It is matter of great concern that the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India is putting bonafide voters through such difficulty as to warrant the intervention of the Supreme Court of India to ensure that the exercise does not end up in denying them the right to exercise their franchise which is so elementary and critical in a democracy.

The latest such instance is in fact the court’s directive to the ECI to display the names of those on its “logical discrepancies” list at gram panchayat bhavans and block offices of talukas and ward offices in West Bengal. The court has also instructed the ECI that those likely to be affected by the exercise are to be allowed to submit their documents or objections at the panchayat bhavans and block offices.

The ECI has come out with the term “logical discrepancies” that has resulted in the dropping of the names of a whopping 1.25 crore voters in the state as there are mismatches while linking the progeny of voters on the 2002 voters’ list. Different spellings were cited as the reasons for dropping some while notices were also sent on the grounds that the age difference with the parent was less than 15 years or more than 50 years. The “logic” behind the “logical discrepancies”, however, failed to convince the court which wondered how a 15-year age gap between mother and son can be a logical discrepancy “as if we don’t have child marriages in this country”.

The ECI’s response, however, was not in a way that can inspire confidence in the minds of the people. Its obstinate “if the ECI is to be distrusted, let the ECI not hold the elections at all” reeked of contempt for democratic rights and norms, as if the poll body had all the rights and liberties to play with the voting rights of the people. The fact is that none other than the EC has been distrusting itself — the whole exercise has its genesis in the distrust it has in the electoral rolls it had prepared based on which the Lok Sabha and the state Assemblies were elected. Yet it continued to come up with one weird argument after another justifying its untenable positions.

The poll panel would do well to remember what the apex court had originally suggested when it started the SIR in Bihar: Let it be an inclusive exercise, and not an exclusive one. No party or individual has complained about its authority in cleaning up the electoral rolls but its refusal to take responsibility for its own actions cannot pass. Instead of explaining why a name which is on the poll roll must be dropped, it asked the citizens to prove their case for being there, forcing one to question the logic behind the entire exercise.

Fortunately for the citizens, that has failed to impress the apex court. The poll panel should at least now come down from the pedestal on which it has placed itself, understand its responsibility to the citizens and do its job in a smooth fashion without inconveniencing the population, made up of the self-same voters who elect this country’s rulers.

The world’s largest political party, BJP, with a membership of 14 crores that is twice as large as the second placed Chinese Communist Party, will be headed now by its youngest president in Nitin Nabin. As a five-term legislator from Bihar who has also served as a minister in the state cabinet, he has the credentials for the president’s job, and he has had the unanimous backing of his party brass and state units.

As he takes over the role played by Amit Shah and J.P. Nadda before him, what he does as BJP president is going to define his political career from now more than what he has achieved so far in driving the electoral success of the party, notably in Chhattisgarh, Delhi and recently in the Bihar Assembly elections. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi reminded him, as a millennial, Nabin is tasked not only with leading the party but also to coordinate matters within the NDA alliance.

Nabin takes over at a time when the party has recovered smartly from the dip it faced in electoral popularity as evidenced in the Lok Sabha polls of 2024 when the BJP failed to get a simple majority of its own. Since then, the poll juggernaut had picked up pace again in big electoral victories in Maharashtra, Haryana, Delhi and Bihar. And yet it faces a greater challenge as the polls this year may pose the BJP’s biggest test in years as Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam go to the polls in 2026.

Known for youthful energy and an ability to coordinate with all sections within his top-heavy national party, from the big brass to state leaders, Nabin will have his task cut out for him as he heads a party that has been best defined by its success at the ballot box, rising from a count of just two MPs in 1984 to a majority on its own in the 2014 polls. As a representative of the newer generations, he must also display an ability to transfer the party’s message to the youth to sustain the momentum attained.

India enters 2026 with a harder edge. One cannot miss the surge of voices demanding a robust projection of hard power. This shift toward an unapologetic pursuit of Hard Power Primacy is driven by a stark realisation: in a world defined by the breakdown of international norms, economic protectionism and aggressive territorial revisionism along its borders, soft power alone has become an unreliable shield. Influential voices now argue that for India to claim its place as a pole in the multipolar world, its diplomatic “voice” must be backed by the “muscle” of a high-tech military and an integrated industrial base.

Last November, the media had reported that the defence ministry could be seeking a 20 per cent hike in the defence budget for the financial year 2026-27 to modernise the armed forces in a “particularly tough neighbourhood”. With the Union Budget fast approaching, it remains a possibility -- even if historically, defence allocations rise by 8-10 per cent annually.

Amid the clamour for hard power and hard decisions, however, one key fact needs to be acknowledged. True national power in today’s fragile world is never one-dimensional. A country’s global leverage depends on the seamless integration of three pillars: technological superiority, economic might and military prowess -- and all three pillars rest on a single foundation: human capital. In an age defined by the human-machine equation -- AI, cyber resilience, advanced manufacturing and high-tech indigenisation -- hard power collapses without human power. Hardware without trained minds is hollow. The “human software” is what allows nations to design, operate, and out innovate adversaries.

“Human resources is a critical element for the military, and more so in modern warfare. Technological advances have made human resources more relevant, with precision-guided munitions and non-contact warfare gaining traction,” says Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar (Retd), director of the Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi. He retired from the Indian Navy in early 2007 after 37 years of service and has the rare distinction of having headed three think tanks.

In the years to come, he points out, human resources and its “educational and technological index” will become more important. “The days of the sturdy soldier carrying a rifle and the dumb sailor aloft the main mast are gone.” This circles back to how crucial human development is for hard power. Raw human resources taken from a pool of civilians (young recruits, cadets, Agniveers) “have to be groomed, trained and retained”, he notes. One example is cyberspace. A nation will have to tap into “both the uniformed and the civilian gene pool to effectively harness new technologies” such as cyberspace, artificial intelligence and beyond.

In short, human software will be the key requirement -- needed to design, operate and out-innovate adversaries -- making a human capital strategy essential.

“Military and technological power absolutely requires quality human resources. The United States got to where it has by investing huge resources in these areas and attracting global talent. China is another example of a country whose pre-eminence in these areas is based on huge investments in human resources and research and development. Innovation requires that. China is now investing not just in physical sciences but also social sciences. These investments are made with a long-term view, not short-term calculations. So, if you unpack the words “hard power”, key determinants would be technology and human resources that can optimally leverage it. Add social cohesion to this, and sustainable national power in the real sense assumes social cohesion,” says Niranjan Sahoo, senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, focusing on governance, democracy and federalism.

Economic dominance cannot be built on the brilliance of just a few outliers. India has produced exceptional individuals who lead global corporations, but their success abroad -- a secession of the successful -- only underscores the absence of a broad enough domestic pool of talent. With India ranked 130th of 193 countries in the UN Human Development Index 2025, gaps in health, nutrition, education, and skills leave millions unable to contribute. Without a broad human capital base, demographic scale will never translate into sustained hard power. It is not enough to have just those at the top of the food chain access excellent education, healthcare, nutrition.

National resilience, part of hard power, has other elements: without universal access to clean water, sanitation, quality healthcare and nutrition, India cannot build the healthy, job-ready population essential to drive innovation, attract investment and propel the country towards (and beyond) a $5 trillion economy. There have been steady improvements on many fronts, but India’s peers -- other major economies -- are far ahead in the human capital stakes.

Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Research Programme and a China Studies Fellow at the Bengaluru-based Takshashila Institution, makes an interesting observation in a recent insightful guest essay. In this piece (Between Rivalry and Rapprochement: The Trials and Trajectory of India-China Relations), Kewalramani notes that both India and China have emerged as major global powers and economies. Over the past three decades, their simultaneous expansion in interests and capabilities has produced growing friction, says the author. However, one significant aspect of this economic expansion receives relatively little attention in Indian discourse: the strategic use of rapid GDP growth to advance human development.

“While both countries have experienced a simultaneous rise, the pace of this growth has been sharply uneven. Consequently, structurally, there now exists a deep power asymmetry between the two countries. In the early 1990s, India and China were near equals; today China’s economy is more than five times the size of India’s. In addition, over the years, China has been far more effective than India in channelling the gains from rapid GDP growth towards the development of human capital and hard power capabilities. For instance, China today counts as a leading innovation power, competing for global leadership in key domains of science and technology. Rapid GDP growth has also permitted China’s defence spending to expand significantly in absolute terms, while officially hovering at around 1.5 per cent of GDP…,” says Kewalramani.

Human capital is the linchpin of hard power -- transforming resources into effective military, technological and economic capabilities -- and is no less vital as the foundation of soft power. Human development must therefore be reframed not just as a social welfare goal, but as the essential strategic infrastructure underpinning technological, economic, and military pre-eminence. In a world of mounting uncertainties --geopolitical tensions, technological disruption, climate shocks -- a nation’s fortress is only as impregnable as the well-being, intelligence, creativity and morale of its people. Invest in humans first, and the rest follows with multiplied force.

The writer focuses on development issues in India and emerging economies. She can be reached at patralekha.chatterjee@gmail.com

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate could file a writ petition before High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of its rights as a “juristic person”. A juristic person is a non-human legal entity recognised by law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being. Article 226 refers to the power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

A two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the agency on appeals filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments challenging an order passed by the Kerala High Court which upheld the ED's locus to file writ petitions under Article 226.

In its order passed on September 26, last year, the Kerala High Court had upheld a single judge order staying the judicial inquiry set up by the Kerala government into the ED probe of the 2020 gold smuggling through diplomatic channel. The judicial inquiry commission was set up following allegations that ED officials coerced the accused to implicate political leaders, including the CM, in the gold smuggling case.

The High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by the Kerala government challenging the interim stay order of the single-judge bench. Observing that the appeal lacked merit, the High Court held that the single-judge bench had committed no error in entertaining the ED's petition and staying the inquiry.

The case originated from a May 7, 2021, state government notification ordering a judicial inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, against ED officials accused of coercing the accused to implicate political leaders.

Former high court judge Justice V.K. Mohanan was appointed to head the inquiry commission. It was tasked with examining evidence, including an audio clip attributed to accused Swapna Suresh and a letter by accused Sandeep Nair, both alleging coercion by ED officers. The ED deputy director moved the High Court, questioning the state's authority to order an inquiry against a Central investigating agency.

The single bench held that the ED had locus standi and granted an interim stay of the state government notification on August 11, 2021, prompting the state government to file an appeal.

Not long ago, a Central deputation was the IPS equivalent of a promotion without paperwork. A stint in the CBI, IB or a Central armed police force meant prestige, influence, and a ringside view of national power. Today, that attraction is visibly wearing thin.

Despite expanding sanctioned strength, hundreds of IPS posts at the Centre remain vacant. Sources have informed DKB that this isn’t a pipeline problem; it’s a motivation problem. Apparently, officers are available, but they’re just not interested.

One reason is brutally simple: the cost-benefit equation does not add up. Central deputation increasingly means hard field postings, limited autonomy and a bureaucratic ecosystem where accountability is high, but authority is diluted. Add uncertain career dividends, and the shine fades fast.

Then came policy overreach. The tenure rules that penalise officers for refusing deputation, including restrictions on future central or foreign postings, were meant to nudge compliance. Instead, they triggered resistance. Coercion rarely produces commitment; it usually produces caution.

There’s also a structural shift underway. With courts pushing for reduced IPS dominance in Central armed police forces, senior deputation opportunities are becoming increasingly scarce. Officers can read the writing on the wall. Why relocate careers for diminishing returns?

More quietly, this reflects a generational change in policing ambition. Many younger officers see greater impact and visibility in state postings than in Delhi’s layered hierarchies. The prestige economy has changed; Delhi is no longer the only power centre.

The problem is bigger than individual choice. If the central deputation is to regain credibility, it needs better incentives and clearer career value. Right now, Delhi isn’t being rejected. It’s being weighed. And found wanting.

The IPR ultimatum for the IAS

The government’s latest advisory to IAS officers on filing their Immovable Property Returns (IPRs) may look routine, but its message is anything but. Miss the January 31 deadline, the department of personnel and training warns, and the consequences could include disciplinary action and stalled promotions. In bureaucratic language, failure to file is now a “good and sufficient reason” for action, which is about as close to a red flag as officialdom gets.

To be clear, this is not a new obligation. IAS officers have always been required to declare their immovable assets annually. Transparency is part of the job description. What is new is the sharpened enforcement. For years, delayed filings were treated with a fair bit of indulgence — reminders issued, explanations accepted, deadlines stretched. That phase appears to be over.

Technology has removed most excuses. Since 2017, officers have been able to file IPRs through the SPARROW online portal. Returns can be submitted electronically or uploaded as scanned forms. For the 2025 calendar year, the system will automatically close after January 31, 2026. No extensions, no manual overrides — the software doesn’t negotiate.

The real pressure point, however, is the link between IPR compliance and career progression. Officers who fail to file on time will not be considered for appointment to the next level of the pay matrix. That’s a serious lever in a system where promotions matter more than almost anything else. Transparency, in effect, has been turned into a career gatekeeper.

Critics may argue that this approach is rigid and unforgiving. But that defence wears thin when applied to senior officers entrusted with complex administrations and public funds. Filing a once-a-year property return is hardly an unreasonable demand.

Love wins, but do other cadres lose?

