gandhi—rises to speak, no parliamentary rules or traditions shall apply to him. He may speak on any subject, at any time, in any manner. He may quote from any document without authentication. Topic relevance should not matter. National security considerations should not apply. No interruptions should be permitted.

Why? Because Rahul Gandhi considers himself entitled. In his worldview, laws, rules, and conventions are meant for others. Numerous legal cases—ranging from questions about citizenship to financial investigations—have lingered for years without resolution. High-profile controversies, including those that reached the Supreme Court, have produced little consequence. Even in cases where conviction occurred, relief arrived swiftly.

If constitutional law does not restrain him, why should parliamentary rules?

This recurring disruption has come at a cost. While Parliament remained stalled, major developments unfolded: the India-US trade deal announcement, the India-EU free trade agreement—described by European leaders themselves as the “mother of all deals”—and nationwide protests by youth over UGC guidelines. On these substantive issues, Rahul Gandhi has remained silent.

This is not new. From Rafale to Pegasus, from Hindenburg to other allegations, none of the issues raised by Rahul Gandhi have survived judicial scrutiny or public judgment. The electorate has repeatedly rejected his narratives. Yet he refuses to reflect or recalibrate.

Instead of engaging voters, he seeks to diminish institutions. Unable to draw a bigger line in politics, he tries to erase existing ones. In the process, he and his party continue to shrink.

In the Rajya Sabha, BJP President Jagat Prakash Nadda described Rahul Gandhi as an “immature child”—someone lacking understanding. The description resonates with the conduct on display. Rahul Gandhi himself claims he does not care about ridicule, even as members of his own party once coined mocking nicknames for him.

Congress leaders openly express frustration that the BJP continues to win while they continue to lose. But electoral defeat is decided by voters, not by disruption. The electorate removed Rahul Gandhi from Amethi in 2019, despite his position as Congress president at the time. Since 1984, Congress has not secured a full majority in the Lok Sabha—long before Narendra Modi entered national politics.

Yet instead of introspection, Rahul Gandhi believes that abusing Narendra Modi is his most effective political weapon. He uses language against the Prime Minister that no opposition leader ever used against Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, or Manmohan Singh—despite their serious policy failures.

This sense of entitlement explains why Rahul Gandhi compares himself directly to the Prime Minister, despite being only one MP among many and a Leader of the Opposition whom even the full opposition does not unanimously accept.

As long as this attitude persists, parliamentary paralysis will continue. Disruption will replace debate. And the Congress party will continue its steady decline—not because of conspiracies, but because of its own choices.

- Being Hindu  FP page.

A party which lost its identity

 They came hunting, but ended up being hunted themselves. This line seems to perfectly describe the current condition of the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi. Over the last eleven years, it has become increasingly difficult even to count how many times Rahul Gandhi has fallen into traps of his own making. Time and again, he has been caught in situations created by his own actions and statements.

In politics, defeat, failure, or even repeated setbacks are not unusual. Losing elections or suffering parliamentary defeats is part of democratic life. However, what Rahul Gandhi has been doing recently—especially during the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament over the last three days—goes far beyond normal political setbacks and enters the realm of serious institutional misconduct.

During the discussion on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, several Members of Parliament spoke. As Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi was given priority and multiple opportunities—at least five or six times—to speak. Yet, on none of these occasions did he address the President’s Address itself. Instead, he attempted to speak about an unpublished book allegedly written by a former Chief of Army Staff, a book that has not yet been cleared by the Ministry of Defence.

Whenever material related to national security is to be published, it must undergo mandatory vetting by the Defence Ministry and the Home Ministry to ensure that sensitive information does not enter the public domain. This particular book has not received such clearance. Despite this, Rahul Gandhi wanted to raise so-called excerpts from this unpublished book inside Parliament.

On one occasion, Rahul Gandhi even claimed within the Parliament premises that he personally possessed a copy of this book. This immediately raises a serious legal question. If such a book exists without Defence Ministry clearance and has been circulated, then both the publisher and Rahul Gandhi himself could potentially be accused of violating the Official Secrets Act. Under Indian law, such violations can invite prosecution and punishment.

Ironically, history shows a clear contradiction in Congress’s own conduct. In the past, the Congress party itself had threatened legal action under the Official Secrets Act over the publication of books related to national security, including works on the 1962 India-China war. Today, leaders of the same party are attempting to rely on an unpublished, unverified manuscript dealing with sensitive defence matters.