On the face of it, marriage-based inter-cadre transfers appear to be a harmless, even humane reform. After all, the civil services shouldn’t force officers to choose between public service and private life. Fair enough. But when dozens of such transfers start clustering around a handful of “desirable” cadres, it’s time to pause and start asking uncomfortable questions.

The recent spurt of IAS and IPS officers gravitating towards Haryana and Punjab through marriage-based transfers isn’t just a coincidence. These cadres offer proximity to Delhi, higher visibility and better long-term career optics. Love may be blind, but officers are not.

The rules framed by the department of personnel and training (DopT) do permit such transfers, and with good reason. Dual-career marriages are now the norm, not the exception. The problem isn’t the rule; it’s the pattern. When too many officers land in the same cadres, other states quietly lose out on talent, diversity of experience, and institutional depth.

What also gets whispered about, though rarely on record, is fairness. Babus who spend years in tough or remote cadres often see colleagues leapfrog into cushier geographies through perfectly legal but selectively advantageous routes. The optics aren’t great, even if the paperwork is spotless.

None of this argues for scrapping marriage-based transfers. But it does make the case for tighter caps, greater transparency, and a periodic audit of how these transfers reshape the administrative ecosystem. Otherwise, we risk turning cadre management into a system where matrimonial alliances quietly double as career accelerators.

Mumbai: Amidst the raging language controversy in Maharashtra, a notification in the Gujarati language by Palghar district administration has added fuel to the fire. The opposition parties have condemned the move, calling it an imposition of Gujarati language in the state.

The notification was issued by the district administration due to a Communist Party of India (Marxist) morcha on January 19-20 to protest against the Vadhavan Port, which necessitated restrictions on vehicular movement along the Mumbai-Ahmedabad NH-48 highway.

However, the Gujarati notification ignited a political storm with senior Congress leader Vijay Wadettiwar criticising the state government over it. “This is just the beginning. Gujarati is being imposed starting from Palghar. If the BJP gets the Mumbai mayor’s post, it will be clear on whose instructions the city will be ruled,” he said.

Calling it a serious matter, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut demanded a clarification from Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis about the issue. “All parties have to think seriously about it. Is Palghar a part of Maharashtra or has it been attached to the neighbouring state under the pretext of the bullet train or Vadhvan port? The Chief Minister of Maharashtra should publicly release a map of Palghar,” he said.

Senior officials from the Palghar district collectorate, however, dismissed the allegations. “There is no room for confusion or any insult to Marathi. The original order prohibiting vehicular movement on the highway was issued in Marathi,” a senior district official said.

A large number of motorists travelling on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway pass through Gujarat, so it was necessary that they too were made aware of the traffic restrictions, he said.

“For the convenience of motorists coming from Gujarat, the order was translated into Gujarati by authorities on the Gujarat side and displayed in the border villages. This appears to have led to the misunderstanding,” the official said.

However, according to locals, the same favour was not shown to them by the Gujarat authorities. They said, the railway underpass at Bhilad in Gujarat, near the border, is closed since January 18 due to ongoing construction work on a new cement tunnel. However, the local administration has not issued any traffic advisories in Marathi despite Marathi-speaking drivers from Palghar district using this route extensively.

The Marathi vs Gujarati language controversy has been simmering in Maharashtra for a long time. Last year in July, Raj Thackeray-led Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) workers forcibly took down Gujarati signboards from several Gujarati hotels along the highway in Thane and Palghar districts, insisting that signage must be in Marathi.

New Delhi: Amid apprehensions of a reduction in flights due to the new crew timing norms that IndiGo is bound to implement from February 10, when the exemption given to it lapses, the airline has assured the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) of sufficient pilot availability for stable operations. The DGCA on Tuesday said it is closely monitoring IndiGo operations.

The DGCA said that during the review meeting on January 19, IndiGo reported adequate pilot availability against projected operational requirements after February 10. It assured operational stability and no flight cancellations after February 10, based on the current approved network, crew strength, and the removal of the two FDTL exemptions approved on December 6, 2025.

“The sustained regulatory oversight and corrective measures undertaken by IndiGo have resulted in stabilization of operations and improvement in service reliability. The DGCA continues to closely monitor the airline’s operations, with particular emphasis on roster integrity, crew availability, buffer adequacy, system robustness, and adherence to FDTL requirements,” DGCA said.

The DGCA had on Saturday slapped a hefty penalty of Rs 22.20 crore on IndiGo for massive flight disruptions that caused immense inconvenience to passengers in December adding it was closely monitoring the airline's operations with "particular emphasis on roster integrity, crew availability, buffer adequacy, system robustness, and adherence to FDTL requirements". In the wake of the massive disruptions, DGCA had curtailed the airline's winter schedule by 10 per cent until February 10. Between December 3 and 5, the DGCA said, 2,507 flights were cancelled, and 1,852 flights were delayed, impacting over 3 lakh passengers at airports across the country.

On Tuesday, citing the airline's submissions, the DGCA said there are 2,400 Pilots in Command (PICs) as against the requirement for 2,280, and the number of First Officers is 2,240 compared to the requirement for 2,050.

During the meeting, IndiGo assured operational stability and no flight cancellations after February 10, 2026, based on the current approved network, above crew strength, and the removal of the two FDTL (Flight Duty Time Limitations) exemptions approved on December 6, 2025, the watchdog said in a statement.

The watchdog mentioned that the disruptions stemmed from mismanagement of adequate flight crew, inadequate regulatory preparedness at the operator level, and shortcomings in system software support, management structure, and operational control.

"The airline's planning processes did not adequately identify operational deficiencies or maintain sufficient operational buffers. There was an overriding focus on maximising utilisation of crew, aircraft, and network resources, which led to reduced roster buffer margins.

"Crew rosters were designed to operate at the limits of permissible duty periods, with increased reliance on dead-heading, tail swaps, extended duty patterns, and minimal recovery margins. This approach compromised roster integrity and operational resilience and adversely impacted the effective implementation of the revised FDTL provisions," the DGCA said in a statement on Tuesday.

Following the disruptions last month, DGCA had deployed its officers at IndiGo's Operations Control Centre (OCC) and at key airports. From December 6 to 30, the regulator deployed two Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs) along with passenger facilitation personnel. These teams oversaw day-to-day operations, monitored passenger handling and ensured regulatory compliance during the recovery phase.

Certain temporary operational exceptions were permitted strictly in the public interest to stabilise the system, without compromising safety, the statement said. To date, DGCA said IndiGo has submitted four weekly reports, three fortnightly reports, and has participated in weekly review meetings, providing updated data on all critical operational parameters.

A sprinkling of European soldiers flaunting Nato insignia landed in Greenland over the weekend as Donald Trump sent F-35s and bombers to the Middle East vowing to help Iranian protesters if the killings continued. What many in the West wondered was when would he make a decisive move. People in the East would be less anxious to plunge the world into the horrors of a fratricidal civil war that rents society apart, turns clan against clan and family against family. It was how the West manipulated what was called the Arab Spring.

Protests are nothing new in Iran. Ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution, some 93 million Iranians have battled a plethora of political, systemic, ideological, economic and institutional challenges culminating in the supreme question of who will take over if the Islamic Republic collapses. The Pahlavi dynasty had a ready successor waiting in Ayatollah Khomeini. But what started on December 28 with shopkeepers protesting at Tehran’s Grand Bazar over the Iranian currency’s savage loss of value was not an organised regime-ousting campaign. It was a spontaneous expression of popular grievances that quickly morphed into nationwide demonstrations expressing dissatisfaction with almost all aspects of the ruling establishment, especially with the ferocity with which it inflicts the rigours of bigotry on people who were getting used to the relaxed social climate under the Shah.

The last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, did try to instil in his subjects a sense of national pride and continuity, quite distinct from the religious zeal that holds together most other Muslim nations. The exercise couldn’t claim much historical accuracy, but the Shah’s constant secular invocations of 2,500 years of Persian monarchy, which he linked to ancient empires like those of Cyrus the Great and not with Quranic teachings, were not without impact. Of course, the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) was a parvenu affair that did not long survive the lavish Persepolis ceremony to showcase imperial splendour. Matters might have turned out differently if only this propaganda fuelled by petrodollars and Pahlavi pride had also embraced political and economic reforms.

The monarchy’s collapse in 1979 and the consequent Western disapproval, boycotts and sanctions was compounded by a potent mix of mounting domestic pressure and aggressive American threats, leaving Iran’s leaders with few options on coping with catastrophe. The record slump in the Iranian rial’s value was just the latest in a long series of crises.

The reimposition of punishing US sanctions in 2018 made daily life harder for millions of Iranians, with many losing confidence in the government’s ability to improve the economy and crack down on mismanagement and corruption. What made things worse was President Donald Trump’s June air attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, following it up by loudly threatening to attack Iran again, claiming that his aim is to “help” the protesters.

Ordinary Iranians could not comprehend how the abrupt cancellation of American officials’ talks with their Iranian counterparts and nuclear mayhem promoted the Trump administration’s alleged MIGA (Make Iran Great Again) goal, especially when the US kept urging the protesters to keep demonstrating in the streets and attack government buildings and installations.

Initially, the government did attempt to address grievances by rolling out a series of economic reforms. The changes included replacing the central bank governor and scrapping a preferential exchange rate for imports of certain basic goods, making a $7 monthly cash transfer instead. But the moves fell flat. And as the protests widened, the security forces’ response entered a new, more violent phase. Since January 8, the authorities have imposed a near-total communications blackout, while thousands of people were arrested. Iran has released no official toll figure, but it is revealing that the authorities admit that more than 100 security forces have been killed. Opposition activists say the death toll is much higher and that it includes hundreds — if not thousands — of protesters. Tehran’s defiant official mood was summed up by the Iranian foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, telling Al Jazeera, as a message for the Americans: “We are ready for war”. That was when President Trump was advising Iranian protesters that “help is on the way”.

This is not the first time the government has resorted to harsh tactics. The difference, according to observers familiar with Iranian politics, is that the ayatollahs seem unable to find a path forward, even if they succeed in quelling the current round of dissent. “I can’t do anything,” President Masoud Pezeskhian admitted on the eve of the protests, referring to his country’s economic difficulties.

As a member of the Majlis (2008-24), he criticised the government for the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman arrested for allegedly not wearing the hijab in accordance with government regulations, and the law enforcement department’s brutal reaction to popular protests beginning in 2009. Mr Pezeskhian is the most reform-oriented President since Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), under whom he served as minister of health (2001-05). But he is also considered loyal to the hard-line supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is also restrained by a historically conservative Majlis.

Past upheavals have resulted in the government providing some benefits to the public. After mass protests in 2009, Iran showed flexibility by negotiating a nuclear deal with the West. Following protests driven by the economic hardships of 2019, the authorities handed out subsidies from the state’s coffers.

And after the women-led mass protests in 2022, they loosened some social restrictions. But the options may be more limited now, as the regime is isolated and out of touch when it comes to tackling daunting economic problems that have been neglected for far too long. Iran is not only facing pressure from within but its network of supporters abroad has been greatly weakened since Israel’s multi-front regional wars in 2023. A 12-day war with Israel left the country’s defence capabilities in a sadly diminished state.

With the shadow of potential US military intervention looming large, the ayatollahs see the protests as more than just an internal matter. They cannot afford any longer to ignore Mr Trump’s oblique warning: “The problem is there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela.” No wonder the protests are simmering down. Iran must be relieved.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author

There has been an unseemly controversy over the remarks of musician-composer A.R. Rahman that suggested that there was discrimination in the film industry as “people who are not creative have the power now” and that “it might be a communal thing also.” He has indeed pointed to discrimination, but not against him as he said “it is not in may face”. His reference clearly was to the industry as a whole. He also suggested two reasons: one is that the balance of power in the industry has changed and that the decision-makers need not necessarily be the creative people. And then there is, according to him, a communal angle, too.

People were aghast at his statement for two reasons. One, Rahman is one of the busiest and most respected composers of not just of Indian cinema, he is a global phenomenon; he just cannot be without work. And two, Indian filmdom, like Indian cricket, has always promoted talent, and communal frenzy has made little impact. The othering of Muslims is a reality in contemporary India but it has not entered the world of art to have an impact. Yet.

Those who helped fan a furious debate over his remarks must hold back now that he has clarified that his intentions were “misunderstood” and that his purpose “has always been to uplift, honour and serve through music” and that he has “never wished to cause pain”. The composer, perhaps one of the best-known Indian names all over the world, was subjected to a relentless attack for his remarks. He was asked to be grateful to the country, and he obliged by saying “India is my inspiration, my teacher and my home”.

There may be some undesirable elements creeping into the world of Indian art, and Rahman’s words can be taken as an alert on the need to be vigilant against it. It will be in the interest of all if the debate ends at that point.

Berhampore: Fresh violence hit Murshidabad in West Bengal during the special intensive revision (SIR), disrupting the hearing process again. This time, it was over the submissions form 7, which is about claims and objections for voters’ names’ deletion in the SIR.

TMC accused BJP of deleting their voters’ names by submitting the forms as Monday, which was the last date. At Lalbag SDO office, TMC workers vandalized Lalbag BJP president Somen Mondal’s car.

Mr Mondal alleged, "TMC workers, led by their former MLA Sayani Singha Roy, snatched thousands of forms 7 from us and burnt them. We were able to save some forms and took shelter with it inside the SDO office but they stormed there and beat us. The officials fled in fear."