This raises a deeper question about intent. The core objective behind such actions appears to be political rather than substantive. Rahul Gandhi, time and again, has demonstrated a willingness to align—directly or indirectly—with narratives that damage India’s national interest, as long as they serve one purpose: weakening Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image, destabilizing his government, and creating an opportunity to remove him from power.

However, the situation escalated further with an incident inside the Parliament complex. Suspended Congress and opposition MPs were sitting near Makar Dwar, the main entrance of Parliament. As Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu was passing through, Rahul Gandhi reportedly addressed him with the words, “Hello, traitor brother,” while extending his hand.

Bittu refused to shake hands and responded strongly, stating that he could not shake hands with someone he considered anti-national. He reminded Rahul Gandhi of the role played by the Gandhi family during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the attack on the Golden Temple, questioning how a turban-wearing Sikh could be labeled a traitor. This exchange triggered a major political storm, with the BJP alleging that Rahul Gandhi had insulted the Sikh community as a whole.

What made the matter even more sensitive was the fact that Ravneet Singh Bittu was once a close associate of Rahul Gandhi within the Congress party before leaving to join the BJP and later becoming a Union Minister. Rahul Gandhi reportedly added that Bittu would “return one day,” to which Bittu later questioned why someone labeled a traitor would be welcomed back.

As Rahul Gandhi found himself cornered, Congress attempted to create a counter-narrative inside Parliament. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey presented multiple published books in the House—books detailing allegations against the Gandhi family, including works on the Mitrokhin Archive, the Bofors scandal, and other historical controversies. These books, written by various authors, including well-known journalists and scholars, are all published, publicly available, and part of the public domain.

Congress questioned why Nishikant Dubey was allowed to refer to books while Rahul Gandhi was stopped. The answer lies in basic parliamentary procedure. Parliament allows references to published material relevant to the subject under discussion. The discussion at hand was on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. An unpublished, unverified book allegedly containing sensitive national security information has no procedural relevance to that discussion.

Furthermore, Nishikant Dubey authenticated the books he cited by placing them on record, making himself accountable for any claims. Rahul Gandhi, on the other hand, refused to authenticate either the book or the newspaper clippings he attempted to cite. This fundamental procedural difference cannot be ignored.

The situation deteriorated further when Congress leaders announced that if the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak, they would prevent members of the ruling party from speaking as well. As a result, when the Prime Minister arrived in the Lok Sabha at the scheduled time to reply to the debate on the President’s Address, aggressive protests by opposition MPs disrupted proceedings. The Presiding Officer was left with no option but to adjourn the House for the entire day.

This marked an unprecedented moment in India’s parliamentary history: a Prime Minister was prevented from delivering his reply in Parliament. The BJP has further highlighted that this reply was related to the President’s Address delivered by President Droupadi Murmu, who comes from a tribal background, framing the disruption as an insult to constitutional dignity as well.

Beyond individual incidents, this entire episode reflects a broader pattern. Congress repeatedly raises issues without fully understanding their implications, only to find that these issues ultimately turn against the party itself. By attempting to weaponize an unpublished book, Congress inadvertently opened the door to renewed scrutiny of numerous published works critical of the Gandhi family.

Rahul Gandhi’s conduct raises serious questions about parliamentary decorum and public responsibility. His language toward the Prime Minister, constitutional authorities, and fellow MPs reflects a disregard for institutional norms. His behavior suggests a sense of entitlement—the belief that rules, traditions, and accountability apply to everyone else, but not to him.

This behavior is rooted in frustration. Eleven years out of power is a long time for a party accustomed to ruling for decades. For the first time in independent India’s history, the Congress party has remained out of power for over a decade continuously. Deprived of authority, the party appears increasingly desperate, willing to cross any line to reclaim power.

History reinforces this pattern. Since 1989, the Indian electorate has repeatedly rejected Congress’s claim to a natural right to rule. Even when Congress formed governments in 1991 and 2004, it did so without a clear majority mandate, relying on sympathy or coalition arithmetic rather than popular endorsement. Allegations of horse-trading and corruption during confidence votes further weakened its moral standing.

In contrast, the BJP secured decisive mandates in 2014 and 2019, and even in the most recent election emerged as the single largest party by a significant margin. Congress, meanwhile, failed for the third consecutive time to cross even the 100-seat mark in the Lok Sabha.

Rahul Gandhi’s repeated breaches of parliamentary norms, his inflammatory language, and his handling of sensitive national security issues are steadily pushing the Congress party further into political irrelevance. Public memory is long, and voters are observant. Ultimately, it is the electorate that delivers the final verdict—and when the time comes, the answer will be given not in slogans or protests, but at the ballot box.

From Beiing Hindu FB

பெங்குயின்

 

 

That Penguin

No one chased me away here.

There are no tracks there.

No food. No water.

No lover waiting on the hill.

I step away

with full awareness.

Do not drape your imagined burdens over me

and call that relief.

Do not load me with your guilt,

your restlessness,

your hunger to assign meaning—

and then feel lighter.

Keep your interpretations with you.

We lived together.

Now it is time to part.

That is all.

Death and loneliness

are griefs meant for humans.

Not for me.

There is no celebration in birth.

There is no sorrow in death.

While speaking philosophy,

we do not drop bombs.

While speaking business,

we do not butcher lives.

There are no bullets in our feathers.

No deceit or conspiracy in our words.

We do not destroy by first winning trust.

We do not tear green lands apart.

We do not steal white continents.

We live

in our own way.

Go your way, humans.

National Interest is not negotiable

 Trump is unhappy with India.

He is unhappy because India prioritises its own welfare over that of the United States.

He does not like an Indian government that works for its own people and safeguards its national interests. He is uncomfortable with India maintaining an independent economic and political stance.

The US Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, openly stated during trade deal negotiations that Trump was unhappy with India declining to comply within the imposed deadline.

The Trump administration even gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi a deadline — expecting him to call and agree to a trade deal.

India, however, did not comply.

This refusal was rightly praised by commentators as a clear assertion of national interest and a rejection of American pressure.

India’s Assertive Foreign Policy

Unlike some other nations — such as Indonesia, the Philippines, or Vietnam — India did not capitulate to US demands.

Prime Minister Modi prioritised India’s national interest, with a strong focus on self-reliance, Swadeshi, and Make in India.

India made it abundantly clear that any trade agreement would be negotiated on India’s terms and timelines, not dictated by Washington.

India’s decision to sign a Free Trade Agreement with the UK further demonstrates its independent foreign policy orientation.

US Frustration, India’s Confidence

Lutnick’s statements clearly reveal US frustration. He admitted that deadlines were extended three times, yet India remained firm.

There is reason for pride in this stance. India today behaves like a confident, self-assured, nationalist power.

National Interest Over Compromise

Prime Minister Modi has consistently emphasised the importance of national interest, especially in sensitive areas such as farmers, fishermen, and livestock rearers — sectors where the US sought significant concessions.

India must be prepared to accept short-term discomfort for long-term growth, secure in the belief that the United States will eventually return to the table — to do business on India’s terms.

Long live India

Venezuela and India

 A Thought for the Times

Power rarely announces itself politely.

It threatens first, negotiates later, and demands obedience disguised as “rules.”

From the day Donald Trump assumed office, the message was unmistakable:

Agree, or pay the price.

50%.

100%.

Now 500% tariffs.

This is not trade policy.

This is coercion dressed up as economics.

Once, Trump was laughed off as a loud, crude fool. Today, that laughter feels misplaced. The clownish noise may have reduced, but something colder has taken its place — a brutal confidence that assumes the world will fall in line.

History tells us that the United States has never been shy about interfering in other nations’ politics. Regime change, destabilisation, economic strangulation — these are not new tools. But what we are witnessing now feels more naked, more impatient, more reckless.

Venezuela is only one example. Environmental commitments are discarded without a second thought. Tariffs are weaponised. Allies are spoken to in the language once reserved for adversaries.

And India is not immune.

We trade with Russia. We buy oil where it suits our interests. For that, we are told to brace for punishment — not because we violated any international law, but because we refused to submit.

The irony is hard to miss. These very policies are hurting the American economy itself. Yet concern for consequences seems absent. Power, once tasted, often stops listening to reason.

So where does that leave countries like ours?

Here is an uncomfortable question worth asking:

Why is India not being treated like Venezuela?