Ms Singha Roy however claimed, "It was a spontaneous outburst of the voters. We only resisted BJP from submitting fake forms 7 at any cost." At Kandi SDO office, TMC workers prevented BJP workers from submitting the same forms for Kandi, Burwan and Bharatpur assembly constituencies.

This led to another clash between the two sides. A female BJP leader, Binita Roy, was found assaulted. Later, the BJP workers regrouped and stormed the Kandi police station, staging a dharna and demanding immediate arrest of the culprits.

At Nowda, TMC workers led by Murshidabad MP Abu Taher Khan and Murshidabad Zila Parishad Shiksha Karmadhyaksha Mohammad Saifuzzaman gheraoed the BDO office and halted the SIR hearing.

They blocked Amtala-Hariharpara State Highway and burnt effigies of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Mr Khan claimed, "BJP and EC officials tried hard to delete several genuine voters’ names, filing objections but we will resist it at any cost." Similar scenes prevailed at Berhampore SDO office and Shamshergunge BDO office also.

It is one year to the day since Donald Trump came to the White House to begin his second term in which time he has overturned the rules-based world order that had got by for 80 years since the end of World War II, with its fair share of problems for humanity of course. What harm Mr Trump has done in one year to the world with his tariffs on trade is beyond calculation, but what he has done to the image of the United States in that time may be considerably worse.

If the 47th US President’s action in getting the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, abducted from Caracas and bringing him to face the US justice system in New York shook the world, his threats to take over the world’s largest island, Greenland, for the sake of his country’s security has had his allies balk at the belligerent posture of a global policeman who wishes to go way beyond orchestrating regime changes.

Bombing Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, striking at ISIS terror campuses and bombing boats at sea were extraterritorial actions that saw the rebirth of America as the protector of the free world. But the readiness to trample upon sovereignty in grabbing territory belonging to an ally in Denmark, a member of the EU and Nato, is causing no end of heartache to a whole continent.

Europe may have been at fault for largely underserving its security interests by not funding Nato liberally, which was owed to their belief in America being the willing and voluntary protector of the free world after its leading role in western conquests of World War II. In being willing to abandon Europe so callously is what sets apart Mr Trump as the most enigmatic, if quixotic, US President in history.

Mr Trump may not have gone the whole hog in punishing China as a trade partner with a historically monstrous surplus, but he has been quite happy to turn the screws on allies and friends, including India and Brazil. The average American may ultimately pay the price of tariffs, but who is to bell the cat with a leader who believes he has put America first and is set to rule — through trade following military action — anywhere that pleases him while also pulling his country out of 66 global associations meant to serve the people.

Beyond the rest of the world that Mr Trump is treating with contempt for its inability to govern and protect itself, what he has done to the USA challenges logic. He has attacked and defunded universities and research while gouging cultural institutions. And his ICE agents have been firing at US citizens in the name of flushing out infiltrators even as he has ordered the building of an ‘Alcatraz’ for illegal migrants and other large detention facilities, besides deploying armed forces that are terrorising the streets of major cities. So seriously damaged have American institutions, especially the Department of Justice, become that not much dust has risen over the Trump family’s aggrandisement in cryptocurrency trading, real estate and allied businesses. Woebegone leaders have been reduced to currying favour with an egomaniac by showering him with gifts and nominations to the Nobel Peace Prize.

Bhubaneswar: As winter tightens its grip across continents, Chilika Lake in Odisha once again seems to have turned into a living canvas of wings and water, welcoming over 11 lakh migratory and resident birds this year—a heartening sign of the wetland’s robust and improving ecological health.

Asia’s largest brackish water lagoon recorded a total of 11,32,200 birds belonging to 196 species during the latest annual bird census, marking an increase of 4,982 birds over last year. Of the total count, migratory birds dominated the skyline with 11,10,257 individuals across 106 species, while 21,943 resident birds continued to call the lagoon home.

Adding splashes of colour to the vast waterscape, flamingos emerged as a major attraction, with 1,800 birds sighted during the survey, officials said.

Nalaban, often described as the beating heart of Chilika’s avian world, witnessed an impressive congregation of 3,97,587 birds representing 106 species. Officials said the numbers once again reaffirm Nalaban’s role as a critical wintering and feeding ground, offering shelter and sustenance to birds that travel thousands of kilometres to reach the lagoon.

The census exercise began at dawn, as teams fanned out across key locations including Balugaon, Tangi, Satapada and Rambha. To ensure systematic and accurate counting, the sprawling wetland was divided into 22 sectors, with nearly 130 personnel—including forest officials, wildlife experts and trained volunteers—taking part in the exercise.

Experts said the rising bird numbers reflect improving habitat conditions, better water quality and sustained conservation efforts at Chilika. The data gathered will help authorities monitor long-term trends, guide conservation planning and safeguard the lake’s rich biodiversity.

With each passing winter, the numbers tell a reassuring story: Chilika remains one of India’s finest bird sanctuaries, a timeless refuge where migratory birds from distant lands find safe harbour amid its shimmering waters.

Mumbai: As the mayoral race heats up in Mumbai, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday added a twist to it alleging that rival Shiv Sena faction chief Eknath Shinde has jailed his newly elected Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) corporators inside the hotel as he fears poaching by ally BJP. The saffron party’s majority in the BMC is fickle and Shinde’s corporators do not want a BJP Mayor in Mumbai, he said.

“The corporators (from Shinde faction) who have been elected are originally Shiv Sainiks. A Shiv Sainik carries a different sentiment in his heart towards the Shiv Sena. We have understood that they do not want a BJP Mayor. No matter how much they are confined, there are still many means of communication, and messages keep coming through,” Raut said.

His remarks came after Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who heads the Shiv Sena, has moved his 29 corporators to a luxury hotel in the city, apparently to foil any poaching attempt.

“Eknath Shinde is Deputy Chief Minister, yet he fears his corporators might be poached. What a huge farce!” Raut said. “They have kept their corporators confined. They broke MLAs earlier; now they have to lock up corporators,” he said, referring to the Shinde’s 2022 rebellion that toppled the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government.

Raut added that Shinde’s move to shift his corporators to a five-star hotel reflects the failure of law and order under the Devendra Fadnavis government. “No one would want Mumbai to go with the BJP, except for Eknath Shinde. If Eknath Shinde rebelled for ideology, then others also have the right to do so. Devendra Fadnavis should intervene immediately and free those 29 corporators from the hotel. They have the right to breathe freely in Mumbai,” he stated.

The Shiv Sena (Shinde) said its corporators have been put up at the hotel for a three-day workshop where Shinde will guide them on the functioning of the BMC.

Shiv Sena (Shinde) leader Sheetal Mhatre said her party and the BJP contested polls as Mahayuti. She said 20 of the 29 corporators have won for the first time and need to know how the BMC functions. She also rejected the charge that the corporators were corralled into a hotel for better bargaining of posts in the BMC.

In the 227-member BMC House, the majority mark is 114 seats. The BJP has won 89 seats, while its ally, Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena, secured 29. The Sena (UBT) won 65 seats, while its ally MNS emerged victorious on six.

Aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation's (DGCA) decision to impose financial penalties of over Rs 22 crore on InterGlobe Aviation, the operator of IndiGo, for the massive disruption in December, is a classic case of regulatory action that is too little and too late. The airline’s operational collapse — over 2,500 flight cancellations and nearly 1,850 delays — stranded and distressed lakhs of passengers, disrupted business schedules, cancelled marriages and projected an image of systemic dysfunction in the aviation sector.

According to the inquiry committee, the primary causes for the disruption were over-optimisation of operations and inadequate preparedness, along with deficiencies in system software support for the revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) provisions, and shortcomings in IndiGo’s operational control. In a capital-intensive, price-elastic sector such as aviation, where several airlines have gone bankrupt, is operational optimisation inherently a flaw — or a commercial necessity? Did the civil aviation ministry inquire with airlines about their preparedness before implementing revised FDTL norms? More importantly, why did the regulator fail to detect systemic weaknesses in operational control?

When a single privately run airline, whose management’s primary goal is to make a profit for its shareholders, controls about 65 per cent of domestic air traffic, its failure ceases to be a private corporate lapse and becomes a national vulnerability. But officials allowed such concentration to persist without implementing robust stress-testing of systems.

Regulators are not meant to be reactive agencies that take action after damage has been done. The regulators must think like chess players, anticipating the second- and third-order consequences of every policy change and every step taken by the dominant player. But the aviation regulator was sleeping on the job.

Closing the December crisis with a financial penalty alone, therefore, would be a regulatory failure. The logical conclusion to this crisis is long-term reform of oversight, of market concentration norms and regulatory practices.

Kolkata: West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's MP nephew Abhishek Banerjee on Sunday mocked Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Assembly poll campaign slogan Paltano Dorkar (Need Change) in support of BJP during his two-day state visit.

Mr Banerjee reminded Mr Modi that he used to chant 'Jai Shree Ram' earlier while visiting the state but has started chanting ‘Joy Maa Kaali’, reflecting the change in him rather than the people.

Taking potshots at the PM, the Diamond Harbour TMC parliamentarian predicted that Mr Modi would change himself further when he would visit the state post-poll, giving the slogan of “Joy Bangla.”

Mr Banerjee, while leading his poll campaign, Abar Jitbe Bangla, at Chapra in Nadia, said, “On Saturday, Mr Modi said Paltano Dorkar! That means he wants to change the people of Bengal. You blocked funds for people of Bengal. You harassed them so that they now bow and surrender to you.”

He claimed, “In reality, TMC and the people of Bengal will not change. It’s you who used to start your rally by saying ‘Jai Shri Ram’ has started saying ‘Joy Maa Kaali’. We will not surrender to Bohiragoto (outsiders) and Delhi's Zamindar. It’s the Bohiragoto (outsiders) and Zamindar of Delhi or Gujarat who will change.”

Referring to the PM and his party, the TMC national general secretary said, “In the coming days, the people of Bengal will throw you out of power from Delhi. The way you have tortured people of Bengal for the last five years. The way you have misused agencies to harass the people of Bengal, they will reduce you to under 50 seats in upcoming assembly polls.”

He added, “I wonder what kind of players these people are! Despite tapping my phone, they lost the 2021 Assembly polls. Change will happen. Post 2026, Mr Modi will visit Bengal and chant ‘Joy Bangla’ slogans.”

Elections are occasions for political parties to present their points of view before the people and appeal for their votes, but some find them an occasion to drive home a message of hatred between people. Othering of people under one pretext or another is sadly an effective ploy that parties with communal agendas have been successfully implementing to strengthen their side and ride to power.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP are no strangers to this tactic, either, as they have in fact perfected it and have been successfully deploying it from the start. Mr Modi’s statements directed at so-called “infiltrators” in West Bengal, which is going to elect an Assembly in a few months, are aimed to portray the state as a safe haven for Bangladeshi illegal immigrants who cross the border into Indian territory for various reasons, mostly economic.

It is curious that the Prime Minister, who sits at the top of a mammoth mechanism protecting the border, forgets his position and blames the state’s politicians who have very little role in it. It may be remembered that the Border Security Force tasked to guard the border with Bangladesh comes under the Union home ministry which works under the overall policy guidelines of the Prime Minister and hence the responsibility for lapses, if any, must be laid at the Prime Minister’s table.

Mr Modi’s averments would have an element of credibility had he taken steps to stop infiltration, identified law breakers and sent them back to their homes. Using them as a bogey to attack political enemies during electioneering does not behove him.

Mr Modi has hinted at a dangerous possibility, too. In his eagerness to appeal to the hardliners within his party, he has promised to take “big action” against “infiltration” after the BJP comes to power in the state and cited the example of the West. If Mr Modi has in mind the model of US President Donald Trump and his actions against illegal aliens, then it will set a dangerous precedent for India.

The illegal, even murderous, tactics officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement of that country employ against those whom they suspect are undocumented people have raised a storm for they negate every single value the US claims it represents. The murder of a citizen and the torture of even American Indians under questionable circumstances have raised a big stink over the legality and credentials of the very drive Mr Trump has initiated. India cannot afford to witness a similar unleashing of governmental highhandedness here.

The Prime Minister is used to referring to the term, “demographic change”, while campaigning in border states but this time he has even referred to “changes in appearances and habits of people” and “differences in languages and tones”. These are incendiary words. No one will have an objection to the Union government moving legally and systematically and stop infiltration, but attempts to put certain sections of the people under the cloud of suspicion and pitting one group of citizens against another are equally unacceptable.

Infiltration and its impact are issues of national importance; reducing them to electioneering topics is a disservice to the country.

I have been interested in Sanjeev Sanyal’s stitched ship project from day one, and not just because Kaundinya happened to be my mother’s gotra. Sanyal deserves fulsome praise for his intellectual curiosity, initiative and enterprise. Inspired by the depiction of a sailing ship in a painting in the Buddhist cave temples at Ajanta, Sanyal set out to prove that ancient Indians could build a ship with wood, rope and resin and make it sail across the waters around the sub-continent.

Half a century ago the Indian Navy commissioned Admiral K. Sridharan to record this history in his book A Maritime History of India (1982). Sridharan points to maritime links of Indian kingdoms both on the west coast, in Gujarat and Malabar, and the east coast, all the way down the Coromandel (Koramangala) Coast dating back to over two thousand years. A vibrant ship-building industry thrived both in Gujarat and in the Andhra region and these vessels could travel both to the Arab coast to the west and the Indonesian coasts to the east.