The answer does not lie in diplomacy alone. It lies in deterrence.

There was a time when India could have been pushed around — economically, politically, even militarily. That time ended in May 1998. When Atal Bihari Vajpayee took the political call, and Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam ensured its execution, India crossed an invisible line.

Nuclear capability did not make India aggressive.

It made India unpushable.

Missiles like Agni and Prithvi, strategic autonomy, indigenous defence systems — these were not vanity projects. They were insurance policies against a world that respects strength more than morality.

Today, the West may not like India’s independent stance. It may wish India were weaker, more compliant, more easily “managed.” But wishing is not the same as doing.

They may grind their teeth in frustration, but they are forced to tolerate us.

That tolerance was not granted.

It was earned.

And this leads to another uncomfortable thought:

If India had remained strategically weak, would elections alone have protected us from external pressure?

Would governments have been allowed to stand?

Would leaders have been spared?

History offers sobering answers.

India’s security did not happen by accident.

It was built — deliberately, quietly, and at great cost.

As tariffs rise and global pressure mounts, perhaps the real question for readers is this:

In a world that respects power before principle, are we willing to forget how fragile sovereignty truly is?

Pause.

Reflect.

And remember why some decisions, taken decades ago, still protect us today.

Venezuela

 சமூக நலத்திட்டங்கள் மக்களுக்கு தேவைதான்.  ஆனால்  எந்த அளவு என்பது, அந்த நாட்டின்  எதிர்காலத்தையும், மக்களின் மனோபாவத்தையும்  தீர்மாணிக்கும்.

இலவசம் ஒரு போதை! கம்யூனிசம் ஒரு போதை!  சில வருடங்களுக்கு எல்லாம் நலமாகத்தான் -   சுகமாகத்தான் இருக்கும்.  இறுதியில் பெரும் சரிவைவும் வீழ்ச்சியடையும் சந்தித்தாக வேண்டும்.   சரித்திரம், பல  வெட்டி-வீராவேச  முழக்கங்களின் பின்னே சென்று , முட்டுச் சந்தில் மோதிக் கொண்ட  வரலாற்றை சந்தித்திருக்கிறது. 

நேற்று  வெனிசுவேலா!

உலகிலேயே இலவசங்களால் அழிந்த நாடுகளில் முதன்மையானது வெனிசுவெலாதான். அந்த அளவிற்கு இலவசங்கள் அங்கு அதிகம்.

வெனிசுவெலா சாதாரணமான நாடில்லை. உலகிலேயே பெட்ரோலிய வளத்தில் முதலிடத்தில் இருக்கும் நாடு. சவூதி அரேபியாவைவிடவும் அதிகமான எண்ணெய் அங்கு இருக்கிறது. அங்கிருக்கும் எண்ணெய் வயல்கள் அனைத்தும் அமெரிக்கர்களின் கட்டுப்பாட்டில் இருந்தன. எண்ணெய் விற்றுக் கிடைத்த பணத்தைக் கொண்டு வெனிசுவேலா கொழித்தது. அதன் அருகாமை நாடுகள் அனைத்தும் பொறாமைப்படும்படியான வாழ்க்கையை வெனிசுவெலா மக்கள் வாழ்ந்தார்கள். அப்படி வாழ்ந்த காலத்தில் தங்களது அண்டை நாட்டு எழை, எளிய நாடுகளை சாதாரண வெனிசுவெலாக் குடிமகன் கேலி செய்து வாழ்ந்தான்.

இப்படிச் சென்று கொண்டிருந்த வாழ்க்கை ஹ்யூகோ ச்சாவேஸ் என்கிற மூடனின் மூலமாகக் கீழே சரிந்தது. வெனிசுவேலா அதிபராகப் பதவியேற்ற ச்சாவேஸ், தன்னை ஒரு "பொதுவுடமைவாதியாக'க்  கருதிக் கொண்டார். வெனிசுவேலாவிலிருந்து அமெரிக்க எண்ணெய் நிறுவனங்கள் விரட்டியடிக்கப்பட்டன.  அனைத்தும் அரசுடமையாக்கப்பட்டது. அந்த நாட்டுக் குடிமக்களுக்கு அனைத்தும் இலவசமாக வழங்க உத்தரவிட்டார் ச்சாவேஸ்.

ஆரம்பத்தில் எல்லாம் நல்லபடியாகவே நடந்து கொண்டிருந்தது. ஆனால் எண்ணெய் எடுக்கும் கருவிகளை இயக்கும் அளவிற்கு டெக்னிகல் சமாச்சாரங்கள் வெனிசுலாவின் மக்களுக்குத் தெரிந்திருக்கவில்லை. எண்ணெய் உற்பத்தி குறைய ஆரம்பித்தது. இதன் காரணமாக கஜானாவில் இருந்த பணம் கரைய ஆரம்பித்தது.

எந்த வேலையும் செய்யாமல் சும்மா உட்கார்ந்திருந்த வெனிசுவெலா மக்களுக்கு உலகின் அத்தனை பகுதியிலிருக்கும் உயர்தரமான பொருட்கள் இலவசமாக வழங்கப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருந்தது. இதன் காரணமாக எவனும் எந்தவேலையும் செய்யவில்லை. விவசாயிகள் விவசாயம் செய்வதைக் கைவிட்டார்கள். இதையேதான் பிற தொழில் செய்பவர்களும் செய்தார்கள். விவசாயம் அழிந்தது. உள் நாட்டுத் தொழில்கள் நசிந்தன.

எனவே அரிசியிலிருந்து எல்லாப் பொருட்களும் வெளிநாட்டிலிருந்து இறக்குமதி செய்யும் நிலைக்கு ஆளானது.  எண்ணெய் எடுப்பது நின்றுபோனது. அதற்கும் மேலாக அமெரிக்கா பொருளாதாரத் தடைகளை இட்டு நிலைமையை மோசமாக்கியது. 

இதற்கிடையே, இதற்கெல்லாம் காரணமான கோமாளி ஹ்யூகோ ச்சாவேஸ் கேன்சரால் இறந்தார்.

அவருக்குப் பின்னர் அவரது நண்பர் மடூரோ அதிபரானார். காரகாஸ் நகரில் பஸ் ட்ரைவராகப் பணிபுரிந்தவர் இந்த மடூரோ. எந்தவிதமான நிர்வாகத் திறமையும் இல்லாத மடூரோ, வெனிசுலாவை இரும்புக்கரம் கொண்டு சர்வாதிகாரியாக ஆட்சி செய்தார். பணமில்லாததால் இலவசங்கள் நின்றுபோயின. நேற்றுவரையில் சுகபோக வாழ்க்கையில் திளைத்த வெனிசுவெலா மக்களை பஞ்சமும், பட்டினியும் சூழ்ந்தன. அதிலிருந்து இன்றுவரையில் அவர்களால் வெளிவர இயலவில்லை. 

இலவசங்கள் முற்றிலும் நின்றுபோயின.

இந்தத் தகவல்களையெல்லாம் பெரும்பாலோர் அறிந்தேயிருப்பார்கள் என்றாலும், வெனிசுவெலா நமக்கெல்லாம் ஒரு பாடம்.

நேற்றைக்கு அமெரிக்கா அதிரடியாக வெனிசுவெலாவைத் தாக்கி மடூரோவையும், அவர் மனைவியையும் கைது செய்து அமெரிக்காவிற்குக் கொண்டு சென்றிருக்கிறது. அதன் நோக்கம் என்னவென்பதனைவிளக்கத் தேவையில்லை. இனி வெனிசுவெலா அமெரிக்காவின் அடிமை நாடு.

சோவியத் சீட்டுக் கட்டு வீழ்ந்த கதை நினைவிருக்கும்.

நம் நாட்டை  ,  இலவசம் என்னும்  ஒட்டுண்ணி மெல்ல மெல்ல அரித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.  

கட்சி அரசியல் போட்டி காரணமாக, சகட்டு மேணிக்கு இலவசம் எனும் வியாதி, பிஜேபியையும் விட்டு வைக்க வில்லை. மாதம் 2000₹ free. பெண்களுக்கு  பேருந்து பயணம் free. பொங்கலுக்கு 3000₹ free.  மின்சாரம் free (100 to 200 units)

மக்களுக்கு தரமாகக் கிடைக்க வேண்டிய கல்வி, மருத்துவம் சாலை போன்றவைகள் மெல்ல மெல்ல விற்பனைப் பொருட்களா மாறத்துவங்கி விட்டன.  