The maritime historian K.M. Pannikar noted in his 1945 monograph, India and the Indian Ocean: An Essay on the Influence of Sea Power on Indian History (1945): “Milleniums before Columbus sailed the Atlantic and Magellan crossed the Pacific, the Indian Ocean had become an active thoroughfare of commercial and cultural traffic.” Several historians, including Ashin Dasgupta, Sinnapah Arasaratnam, K.N. Chaudhuri, Kanakalata Mukund and Sanjay Subrahmanyam, have written about the Indian sub-continent’s maritime links with its wider Asian neighbourhood.

The European historian Fernand Braudel notes in his tome, Civilisation and Capitalism, 15th to 18th Century: The Perspective of the World, that the Indian Ocean region -- from the Arab coast to the South China Sea -- was the “greatest of all the world economies” of the pre-industrial, pre-capitalist era. “The relationship between these huge areas,” wrote Braudel, “was the result of a series of pendulum movements of greater or lesser strength, either side of the centrally positioned Indian subcontinent…. Through all these vicissitudes however, India maintained her central position: her merchants in Gujarat and on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts prevailed for centuries against their many competitors -- the Arab traders of the Red Sea, the Persian merchants of the Gulf, or the Chinese merchants.”

European colonialism altered the nature of India’s relationship with the waters around it. They ceased to be a bridge to prosperity and became a route to the de-industrialisation and destruction of the Indian economy. Since European conquest came via the sea, much of the discourse on the sea focused excessively on maritime security and defence, to the relative neglect of its economic potential. Given the nature of colonial commerce and the dominant thinking around the world on the role of trade in development, independent India turned inwards on the economic front and in so doing, forsook its maritime potential.

The nascent Indian ship-building industry died a slow death. In 1950 India had a bigger ship-building industry than South Korea. A decade later it was all but dead despite the fact that the Second Five-Year Plan, which laid the foundations of industrial development, envisaged further development of a nascent ship-building industry.

The Second Plan’s chapter on transport outlined the objectives for the ship-building industry as follows: (a) To cater fully for the needs of coastal trade with due regard to the possibility of diverting some traffic from the railways to coastal shipping; (b) To secure an increasing share of India’s overseas trade for Indian ships; and (c) To build up the nucleus of a tanker fleet.

However, the development of ship-building and development of ports and harbours was constrained by the limited requirements of an inward-oriented industrial and external trade policy. India’s inward-orientation on the economic front lasted for close to four decades during which maritime commerce and the maritime economy never entered the imagination of India’s economic planners and maritime strategists.

It is only after 1991, when Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao opened up the economy to foreign trade, that both the maritime economy and India’s naval capability secured policy attention. Under successive Prime Ministers greater attention has been paid to the need to bolster India’s maritime capability. This has been sustained both by the fact that India’s share of world trade has increased over the past three decades and by the need to acquire better naval defence capability.

It is only recently that India is focused on the potential of the “Blue Economy”, on Underwater Domain Awareness (UDA) and has an Indian Ocean strategy named SAGAR -- security and growth for all in the region complimented by a port development programme called “Sagarmala”. Defence minister Rajnath Singh made an interesting remark in his address to the Naval Commanders Conference, referring to India as an “island state with land borders”. For a North Indian politician to articulate this view is a welcome departure from an obsession with land neighbours.

INSV Kaundinya’s successful sailing draws attention to not just the long history of Indian maritime capability but also the contemporary importance of maritime neighbours in defining the Indian neighbourhood. Two decades ago, I had questioned the external affairs ministry’s definition of India’s neighbourhood which remains largely defined by land connectivity.

The only change made by the Narendra Modi government to the limited perspective offered by the “Neighbourhood First” policy has been to exclude Pakistan and include Myanmar and Thailand by replacing Saarc with Bimstec. I have long urged a more expansive view of neighbourhood that includes Indonesia to the east, a mere 80 nautical miles away from Indian territory, and Oman to the west. It is useful to remember that the Indian cultural footprint remains firmly embedded in both these maritime neighbours.

A deeper awareness of this neighbourhood and its interaction with the Indian sub-continent is also important for crafting domestic politics and policy at home. The inclusive and plural definition of India as home to a multiplicity of religions, languages and ethnicities makes it easier for India to deal with a neighbourhood that includes Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic neighbours.

Both Indonesia and Oman have retained Indian cultural footprints and have not shied away from the history of their Hindu inheritance. It is only a multi-religious, pluralistic India that can proudly and rightly lay claim to the history of ancient civilisational interactions.

Sanjaya Baru is a writer and economist. His most recent book is Secession of the Successful: The Flight Out of New India.

The discovery of penicillin, followed by the introduction of other antibiotics, revolutionised medical science and is widely regarded as the greatest medical breakthrough of the twentieth century. Antibiotics transformed once-fatal infections into curable conditions and made modern medicine possible. It is estimated antibiotics alone increased average life expectancy by nearly 23 years.

Yet, in less than a century since the most widely recognised antibiotic (penicillin) was discovered in 1928, a new and grave crisis emerged. Bacteria are increasingly becoming resistant to the antibiotics available to us. Medicines that were effective just a few decades ago often fail to treat the same infections today. This is known as “antimicrobial resistance” (AMR). WHO has listed AMR as among the top ten global threats to public health.

This has also led to the emergence of so-called “superbugs” (bacteria that don’t respond to most antibiotics). When antibiotics fail, even simple infections become difficult to treat. Routine medical procedures like surgeries, chemotherapy, or care for premature newborns become far riskier. Hospital stays grow longer, treatment costs increase, and the burden on health systems intensifies.

The causes of this crisis are largely human-made. The most important driver is the overuse and misuse of antibiotics. In India, antibiotics are often prescribed and consumed for viral illnesses like the common cold, cough or seasonal fever – on which these drugs have no effect. Antibiotics are prescription-only medicines, but are commonly sold as over the counter without prescriptions. Many people start antibiotics on the advice of chemists, neighbours or by using leftover medicines from previous illnesses. Each such misuse gives bacteria an opportunity to adapt, survive, and become stronger. Often, antibiotics may be prescribed unnecessarily due to diagnostic uncertainty, patient pressure or fear of complications, particularly where follow-up care is difficult. Many patients demand antibiotics from doctors.

Another major factor is the extensive use of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. They are often given to livestock in high doses to promote faster growth in animal farms or to prevent disease in crowded farming conditions. Resistant bacteria that develop in animals do not remain confined to farms. They spread to humans through food, water, and the environment. Poor waste management further worsens the problem. Antibiotic residues and resistant microbes from hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturing units, farms and households enter rivers, soil, and groundwater, eventually finding their way into the food chain. This creates ideal conditions for resistance to spread silently and persistently.

The economic and social consequences of antimicrobial resistance are severe. WHO estimates that if current trends continue unchecked, antibiotic resistance could claim up to ten million lives globally each year by 2050 and result in economic losses exceeding $100 trillion. In India alone, it is estimated that around 2.6 lakh deaths in 2021 were associated with infections where antibiotics were ineffective due to resistance. A multi-centre study across ten Indian hospitals found that patients infected with multidrug-resistant bacteria were nearly twice as likely to die as those individuals with infections susceptible to the available drugs.

The impact of this challenge is worse on middle-income and lower-income groups. With a large share of healthcare costs in India paid out of pocket, resistant infections often lead to repeated hospital visits, prolonged illness, loss of wages and catastrophic medical expenditure. For many families, what begins as a simple infection can spiral into debt and long-term financial insecurity. Antimicrobial resistance is therefore not just a policy or public health issue; it is a direct threat to individual households and livelihoods and it widens inequities.

Globally, countries are beginning to recognise the gravity of this threat. Several high-income nations have strengthened surveillance systems to track resistance patterns, enforced strict regulations on antibiotic use, and invested heavily in research to develop new drugs and alternative therapies.

India, too, has initiated policy-level responses, but much more must be done. Antibiotics must be sold strictly against valid prescriptions, and pharmacies should be regularly monitored and held accountable. Greater investment is urgently needed for research and development of new antibiotics, diagnostics and alternative treatment strategies.

However, policies alone will not succeed without public awareness and responsible behaviour. There are a few critical messages that every citizen should know. Preventing infections through hand hygiene, safe drinking water, vaccination, and good nutrition is one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for antibiotics. People should proactively inform their doctors about all medicines they are taking, including antibiotics. Antibiotics should never be started without medical advice, never shared, and never reused. Even when prescribed by a doctor, antibiotics should not be stopped early or altered without consultation, and the full course should be completed. Medicines prescribed for past illnesses should not be used again for similar symptoms, as the cause may be different and bacterial and viral infections may have the same symptoms. There is no role of antibiotics against viral infections, which are effective only against bacteria. Both overuse and underuse of antibacterial accelerates resistance.

It is important to remember antibiotic resistance is not new. Bacteria carrying resistance genes have been found in samples dating back nearly 30,000 years. Resistance to medicines is a natural survival mechanism of pathogens. What is new, and deeply alarming, is the speed at which resistance is spreading today -- driven almost entirely by human misuse of antibiotics. This means the crisis is not inevitable; it is preventable. While the world urgently needs new antibiotics, it also needs to use existing ones wisely. Drug development is not keeping pace with rising resistance. The goal must be not only to cure infections today but to ensure that these life-saving medicines remain effective for our children and grandchildren. The choices we make now will determine whether antibiotics remain one of humanity’s greatest medical achievements or become yet another lost miracle.

Dr Chandrakant Lahariya is a leading practicing physician and health policy specialist

New Delhi: India on Sunday said that the visit of United Arab Emirates (UAE) President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan will provide an opportunity for him and Prime Minister Narendra Modi to chart new frontiers for the India–UAE Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Situation in Iran is expected to be a topic for discussion during the meeting since the visit is taking place in the backdrop of simmering tension in Iran and the United States of America.

“It will also enable an exchange of views on regional and global issues of mutual interest, where India and the UAE share a high degree of convergence,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said while announcing the visit.

Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan will be in India on Monday for a short visit. This will be his third official visit to India since assuming office as President of the UAE, and fifth visit to the country over the past decade.

According to MEA, the visit builds on the strong momentum generated by recent high-level exchanges, including the visit of Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi in September 2024, and the visit of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of the UAE and Crown Prince of Dubai in April 2025.

“India and the UAE share warm, close, and multi-faceted relations, underpinned by strong political, cultural, and economic ties. The two countries are among each other’s top trading and investment partners, bolstered by the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), the Local Currency Settlement (LCS) system, and the Bilateral Investment Treaty. India and the UAE also enjoy a robust energy partnership, including long-term energy supply arrangements. The visit will provide an opportunity for the two leaders to chart new frontiers for the India–UAE Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. It will also enable an exchange of views on regional and global issues of mutual interest, where India and the UAE share a high degree of convergence,” MEA said.

Are the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and other investigative agencies, selective in targeting the Opposition when elections are due? Prima facie, the ED’s response — and that of the BJP — has theoretical validity: Action in matters of corruption cannot be timed to electoral phases; if wrongdoing is apparent, it must be pursued regardless of the political calendar; the majesty of the law cannot be arbitrarily suspended to suit the convenience of anyone. But, is it only a coincidence then that, in a clear pattern, Opposition parties have been regularly targeted before elections, while the ruling party at the Centre has almost never been subjected to such coercive scrutiny? India’s Constitution mandates that investigative agencies act impartially, without fear or favour, serving their mandate rather than any one side’s political advantage. Yet in the unfolding political narrative of the past decade, a perception has grown that the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) act less as instruments of justice and more as tentacles of political strategy. Perception in politics shapes behaviour, confidence and the very sense of fairness that underpins democratic contestation. When millions of voters believe that the electoral field is tilted, the legitimacy of outcomes — and of the democratic spirit itself — is imperilled. The perception of bias in India’s Central agencies, therefore, is not an abstract complaint; it goes to the heart of equitable democratic engagement. In recent months, this perception has been sharpened by the raid on I-PAC, the political consultancy advising the Trinamul Congress (TMC) in West Bengal ahead of that state’s elections, and the matter is now sub judice. Similarly, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was subjected to coordinated action by the ED and CBI in the midst of state and general election cycles. Elsewhere in Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has seen income tax searches on DMK chief M. K. Stalin’s family members during the 2021 elections, and further ED scrutiny of multiple DMK ministers. Over the past decade, the incidence of such actions is difficult to dissociate from electoral calendars. Investigative agencies, it appears, do not operate in a political vacuum. Their actions have real political consequences — whether intended or incidental — when they involve prominent politicians, especially in the phases immediately preceding polls. Since 2014, multiple analyses of available data indicate that a vast majority — roughly 95 per cent — of cases registered by the CBI and ED have been against Opposition politicians rather than those aligned with the ruling alliance. Moreover, the magnitude of enforcement actions has expanded dramatically — from around a hundred raids by the ED in the decade up to 2014 to several thousand in the decade since. One interpretation could be that the current dispensation is far more active in acting against corruption. But equally, another inference could be that, even if this is so, is corruption so overwhelmingly only the monopoly of the Opposition? It is valid to ask this, because in the current (as per mid-2025) Union council of ministers, 29 out of 72 ministers — roughly 40 per cent — have according to their sworn affidavits to the Election Commission, criminal cases against them, including murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, theft and cheating. Have these been investigated as rigorously or expeditiously? There is also the colloquial description of the ruling party as the country’s biggest “washing machine”. Politicians against whom there are multiple cases of corruption, which have been systemically highlighted by the BJP itself, suddenly become laundry white after they switch sides to join the party. Cases against them are dropped, files closed, or at the very least, the heat of the investigative agencies goes down to an undiscernible simmer. This again puts a question mark on the independence and impartiality of the investigative process, reinforcing the impression that you will be targeted only if you are on the opposing side of the ruling dispensation. The short point is that a systemic predominance of scrutiny on one side of the political spectrum, even if it does not intrinsically prove intent, unquestionably nourishes the perception of asymmetry. In a polity where trust in institutions is already fragile, such perceptions ossify into deep seated scepticism about fairness in the democratic contest. It is often argued that those at the receiving end of this seemingly partisan investigation process, can always knock at the door of the judiciary. That is true, and often the only hope. Yet, the judicial process is tardy, and depending on the law against which a person is booked, both draconian — making bail extremely difficult — and so long drawn out that the process itself becomes the punishment. We are not debating here the merits of the allegations against the Opposition parties or leaders within it. Perhaps, they do require investigation. However, in any democracy, if one side enjoys the quiet advantage of institutional neutrality while the other is under a barrage of investigation — particularly in the campaign crucible — the level playing field is compromised. At its core, the charge of misuse of Central agencies is not simply about individual cases. It is about trust — trust in impartiality, trust in equal treatment under law, trust in the integrity of democratic competition. When that trust erodes, the entire democratic enterprise feels the strain. In this light, a democracy must ask itself a searching question: Can our institutions be both powerful and impartial? If they are not, there is an urgent need to take correctives. The judiciary can be a valuable sentinel in ensuring this. It is true that there is widespread corruption in the political system, and all political leaders feel that because of the power they wield they will be insulated against legal consequences. For investigative agencies to act against them in an independent, credible and impartial manner, there is an urgent need for structural reforms — clearer legal safeguards, independence of appointment processes, stronger judicial oversight and transparent protocols for action timelines vis-à-vis electoral processes. It is only then that the need to cleanse the system will be universal in scope, and not selective in application.

 Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar has, over the years, acquired a reputation of forsaking his closest colleagues who, he believes, are speaking out of turn or not serving his interest. Anyone in the Janata Dal (United) who is under the illusion he or she is close to the party leadership generally is invariably abandoned. The list of leaders who have been cast aside by Nitish Kumar includes two late political stalwarts, George Fernandes and Sharad Yadav. While Yadav was disowned in 2017, Fernandes was denied a Lok Sabha ticket in 2009 though the three leaders were once together in the socialist movement. There have been several others since then — R. C. P. Singh, Prashant Kishor and N. K. Singh to name a few. Handpicked by Nitish Kumar, they all spoke and worked on his behalf, but somehow did not last long. Senior party leader K. C. Tyagi is the latest to find himself marginalised in the JD(U). This follows Mr Tyagi’s letter to the Prime Minister requesting a Bharat Ratna for Nitish Kumar. This did not go down well with the JD(U) as it believes Mr Tyagi was acting on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party which wants to instal its chief minister in Patna. A Bharat Ratna for Nitish Kumar would suggest retirement from active politics. The Special Intensive Revision of voter lists being undertaken by the Election Commission of India is posing unique problems for the electorate. Take the case of the monks at the Ramakrishna Mission in poll-bound West Bengal where the SIR exercise is currently underway. As in the case of all voters, the monks are required to list the names of their biological parents in their forms along with various other documents needed to prove that he or she is a legitimate voter. But the monks perform a shraddh on their induction whereupon they sever all links to their families and Shri Ramakrishna becomes their parent. The mission is working on resolving this ticklish issue and even holds workshops for monks who have received notices from the Election Commission. It would be worth checking if monks from other orders besides West Bengal have also received similar notices. The Tamil Nadu unit of the Congress is witnessing a tug of war between the old guard and the Rahul

Gandhi lobby. While the seniors want the Congress to strengthen its alliance with the ruling DMK, others like Manickam Tagore and Jothimani would like the party to explore a partnership with actor- turned Vijay’s party, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The party was hoping that Rahul Gandhi’s recent visit to Tamil Nadu would help clarify matters and ensure that the two factions work unitedly. But Rahul Gandhi’s statement criticising the Censor Board for denying Vijay’s eagerly-awaited movie Jana Nayagan a Pongal release has only added to the confusion. From all accounts, Rahul Gandhi is letting both sides do what they want while apparently also assuring the DMK that their alliance will continue. The Congress leader is said to be in agreement with his young colleagues that the possibility of an agreement with Vijay’s TVK be kept alive to press for a greater number of seats and power-sharing in case the DMK-led alliance retains the state. Though there is a growing demand in the Congress that Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra be assigned a larger national role, there are misgivings in the party over her latest assignment as head of the screening committee for the forthcoming Assam assembly election. This panel is mandated to zero in on the best candidates from the shortlist submitted by the selection committee of the concerned state. There is an overwhelming view that members of the Nehru-Gandhi family should not be boxed and given a specific responsibility. Instead, they should have a freewheeling role which requires them to provide overall leadership and direction to the cadre, focusing on the party’s political and ideological messaging. Congress insiders said a similar mistake was made when Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was given charge of Uttar Pradesh where she proved ineffective and was subsequently dubbed a failure. It is feared that she will be again targeted in case of a poor performance by the Congress in Assam though her role is limited to finalising the names of candidates along with other committee members. This obviously will not augur well for Priyanka Gandhi as she recently proved her mettle in the Winter Session of Parliament. At a time when Opposition leaders are busy writing books, the Congress Party’s most prolific and popular politician-cum author Shashi Tharoor said he was not planning any new book until the Kerala election. He made this remark at the recent Apeejay Literary Festival in Kolkata during the launch of his latest book, The Sage Who Reimagined Hinduism: The Life, Lessons, & Legacy of Sree Narayana Guru. Does this mean that Mr Tharoor is taking a break till the upcoming Kerala Assembly election or the next Lok Sabha contest which is not due till 2029? Given the inroads made by the BJP in Thiruvananthapuram in last month’s local elections, Mr Tharoor has to work doubly hard to ensure the victory of MLAs in his constituency in the Assembly polls to remain

 I was speaking to a friend a few days ago about the new business venture she was embarking on. I congratulated her — she was smart, had put in a lot of thought into the idea, and I knew her as someone who would give it everything she had. She was that kind of person. Then she told me who would be partnering her in the venture: her boyfriend (for want of a better word), someone she had got into a relationship with a few months earlier. And despite knowing — from all that she’d told me about him — that he was a good guy and treated her with kindness and respect, it gave me pause. I wondered for an entire minute before doing what I always do (usually to my own detriment) and said what I felt needed to be said. “Think a bit before getting into a business deal with a romantic partner,” I said. My friend, used to my ways, gave me her defence. Good guy, he’s got expertise in the field, makes economic sense, good venture, good opportunities, etc. Like I said, she was a smart woman. But I said what I thought anyway. And this, in a nutshell, is it: When one is embarking on a relationship, any relationship, one should have clarity on how one defines it. And, most often, one should be able to encompass that in a word. He is my boyfriend. She is my boss. He is my colleague. He is my friend. She is my partner in business. She is my sister. She is my editor. And so on. Whenever one tries to combine these two, like, say, she is my friend and my colleague, one of those relationships is going to take a backseat. Especially when there is conflict. And how can there be relationships without conflict? And when one of those relationships is affected, sooner or later, chances are, so will the other. The important thing to note here is that one has to be all the more careful with a new friend, a new girlfriend, a new boss or a new colleague, to make sure you don’t assign another role to them too quickly. Clear, well-defined, non-dual relationships themselves are hard to navigate and maintain. How can it make sense then to prematurely assign two roles to the same person? That’s unfair to both assigner and assignee.

(NB: I met my wife at a publishing house where she was editor when I was a freelance illustrator. And she actually gave me work. And we have been partners at work from pretty nearly the day we got married. So there’s that, too. )

On another occasion, I was speaking to a friend going through a relationship crisis. Some time earlier, she had become romantically involved with a person she was working with. While the early part — like all early parts — was good, she said, she found that she wasn’t in agreement with his ‘working style’. As expected, this led to conflict. And she found herself giving her partner/collaborator more rope than she normally would in similar circumstances. Mainly because she found that he was caring and affectionate with her in their personal time. After a few months of being part of this off-kilter equation — where the professional part was full of conflict while the personal was all chocolate and cuddles — her first realisation was that she couldn’t work with the person any more. And that in the interest of their relationship they needed to stop working with each other. But her next realisation — one that few get — was the important one. Having terminated their work relationship, she figured quite quickly that she couldn’t be romantically involved with him any more either. How could she, the wise woman said (as I applauded silently), when she didn’t respect his work ethic. That is key. We mistakenly think we can break up the human beings in our life into their different roles, like businessman-brother, financier-father, advocate-sister, doctor-friend, and tell ourselves that, as long as someone is a good brother, father, sister or friend to us, how they conduct the rest of their lives has no bearing on us. But I have always wondered how anyone could love a person they didn’t respect. How is it love then? Doesn’t it mean that you don’t respect yourself? I am exacting on my family, friends, colleagues, and even passing acquaintances. And I encourage them to be exacting with me, too. For me it is important to know that you treat everyone — from wife to waiter, from CEO to chauffeur, from publisher to waste paper vendor, from poet to plumber — in exactly the same fashion. That’s probably the reason I shed people like a Lab sheds hair.

The Orangeeboob of Trumpistan declared that he would take action against Iran if the regime killed more protesters. It has to date killed 2,500 and maimed and injured thousands. Yes, Boobyboy has now declared 25 per cent extra tariffs on nations who trade with Iran. Scary???

It won’t stop the Ayatollah’s murder squads slaughtering more protesters on the streets who are being cheered on by the Trumpistan resident son of the late Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was overthrown and exiled by the “Islamic” revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The best thing he can do is forget any ambition to return as crown price to Persia and instead fervently assert that he is an Iranian republican and a democrat and would favour and perhaps participate in elections.

The fellow has no legitimate claim to any Persian “throne” as his grandfather was placed on it in 1921 through a British assisted military coup. So really, he is plain Mr Botany B.

His father, who succeeded that first Reza Shah, was a bit of a nasty, repressive fascist himself, and the only decent, if symbolic, gesture of his was celebrating the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian historical past of Persia.

The present protests and those in 2022 which followed the murder through torture of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini by the “Islamic” Gestapo for refusing to wear a hijab, aim at regime change. Let’s hope.

What might the millions of protesters (or should in my humble opinion) want?

My judgment is prompted by a memory:

A few years ago, I was at a literary festival in Toronto in the downtown Bay Area and one evening went to my cousin Tehmina’s in a twenty-mile away suburb (Toronto is vast). The evening ended in the small hours and she called me a taxi.

The driver, as is etiquette in American cabs, asked me “How was your day, bud”. He had what was definitely a heavy foreign accent, pronouncing day as “dhay” and bud as “Budh”.

I said it was good and I’d just had a brilliant dinner with my cousin.

“From your aksenth, you are not Canadian?” he said.

“And from yours, neither are you?” I responded.

“I am from Persia,” he said. I noted that he didn’t say “Iran”.

I told him I was Indian-British and he asked my name. I told him.

“So, you are Muslim?” he asked. A common confounding.

“No, I am Zoroastrian, Zardushti,” I replied. It was as though I’d punched him in the face as he swerved the car and stopped by the side of the hill road.

What???

“So am I,” he said. So, I asked his name.

“Mohammed”, he said.

“But that’s a Muslim name”, I said.

I won’t reproduce the expletives that then emerged from his mouth about Islam. He started to drive again as he spoke.

“Zardushti, only belief. What else do you need but “Humata, Hukta, Huvareshta” -- he quoted the three Zoroastrian tenets of good thoughts, good words, good deeds!

“Whole of Persia is now want to be Zardushti,” he said.

I didn’t think that was true, but didn’t contradict him.

When we got to my destination, he absolutely refused to take the cab fare.

Back in Britain I met my friend, Alexander Waugh (Evelyn’s grandson) and somehow the conversation got to discussing the religion of my birth and I told him about my cab ride in Toronto. He named some dear Parsi friend, and, over a pint, we talked about Parsi migration to India in the eighth century after the Arab-Muslim invasion. We frivolously decided to form the Zoroastrian Liberation Front to restore Iran to the true faith.

We declared ourselves co-presidents of the ZLF. Since Parsi Zoroastrians decree that children born to Zoroastrian fathers are indeed Zoroastrians, 99 or more percentage of Persians will have descended, through the centuries since the 642 AD Arab invasion, with paternal Zoroastrian blood in their veins. They may have believed they were Muslim through the ages, but surely have DNA-sanctioned claims to be Zardushtis. They wouldn’t need to formally “reconvert” -- they are already there!

Alexander, alas is dead. Still, the ZLF now has at least five members -- the vice-president, Mukul Ahmed, is a Bangladeshi Muslim theatre director. Of course, we welcome new recruits, and all membership fees are also definitely welcome.