சங்கம் உழைப்பைத்தான் போற்றுகிறது.  "தானங்களை" மட்டுமே அல்ல! அது ஒரு பகுதி! அவ்வளவே!!

மோகன் பகவத்ஜி சொல்கிறார்:

Don't try to understand the ideology of RSS through the BJP or VHP; they work independently and are not remote controlled by the Sangh” 

Attempting to understand the RSS through its affiliated organisations were making a fundamental mistake.

Benzos

I am observing from the circles, considerable number of people,  especially above 40, tends take Benzos for insomnia related issues & depression .   They even do not know, they are Benzos and how it work on the brain.  What they think is, it's just another tablet, which can help them to sleep.  It's  not so simple buddy! Learning the damages done the brain activities would be a starting point of the quitting process.  I am not talking about the real patients who need psychological meds; it's about the people who are taking it on their own, just for sleep.  

The article, I read in SM, is reproduced below, with due thanks and courtesy  to the author. 

Benzo Brain Damage Recovery: Healing Your Brain After Benzodiazepines

Clinically Reviewed by Bobby Boykin, MS, LASAC, CRS

Using benzos for a long time can leave you feeling worried about your brain. You might wonder if the changes you notice are permanent or if your mind can bounce back. The truth is, benzo brain damage recovery is possible. With the right guidance, medical support, and daily habits, your brain can start to heal, and you can regain focus, memory, and clarity.

Recovery isn’t instant, but small, steady steps make a real difference. At Guiding Road Recovery Center, we help people like you understand the changes benzos cause and support the journey to safer, healthier brain function.

Key Takeaways From This Blog

• Learn about the effects of benzodiazepines on the brain and the risks of long-term use.
• Discover medical and holistic ways to support brain healing from benzos.
• Get practical tips for daily routines that aid recovery and improve cognitive function.

How Benzos Can Affect Your Brain and Cognitive Function

Benzodiazepines are a class of drugs often prescribed to manage conditions like stress, anxiety, and insomnia. They work by calming the central nervous system and enhancing the effect of GABA, a neurotransmitter that slows down brain activity. While this sedative effect can bring relief, long-term use can lead to noticeable changes in the brain. People who use benzos for months or years may notice damaging effects like memory issues, slowed thinking, or difficulty concentrating.

The risk grows with high doses and prolonged exposure, as benzos can alter neurotransmitter activity and affect the brain regions responsible for learning and emotion. This doesn’t mean recovery is impossible, but understanding these effects is the first step toward healing from prolonged use of benzodiazepines.

Brain Changes From Long-Term Benzodiazepine Use	Possible Symptoms
Altered functions of neurotransmitters in the brain	Memory lapses, fogginess
Reduced cognitive flexibility	Difficulty problem-solving
Changes in brain structure (hippocampus)	Short-term memory issues, emotional instability
Nervous system slowing	Fatigue, slowed reaction time

Recognizing the ways benzos affect your brain helps you track recovery progress and work with professionals on a plan to restore cognitive function safely and develop healthier coping strategies.

• Reduced anxiety and better emotional regulation
• Slow but steady restoration of brain health and cognitive function

Being patient and consistent with medical guidance, healthy routines, and emotional support ensures the best possible brain healing from benzodiazepine exposure. Progress may feel slow, but every small step contributes to a stronger, clearer mind and improvements in cognitive impairment.

• strengthens the central nervous system, and improves mood. Activities like walking, swimming, or yoga are gentle yet effective.
• Engage Your Mind. Challenge your memory and attention through puzzles, reading, or learning new skills. Stimulating the brain encourages recovery of cognitive function affected by prolonged benzo exposure.
• Manage Stress Mindfully. Practice meditation, deep breathing, or mindfulness to calm the nervous system. Reducing stress helps your brain restore balance after benzodiazepine withdrawal.
• Follow Professional Guidance. Regular check-ins with healthcare providers ensure safe detox, proper tapering, and ongoing support for brain recovery.

Recovering from benzos can feel overwhelming, but you don’t have to face it alone. At Guiding Road Recovery Center in Phoenix, Arizona, we provide compassionate care, evidence-based treatment, and holistic support to help individuals safely overcome benzodiazepine addiction and promote long-lasting brain health. Reach out today to take the first step toward a healthier, clearer mind.