Gentle reader, don’t regard the above as frivolous sacrilege in the context of Iran’s crisis. Accept my recalling the tongue-in cheek formation of the ZLF as a journalistic statement of principles towards the reform of Zoroastrian practice as the ZLF favours, on firm historical grounds, the tenet that Zoroastrianism is a religion and not a race and so the conversion of anyone who chooses to enter the belief is guaranteed. It automatically abolishes the “paternal-descent” rule and equalises the DNA of mothers.

And suppose the Toronto cabbie’s declaration is true? There may actually be a current of opinion in Persia -- including a majority of its women? -- favouring a return to the old religion. Watch that space.

There is no fiscal space for meaningful change in the pattern of Union Budget allocations. Our national income base is tiny for a population of 1.4 billion. Even a high nominal growth of 12 per cent pushes GDP to Rs 400 trillion in 2026-27 but gives just Rs 22,000 per person in tax resources, at a tax to GDP share of 8 per cent for the Union government.

Non-tax revenue is a low 1.6 per cent of GDP and adds only Rs 4,000 per person because public asset monetisation has stalled. Public debt levels need downsizing towards the normative 80 per cent of GDP.

Partly this is because the BJP -- even in “double engine” states where it is politically dominant -- lacks a diversified voter base. Because its political margin is thin, it hesitates to displease core voters. Agriculture (about 15 per cent of Gross Value Added) remains out of the tax net, as is land or built-up property in rural areas. One-half of even urban entities do not collect property tax, and those that do, apply historical low rates. Ditto for several other public utilities like water, electricity or urban bus transit for women.

Hyderabad is the exception, with a data-driven, GIS-anchored, property tax collection model and revenues growing in double digits. The administrative effort required by state governments -- under whose remit property tax lies -- is significant, but the rewards match. Doubling the volume of property tax collected would generate an additional Rs 1 trillion, or 0.35 percentage points of GDP. Small beans by national standards but equal to one-third of the annual state government expenditure on urban development, freeing up fiscal space for allocations to health, education and social support programmes.

Fiscally independent state governments and urban bodies and a stricter division of work domains versus the Union government could focus the latter on its core areas -- defence, space, networked infrastructure resilience, PPP in R&D, energy transition and external economic integration to bolster strategic partnerships -- subjects more closely aligned with its constitutional remit.

The Union government does too much for social protection and too little for infrastructure, science and technology and security. Having social welfare off completely to state governments and local governments would help. The Congress earlier and now the BJP are both highly centralised political parties, with Delhi calling the shots. Mimicking state and municipal government social support programmes is believed to shore up mass support for the ruling party at the Centre.

Since the late 1960s, Union governments have competed with state governments for branding as the benefactors of rural areas and the poor. Clunky, state-managed cereal procurement has since morphed into an expensive and inefficient minimum price assurance scheme for farmers.

At the retail end, a free cereal supply scheme benefits about 850 million people (out of 1,450 million). Other Union government schemes offer cash support to 110 million rural families.

De-risked agricultural production, via Union government- supported public and private insurers, covers one-third of the cropped area. Union government-led agricultural reform stalled in 2021. It is unlikely that over the second half of the present Narendra Modi administration -- with frequent Assembly elections -- this conundrum can be resolved.

Incentivising states to explore alternative, locally responsive measures for social protection can provide rich dividends. Some states, like Madhya Pradesh, had innovated and offered only the difference between the market price and a notional administered price to farmers for food procurement. The real efficiency punch is ending government procurement and retail supply and instead transferring a cash grant in Central Bank Digital Currency to beneficiary accounts. Beneficiaries, even in remote village,s will continue to remain beholden to the Union government -- like Indians were beholden to Americans in the 1960s under PL-480, when wheat was shipped to India as food aid. The efficiency gains from government disintermediation can be added to the amounts paid to beneficiaries.

Coupled with social support extravagance is the fact that India skates on thin ice, without deep fiscal buffers to deal with any exigencies and disasters. The Covid-19 pandemic was one such rude shock. We can hardly anticipate when or from where the next shock will come. As global uncertainty increases, we must tread with caution. Preserving fiscal stability remains key. India is too big to be bailed out when the world itself is stressed.

The BJP government, ever since 2014, has credibly focused on living within its means. It pursued reduction of the fiscal deficit from a high of 6.5 per cent in 2009-10 and took it to 3.5 per cent of GDP in 2016-17. The Covid bulge to 9.2 per cent in 2021 has since been reduced to 4.4 per cent in 2025-26 with a glide path to the normative 4 per cent. It is essential to rein in state government fiscal deficits too within the normative 3 per cent.

Public debt at 81 per cent (IMF 2024) is not menacing because the external debt is low. Nevertheless, belt-tightening in public expenditure, not directly feeding into growth, is necessary to leave safety margins for emergency financing. Significantly enhancing the efficiency of public spending is essential. The reduction in logistics cost from double digits earlier to 7.9 per cent of GDP in 2024 (NCAER) reassures that capital spend has helped. Widening the scope and deepening the metrics in the

performance budget framework, including for state governments, can improve the efficiency of expenditure and generate medium-term perspectives just by measuring the outcomes better.

The task before the finance minister is to harmonise conflicting

objectives. First, walk the tightrope to continued fiscal stability despite pressing demands for public investment in green transition and economic growth. Second, direct and indirect tax policy has gone through meaningful change since 2019 and a “quiet” period for the next two years would be welcome, especially since inflation levels are low.

Third, tax policy reform could shift to integrating excise tax on alcohol and petroleum fuels into the GST framework, whilst assuring states against loss of revenue. Fourth, incentivise the collection of property tax.

Fifth, initiate a funded transfer of social support initiatives to state governments via a Social Support Council on the GST pattern. Enabling state participation in decision-making could bring cooperative federalism to fruition. Reverting to the financing mode of the erstwhile MGNREGA for the new “VB G Ram G” scheme would be a welcome “sweetener”, demonstrating good faith versus states. Naming the new SSC after Mahatma Gandhi would be another.

The writer is a Distinguished Fellow, Chintan Research Foundation, and was earlier with the IAS and the World Bank

The results of the 2026 Maharashtra municipal corporation elections have sent a resounding message across the state’s political landscape. The Mahayuti alliance — comprising the BJP, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP — has secured a sweeping mandate, winning 26 of the 29 municipal corporations and decisively reshaping the balance of power in urban Maharashtra.

For decades, the Thackeray name was synonymous with Mumbai and its surrounding civic bodies. However, this election suggests the Thackeray brand and legacy are under immense pressure. Despite a last-minute, emotion-driven alliance between the Thackeray cousins, the split in the original Shiv Sena appears to have eroded the voter loyalty that once formed the party’s biggest strength. The loss of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is particularly damaging for Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT), as control of Asia’s richest civic body had sustained its organisational and financial machinery for over two decades.

Equally striking is the weakening of the Pawar stronghold. In traditional bastions such as Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad, even the reunion of Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar failed to deliver electoral dividends. The verdict suggests that the Pawar brand is struggling to counter the ruling alliance’s expansive organisational network and campaign machinery at the grassroots level. The outcome may also intensify pressure on Sharad Pawar to recalibrate his political positioning amid a rapidly consolidating NDA bloc.

The results reinforce a broader trend: Urban Maharashtra continues to respond favourably to the BJP-led “triple engine” development narrative. By aligning municipal governance with state and central administrations, the Mahayuti projected a promise of faster clearances, coordinated planning and uninterrupted infrastructure growth.

In contrast, the Maha Vikas Aghadi (Congress, Shiv Sena UBT and NCP-SP) faltered in coordination. Seat-sharing disputes and so-called “friendly fights” in several wards fractured the Opposition vote, handing the Mahayuti a clear advantage. More damaging was the absence of a cohesive alternative vision, allowing the ruling alliance to dominate the discourse with assurances of infrastructure upgrades and pothole-free roads.

With the Mahayuti now in control of both the Mantralaya and most major municipal corporations, Maharashtra has entered a phase of unprecedented administrative alignment. While this could translate into quicker decision-making and execution of large-scale projects, it also raises concerns about reduced political scrutiny. A weakened Opposition in civic bodies risks diluting the checks and balances essential for transparent urban governance.

Citizens, therefore, must resist the assumption that political alignment automatically ensures better civic services. Administrative ease can sometimes lead to complacency. Sustained public pressure on corporators — on issues ranging from water supply and waste management to health and education — will be critical.

The first real test will come with the upcoming municipal budgets. They will indicate whether the Mahayuti’s priorities match its high-decibel campaign promises or whether pledges of tax relief and infrastructure leaps were merely electoral inducements.

“With greater power comes greater responsibility” aptly captures the crossroads at which the Mahayuti now stands. Having dismantled opposition bastions and secured control over Maharashtra’s wealthiest urban centres, the alliance must now deliver on its rhetoric. In Mumbai alone, it has promised a pothole-free city within a year, a slum-free Mumbai, a round-the-clock water supply, and improved education and healthcare. The debt of the “triple engine” promise is now firmly on the ruling alliance.

The Supreme Court, which has taken up the issue of the menace of stray dogs, is threatening to impose heavy compensation to be paid by states for every dog bite and death caused by strays while also holding the people who humanely feed strays accountable for canine attacks. This may be construed as an admission that the recommendations on dog management measures made by the same court have been unimplementable.

The problem has been one caused by decades of inaction in implementing the existing statutory rules on strays. It did not help that the top court passed stentorian orders like seeking the clearing of all institutions of strays, collecting all strays and creating pounds, etc.

The intention of the court in seeking ways to control this menace of strays not only biting people but also instilling fear in the young and the helpless on urban streets is beyond question, but the orders are still opaque on how to carry them out without budgetary support from state governments to local bodies.

While the Constitution specifies that every citizen must have compassion for all living creatures and treat them humanely, it becomes a challenge in urban environments when strays multiply because they are not subjected to the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. Problems are also caused by monkeys that stray into populated areas and threaten humans with injury and households with theft.

A problem created by court directions that are not necessarily humane and scientific have led to the building of an atmosphere of distrust and reports of strays and monkeys being done to death are coming in from around the country. While a healthy debate may have been engendered in SC during the hearings on the subject, the basic issue of how best to implement the rules remains.

Executive inaction has been the basic problem for decades and fuzzy orders are not helping. Action on ABC Rules is clearly the best way forward and the scientific method is to sterilise female dogs, and not sterilisation of male dogs as the authorities are tending to focus on now.

The current laws have strong provisions, and it is a matter of finding the will on the part of local bodies to carry them out, including in the management of those dogs that display overtly aggressive behaviour and must be kept in pounds. If the courts cannot rule on finances for such operations, the state governments must come forward to fund animal control measures so the people can live in peace, and man and animal can coexist.

Disclaimer: No Asian Age journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content.

The Supreme Court’s split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, gives Parliament an opportunity to correct its own action of practically killing the anti-graft law and restore its effectiveness in fighting governmental corruption in this country.

The PCA in its original form invested in the investigation agency the power to register a crime and launch an investigation against a public servant; the agency needed to get the government’s approval only before filing a chargesheet. The 2018 amendment and the introduction of Section 17A turned the very logic of this piece of legislation on its head by stripping the agency of this critical power — as the law stands today, it can launch an investigation only after it gets the approval of the government.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna said the law is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down saying requirement of prior sanction by the government is contrary to its purpose as it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt. She opined that there should have been an independent body which is not controlled by the government to consider a case for grant of prior approval to conduct an inquiry/enquiry/investigation by a police officer. Meanwhile, despite endorsing the constitutionality of the Act saying it gave honest public servants a basic assurance that decisions taken by them will not be subjected to frivolous complaints, Justice K.V. Viswanathan called for an independent authority, such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta, to give the go-ahead to launch an investigation.

The meeting point of the opinions of the two judgments is that the government should not be the authority to sanction an investigation into an allegation of corruption against a public servant; it should be obtained from an independent agency. Such an independent authority will offer protection to bona fide actions against frivolous investigations as well.

Now, the court may have resorted to the existing provisions in the law that allows a judicial scrutiny before an investigation is launched, but it has chosen not to. Instead of letting the Supreme Court decide the matter, the government may expunge/amend the villainous section to reinstitute an independent mechanism and make the law powerful again.

The Union Labour Ministry’s directive asking quick commerce companies to discontinue their 10-minute delivery promise is a timely intervention. The decision was taken following a nationwide strike by gig workers against the 10-minute delivery, which was exposing them to intense mental pressure to meet unrealistic timelines, often at the cost of personal safety and public road discipline.

Quick commerce is a relatively older concept, tracing back to the late 1990s in the United States. However, most of the older companies came with a delivery promised within 30 minutes or an hour. In India, Grofers (now called Blinkit) was the first company to offer quick commerce with a promised delivery time of 90 minutes, which was in tune with industry standards.

Having faced poor reception in an already crowded e-commerce space, Grofers rebranded itself as Blinkit in 2021 and introduced the 10-minute delivery promise, which significantly changed its brand proposition. Over time, however, speed itself became the product. Within five years, quick commerce became hugely successful and made companies join the bandwagon, threatening the business of traditional retailers like never before.

The 10-minute delivery guarantee was marketed as a solution for last-minute shopping needs, positioning groceries, toiletries and snacks as urgent requirements that quick commerce will deliver at the blink of your eye. With this, however, the quick commerce industry blurred a key distinction — not every consumer inconvenience qualifies to be treated as an emergency.

Except for ambulance services, fire services and law enforcement agencies, no civilian activity on public roads can be categorised as an emergency. A family running out of groceries does not warrant deadline-driven riding through traffic. However, this is precisely what quick commerce companies did and incentivised gig workers to meet the 10-minute deadline. The result of this misplaced concept is gig workers erratically navigating congested roads, risking their lives and those of others. Mental stress became constant, while physical risk became routine.

In their defence, quick commerce companies argue that faster deliveries generate employment and consumer satisfaction. While they may be true, none of their arguments could justify normalising unsafe work conditions. Employment cannot be conditional on sustained stress for the employee, and convenience cannot come at the cost of another person’s safety.

This does not mean that quick commerce has no place to exist in the country. However, quick commerce companies must recalibrate its value proposition — reliable delivery within reasonable time frames and fair working conditions. It can aim for a delivery window that does not turn roads into racetracks.

Quick commerce companies, therefore, must take the government’s directive as an opportunity rather than a setback. It could tweak the business model by partnering with existing neighbourhood retail shops to become their fulfillment centres, which allows existing traders to thrive alongside them without creating an emergency out of nothing.

The quick commerce sector must understand that speed has its place — in emergencies — where minutes genuinely save lives. And the government has rightly reaffirmed this basic principle: In a civil society, no packet of groceries is worth a life.

For decades, Raisina Hill was not just a location but a metaphor. North and South Block symbolised where power resided, where files gathered momentum and where governance unfolded through proximity as much as procedure. That geography is now being deliberately dismantled as key ministries relocate to the newly constructed Kartavya Bhawan complexes along Kartavya Path.

The shift of nine ministries and departments — including defence, law and justice, agriculture, education, information and broadcasting, chemicals and fertilisers, and the CBI — is not a routine administrative reshuffle. It reflects a conscious reordering of the spatial logic of governance. As the Central Vista shapes up, the daily business of the State is being pulled away from colonial-era icons into a consolidated, purpose-built secretariat, while North and South Blocks are repositioned as heritage structures and museums.

Modern infrastructure, shared facilities, energy savings and co-location are expected to improve coordination and reduce the operational clutter created by decades of scattered offices across Delhi. The argument is sensible and long overdue.

Yet power in babudom has never been purely architectural. It thrives on proximity, habit and informal networks. The old Raisina ecosystem worked not because of grandeur but because of density. Relocation disrupts those rhythms, creating new patterns of access and influence that will inevitably favour those quick to adapt to the new geography.

This makes the move as symbolic as it is functional. It reflects a broader attempt to redefine where authority is seen to operate, aligning governance with a re-imagined Central Vista that privileges modernity over inherited legacy.

This is not a cosmetic exercise but a recalibration of how the Indian State organises itself, signals power and conducts governance. For babus, where one sits still shapes how one matters.

India adjusts to Trump’s man in Delhi

The arrival of Sergio Gor in New Delhi comes at an awkward moment in Indo-US ties, certainly not at a high point but near a fresh low. Donald Trump’s second term as US President has stripped the relationship of its diplomatic cushioning. Stiff tariffs overshadow ties, trade frictions are sharper, and the old comfort of “strategic partnership” is being stress-tested almost weekly.

Mr Gor is no conventional envoy sent to smooth edges. He is Mr Trump’s insider — political, transactional and perfectly aligned with a White House that sees diplomacy as leverage, not reassurance. That matters because India is no longer dealing with a friendly but demanding partner; it is dealing with a sceptical one that believes pressure works. And often, it does.

For India, this changes the playbook. The mandarins in MEA and babus in the commerce, finance and defence ministries can no longer assume policy continuity or goodwill as a default setting. Washington’s moves are now driven less by long-term strategy and more by domestic politics and deal optics. One tweet or one off-the-cuff remark can undo months of hard work.

Trade is where the pain is most visible. Tariffs and hard bargaining have replaced the earlier rhetoric of convergence. Indian negotiators must now plan for sharper scenarios, faster coordination and credible fallback options beyond the US market.

There’s also a strategic irritant: Mr Gor’s wider regional remit revives the risk of India being viewed through a South Asia lens rather than as a distinct Indo-Pacific power. That distinction will need constant reinforcement.

For India, this is no longer relationship management; it’s damage control mixed with opportunity. If India adapts quickly and strategically, volatility can be managed. If it clings to old assumptions, it will spend Mr Trump’s second term permanently on the back foot.

When PSU chiefs start looking over the fence

The latest buzz from the ministry of steel’s corridors is equal parts intrigue and frustration: Amarendu Prakash, the chairman and managing director of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), may have submitted his resignation, and might be eyeing a senior role at a global steel giant. However, nobody in the ministry will publicly acknowledge it, and that is precisely the problem.

Mr Prakash isn’t some mid-level bean counter. He’s a seasoned technocrat with deep roots in steel production and decades of experience in the sector. His leadership was supposed to anchor SAIL through a delicate phase of expansion and policy navigation. Instead, we’re left with silence, speculation and whispers — the worst possible currency in administrative governance.

If these rumours are true, it may signal something bigger, that the flight of talent from the public sector to private players isn’t just a headline, but a trend. And it shouldn’t surprise anyone. When top leaders find better opportunities elsewhere, and when ministries respond with tight-lipped bureaucracy rather than clarity, it tells markets, PSUs and even foreign investors that India’s leadership pipeline is volatile.

Worse still, the timing couldn’t be more awkward. Critical decisions around key appointments and oversight are in the queue, and the ministry looks like it’s stuck between denials and rumour control.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s just-concluded visit to India on January 12-13 holds special significance, beyond celebrating the 75th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations or the 25th anniversary of the Indo-German strategic partnership. The recent summit addresses how India and Germany propose traversing a world disrupted by US President Donald Trump. The post-Second World War rules-based global order is, ironically, being unravelled by the leader of a nation which had helped formulate it.

An Indo-German joint statement on January 12 lists the areas of potential engagement. It covers the following: “Defence and Security”; “Trade and Economy”; “Technology, Innovation, Science & Research”, “Green & Sustainable Development Partnership/Renewable Energy”; “Indo-Pacific, Connectivity & Global Issues”. There is emphasis on undertaking climate-friendly energy transition, including the production of green hydrogen. The Trump administration has abandoned the Paris climate accord, adopting instead regressive oil and gas extraction policies. In fact, in keeping with his slogan “Drill, Baby Drill”, voiced before assuming office, oil and gas drilling permits have surged by 55 per cent. The withdrawal of the United States from the India-sponsored International Solar Alliance underscored the altered priorities.

Germany, in the decades after the Second World War and the Cold War, generally kept defence spending low, relative to its economic power. It focused on integration within Nato. Given its destructive historical role, its allies and neighbours did not complain. In 2014, Germany concurred with its Nato allies to ramp up defence spending to two per cent of GDP, then just over one per cent. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February

2022 shook Germany out of its complacency. President Donald Trump’s “America First” isolationism, his diplomatic flirtation with Russian President Vladimir Putin and now the threat to grab Greenland, forcibly if needed, leaves Germany no option but to become much more assertive.

The joint statement outlines prospective defence industrial cooperation, emphasising co-development and co-production. India’s purchase of HDW German submarines in the 1980s had led to a massive political controversy over corruption allegations. After a 10-year delay India may now buy six AIP German submarines in a deal worth $8 billion. Additionally, the document lists obstacle avoidance systems for helicopters and weapons to counter unmanned aerial systems. The interest in new defence technologies addresses the revolution in war fighting, seen both in Ukraine or India’s Operation Sindoor.

Trade and commerce are important for all nations, but the new arbitrary tariffs ordered by President Trump have created a unique crisis. The Trumpian tariffs aim to compel friends and foes to abide by America’s trade-related or strategic goals.

Indo-German trade topped $50 billion last year. There are over 2,000 German companies operating in India. German foreign direct investment in India in the period 2000-25 totals $15.4 billion. Conversely, 200 Indian companies are operating in Germany. The delayed Free Trade Agreement between India and the European Union (EU) has been a hurdle. Germany absorbs a quarter of all Indian exports to the EU. The over-dependence on the US market is proving costly for all nations, though for some like Canada and Mexico it is more damaging. For India and Germany too, it is a wakeup call.

It is not surprising that the European Union leaders are the chief guests at this year’s Republic Day celebrations in India. Immediately following that the India-EU summit will take place. This reflects that a multipolar world, advocated by India for decades, is achievable only if principal powers quickly create new supply lines and manufacturing hubs.

The German demand for skilled workers is proving a boon just when the Anglophone nations, especially America, are allowing xenophobia to tighten immigration policies. Indian students in Germany, numbering 60,000, are the largest international group. Most of them are pursuing engineering or information technology courses. Low education fees and easier transition to work visas is luring foreign students. The danger is the rise of the far-right parties in major European nations, which are anti-immigration. The estimated support for the National Rally in France is 33.4 per cent, while Germany’s AfD scores 26 per cent. In the latest US National Security Strategy document, that was released on December 4-5, support is extended to these far-right groups, employing the freedom of speech argument.

Geo-strategically, India and Germany have areas of congruence as well as dissonance. Regarding Ukraine, India has avoided condemning Russia, while for the European nations it is an existential issue. Chancellor Merz strongly supports sanctions on Russia. He has also publicly decried the threat to a “liberal world order”, both from outside and within Europe. Speaking at Korber Foundation in January 2025, he urged Germany to transform from “a sleeping to a leading middle power”. Fortunately for the Chancellor, the debt-brake on defence

spending was lifted before he assumed office. This gives him freedom to move Germany towards strategic autonomy.

On the Gaza issue, the positions of India and Germany are now converging. That is why the joint statement calls for a two-nation solution for stability and peace. But at one stage, Chancellor Merz took an odd position on Israel’s brutal assault on Hamas, irrespective of the harm to civilians. He had praised Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for doing the “dirty work” of Germans or the West.

India and Germany have dealt with President Trump in their own way. Chancellor Merz chose, like other European leaders, to avoid confrontation while politely correcting publicly misstated facts. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has avoided direct contact, to minimise the possibilities of a public spat. However, President Trump’s reiterated desire to occupy or annex Greenland is putting EU and Nato members in a quandary. Forcible occupation by America can destroy Nato, besides raising the possibility of an armed confrontation.

India and Germany have for well over two decades been a part of G-4, alongside Brazil and Japan. The group has campaigned for major reform of the United Nations Security Council, especially the addition of new permanent members. Germany seemed to step back after Chancellor Angela Merkel took office. The joint statement reflects revived enthusiasm of India and Germany to crusade for permanent membership.

Closer Indo-German engagement, especially with enhanced ties in the defence and emerging technologies sectors, can create a “third global pole”, which draws other EU members and middle powers to its corner. The United States and China are set for a new bipolarity. The world needs to offset that with a pole that is committed to a reformed version of the old rules-based liberal international order.

Apple’s multi-year agreement with Alphabet Inc. to use Google Gemini AI models to power a long-awaited Siri overhaul shows an intensifying race among companies to harness artificial intelligence. Though Apple has been working on its own AI model, Apple Intelligence, it faced a series of setbacks. A tie-up with an existing AI powerhouse — ChatGPT or Gemini — was the most pragmatic choice, as waiting for the development of its own Large Language Model (LLM) could make it obsolete.

While Apple will continue to use its own AI models for on-device processing and foundation language models, the iPhone will use Gemini for more advanced capabilities. This deal signals that Big Tech, faced with spiralling compute costs, talent wars, and regulatory heat, is increasingly willing to close ranks — even when their consumer products compete head-on.

This is not the first time that top rivals have helped each other when the stakes were existential. In 1997, Microsoft invested in Apple and committed to supporting key software, a détente that helped stabilise Apple at a precarious moment. Windows OS and iMac OS were the main competitors in the personal computing space. However, there is a differentiator — the previous deal was on how operating systems worked, while the current deal is on how information is presented.

Globally, every phone is either run by the mobile operating system of Apple or Alphabet. Alphabet’s Android runs 80 per cent of smartphones, while Apple’s iPhone powers 20 per cent of premium smartphones. This deal will give Gemini an unquestioned monopoly on the mobile phone-based AI market.

This kind of unquestionable domination of the mobile phone’s thinking power, which has become people’s first port of call for help, could be quite unsettling. Unless it is properly regulated, Gemini will have unbridled power to form opinions on every subject under the sky and over the sky. If the world thinks alike, it will dim its vibrance.

As the curtain comes down on campaigns for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) election, it is evident that what was formally a local contest to govern India’s financial capital has acquired unmistakable national resonance. Unfortunately, the campaign run by the main contenders — the Mahayuti alliance (BJP and Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena) and the newly forged alliance between Uddhav Thackeray’s Sena (UBT) and Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena — did not focus on governance challenges like crumbling civic infrastructure and environmental risks. Rather their campaigns were a contest of rhetoric and sentiment. Mumbai’s everyday civic challenges — from cratered roads and unreliable water supply to monsoon preparedness, sanitation, waste disposal, primary schools, pollution control, public health services, urban planning and the upkeep of civic infrastructure — found mention only in passing remarks.

Instead, regional and cultural identity emerged as a central plank. The Shiv Sena (UBT) and the MNS placed the Marathi language and sub-national pride at the heart of their campaigns, warning against alleged “Hindi imposition” and “Gujarati domination” and projecting the BMC election as a decisive battle for the future of the “Marathi manoos”.

The Thackeray cousins have united after 20 years of bitter rivalry, a move clearly born of a shared existential crisis. Yet, they have sought to project this alliance as a historical necessity, citing a purported threat to Mumbai’s Marathi identity. By urging “Marathi unity”, they have called the BMC election the final frontier for protecting Maharashtra’s culture, employment and political voice from what they describe as outside influence — specifically migration from north India. While this is a tried and tested formula used by the Thackerays for nearly 60 years, whether this vintage nativism will resonate with a younger generation of Marathi voters remains a million-dollar question.

The ruling Mahayuti, for its part, claimed that its primary focus was development and efficient administration. Yet its campaign, too, repeatedly invoked culture, faith and community identity. The pledge to “free Mumbai from illegal migrants” was raised as a rallying cry, even though such matters fall largely outside the BMC’s legal mandate and rest with the Union and state governments. The blurring of jurisdictional lines underscored how civic elections are increasingly used as proxies for larger ideological battles.

The Congress, meanwhile, appeared comparatively muted. Its decision to contest independent of its Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) allies in several wards risks fragmenting the Opposition vote — a move that could inadvertently strengthen the Mahayuti. Ground reports and surveys suggest that the Mahayuti currently holds an edge, even as the Uddhav-Raj alliance puts up a spirited fight.

However, the real question is not what the parties have done, but what the electorate should do. Ultimately, the burden of choice falls on the electorate. Should they vote along party and ideological lines, or prioritise the candidate best equipped to resolve local grievances?

On January 15, as Mumbaikars head to the booths, they must decide whether the country’s richest civic institution should be shaped by identity-driven mobilisation and headline-grabbing promises, or by a sober commitment to fixing Mumbai’s persistent urban challenges. The decision is as much about priorities as it is about power. The campaign has ended; the arguments have been made. Now, the silence of the next 48 hours is a chance for reflection. On Thursday, Mumbai must speak — through the ballot.

It’s not an easy job to discern the connection of the vagaries of weather with climate change patterns. Heatwaves and cold waves, excessive and deficit rainfall patterns, extreme weather events of unusual rise in summer temperatures and sharp dip in winter temperatures evokes the big picture of a climate change crisis. The hard job is to collate the temperature highs and lows, rainfall percentages with climate change graphs with a consistent shift in climate. While headlines can easily connect cold waves with climate change, it is surely not an accurate description of the state of the weather.

Winter 2025-26 has witnessed unusually low temperatures not just in the North Indian hills and plains, but it was felt in the east and beyond the Vindhyas. Both Kolkata and Hyderabad are feeling the winter shivers, and so is a most unlikely place, the generally sultry Chennai on the Bay of Bengal. Some years ago, Mumbai on the Arabian Sea felt the chill in the winter months. It seems but natural that people should attribute it all to the deteriorating effects of climate change. But meteorologists have attributed this to the La Nina effect, which is part of the El Nino cycle. While El Nino indicated the warmer air currents over the Pacific Ocean, La Nina, at the other end of the cycle, has spelled acute winters. The vagary factor enters when it is noticed that not all La Nina years did not have acute winters. For example, 2023 and 2024 were La Nina years, but they spelt warm winters, unlike in 2025-26. The explanation offered for the irregularity in the El Nino-La La Nina cycle is due to the human-induced climate change pattern. It seems a common inference from the fact that we now live in the Anthropocene Age, when human domination of the earth is affecting every aspect of the planet.

While the high summer temperatures and the increasing number of extreme weather events – partly from very high temperatures, the erupting forest fires -- can be readily attributed to the rising carbon levels in the atmosphere, the falling winter temperatures compel one to pause. Whatever the climatic causes -- and there is no definitive explanation yet -- of acute winters as being felt across both North and South India, the impact of extreme cold can be readily seen. In North India, there is the issue of fog, which turns into the vitiating smog in cities like Delhi, where air pollution is intense and the air quality index (AQI) touches dangerous levels. This is a cause for public health concern. People are vulnerable to respiratory problems, especially older people and children. The health system struggles to cope with the increase in demand for services. It might seem that in regions which do not fall within the regular winter arc -- those nearer the Himalayan range and exposed to westerly disturbances -- feel the chill impact of uncharacteristic winter of the La Nina year.

Scientists have been consistently arguing that rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere caused by human activity, especially industrial processes and the use of fossil-based fuels -- coal and oil – to generate electricity and transportation in cars and trucks, is making habitable conditions more precarious than ever. Only the loony right in the United States, led by President Donald Trump, denies climate change staring in the face. But the quantification of climate change is a work that remains to be done. This is a statistical task which is crucial to work out the strategies to combat climate change. Floods, droughts, burning summers and freezing winters can be blamed on climate change, but the numbers will help trace the exact contours of the causality. The present calculation that the temperatures must remain within 1.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial levels is a good ballpoint mark, though the prediction is that if the present levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue, the temperatures may rise to 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The struggle not to reach the no-return inflection point of 2 degrees Celsius is an emergency operation.

There is the short-term challenge of fighting the consequences of recurring La Nina winters, while working towards containing the long-term challenge of rise in global temperatures so that the winters do not vanish, icecaps and glaciers remain, and the cold winds continue to blow because the cycle of the seasons is what keeps food production going and the natural environment flourish. The disaster would be if the seasons get disrupted, and there is no respite from the summer heat, rain and winter cold.

In northern India’s cities and villages, most people do not have access to any kind of heating system. They have to fall back on wood and waste material to light fires. Cold wave deaths are still a harsh reality. While summer brings in its wake its own share of woes, winters a curse for the poor, and their numbers are much too large to pretend that there is no emergency. Neither governments nor the private sector have any strategy to build infrastructure to take care of cold in the few months of the year that covers large parts of the country. Buildings in India, whether residences or workplaces, are not always constructed keeping in mind the exigencies of weather. It is perhaps time to pay attention to this basic need. There has been much focus on how to deal with the summer heat, and partially with problems caused by rains, but none whatsoever to deal with the stress of cold in winter. Most habitations in earlier periods were dictated by the demands of weather. A look at the past can point to dealing with weather and climate-induced crises of the present and future.

One act of brigandage follows hard on the heels of another for Donald Trump, 45th and 47th President of the United States of America. If this be “the Golden Age of America” that began with his inauguration in January 2025, as Mr Trump proudly proclaimed at the time, heaven save us from what he might consider the Dark Ages of his presidency as Indians wait in trepidation for the possibly fearsome 500 per cent duty he has threatened to impose on imports from this country.

Mr Trump’s earlier grab for Greenland was not unlike Russian President Vladimir Putin’s seizure of the Crimea and Ukraine’s Donbas region or Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s stranglehold on the Gaza Strip and 19 new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank which belong to Palestine. Venezuela’s vast oil reserve is obviously what prompted Mr Trump to oust its President, Nicolás Maduro. In none of these instances is any valid legal reason advanced beyond avarice for additional territory.

Since then, the US President has also threatened to intervene in Iran if it lays hands on any of its protesters. Again, Mr Trump is exploiting a seemingly rational current issue to pay off old scores and gain backdoor economic advantage. He has long opposed Iran’s sanctioned nuclear project and -- as with Venezuela -- also had his eye on Iranian oil. Both ends might be served by ousting Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran’s second supreme leader since 1989.

As for Greenland, the US already maintains a permanent military presence at the Pituffik Space Base, a right that Denmark had granted in 1951. The strategically vital base, a US Space Force installation critical for missile warning and space surveillance in the Arctic, was formerly known as the Thule Air Base. “Thule” refers in ancient Greek and Roman literature to mythical northern lands, later applied to the Arctic. It a key hub for scientific missions like NASA’s Operation IceBridge, and for operating radar systems for missile warning, missile defence and satellite tracking.

The site has been one of the major hubs of Operation IceBridge since it began in 2009, the largest ever airborne survey of the earth's polar ice. Denmark supported a US military presence and Nato security guarantees because of its own limited ability to defend Greenland. The Americans could not have established a radar base at Thule during the Cold War without Danish support.

This is not the only sensitive border territory. There’s also the US’s 49th state, Alaska: Mr Trump sat down with Mr Putin for a highly anticipated summit on August 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss the Russia-Ukraine war. Experts emphasize the historical significance of this location, specifically how the US purchased it from Russia in 1867.

According to the US State Department’s Office of the Historian: “Russia had a keen interest in this region, which was rich in natural resources and lightly inhabited.” But Russia was also hard up, and the treaty was signed in March 1867, with the formal transfer seven months later. The US paid $7.2 million, or about two cents per acre. The deal was initially mocked but later seen as a bargain, with inflation pushing the price up to more than $150 million. The narrowest distance between mainland Russia and Alaska is approximately 55 miles.

This body of water, the Bering Strait, contains two small islands known as Big Diomede and Little Diomede.

Big Diomede is still owned by Russia while Little Diomede belongs to the US. The stretch of water between the two islands is only about 2.5 miles wide and freezes over during the winter so that it is technically possible to walk from the US to Russia on this seasonal sea ice.

As with Alaska, Americans have long seen Greenland as strategically important. With the melting of the ice around Greenland, the possibility of new trade routes has increased the Arctic’s importance.

Now, amidst criticism from Denmark and Greenland, as well as from Mr Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Mr Trump claims that Greenland’s strategic location is critical for the US ballistic missile warning system. He wants to expand his country’s military presence on the island to monitor Russian activities in the surrounding waters. Currently, shipping data indicates that most Chinese and Russian shipping in Arctic waters occurs near their own coasts. However, there is concern about Russian submarines operating around Greenland, the world’s biggest island.

Venezuela is a different case. Globally respected experts believe that the drugs that are a social menace for Americans are smuggled in via Colombia, and not Venezuela. True, there is evidence to suggest that Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election was stolen from Mr Maduro’s opponent, Edmundo González. However, this does not legally justify Mr Trump’s illegal invasion or the capture and imprisonment of Venezuela’s President and his wife. Also, the identity of the lawful winner is contested since some countries recognise Mr Maduro as the winner, while the Opposition controls no Venezuelan territory, which might have given the US the right to intervene on its behalf. America’s actions are only lawful if supported by a resolution from the United Nations Security Council or if the lawful government of Venezuela consented to the intervention.

There was no UN authorisation for the US to intervene. Nor has the US been the victim of any act of aggression by Venezuela. There was no letter of complaint either by Venezuela’s lawful government, which means Mr Maduro.

Naturally, the Venezuelan Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Maria Corina Machado, says the “hour of freedom” has arrived. But even she can’t ignore the unsavoury US record in Latin America.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the 29th US President, wanted the Panama Canal, which meant slicing off some Colombian territory, he obtained it by buying a bunch of rebel Colombian politicians who became Panama secessionists and promptly signed a treaty in 1903 giving Washington everything it wanted. The Canal Zone agreement has rankled ever since.

Mr Trump is acting like a bullying schoolboy who, not being content with his own sizable lollipop, wants to gobble up the lollipops of other children. That is the surest way to global anarchy. If the US President wants his administration to be respected and obeyed on a reciprocal basis, he must abandon all thought of “might is right” as the basis of worldwide co-existence.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author

Bhubaneswar: In a bid to curb road hazards and illegal practices linked to the movement of construction material, the State Transport Authority (STA), Odisha, has directed all transport enforcement agencies to intensify checks on the transportation of sand and other uncovered construction materials across the state.

Under the revised enforcement regime, the STA has made it clear that no vehicle carrying sand or construction material will be permitted to operate if it is overloaded or if the material is not properly covered. Enforcement officials have been specifically instructed to conduct inspections at loading points, including sand ghats and quarries, to ensure strict compliance before vehicles are allowed to exit.

The STA has also written to the Director of Minor Minerals, calling for coordinated and preventive action among transport, mining and district administrations to ensure safe and regulated movement of construction material. The communication underscores that lax enforcement at the source has been a major contributor to unsafe transportation practices, leading to spillage, accidents and environmental degradation.

Citing repeated judicial observations, the STA noted that the High Court of Orissa and other courts have consistently emphasised the need for strict regulation and monitoring of sand transportation, holding that uncovered and unsafe transport poses a serious threat to public safety. The courts have also underlined the statutory responsibility of authorities to prevent violations at the source—namely, sand ghats and loading points.

The notification refers to Rule 138 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which mandates that goods carried in open-body vehicles must be covered with tarpaulin or other suitable material, rendering uncovered transportation illegal. It also invokes Sections 21 and 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, read with the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (OMMC) Rules, which empower the state to regulate and impose conditions on the extraction and transportation of minor minerals such as sand. Any violation, it said, could attract penal and administrative action, including suspension or cancellation of leases.

To operationalise the directive, the STA has asked district mining officers and leaseholders to ensure that no vehicle exits a loading point unless the sand is fully covered and securely tied with tarpaulin or HDPE sheets on all sides. Loading supervisors and ghat staff will be held personally accountable for compliance. The authority has also suggested introducing a simple “Cover Before Exit” checklist and using CCTV footage, wherever available, to record the covered condition of vehicles.

Repeated violations could lead to stringent action, including suspension of operations, cancellation of leases and escalation to district collectors for further proceedings, the STA warned.

There is much to admire about America, and quite a lot to dislike. The thing to admire most is how it is both able to attract many of the world’s most talented people, and is open to having them over.

Some 15 per cent of the American population is foreign born, including around five million Indians, and this is actually a great asset. A nation, say India, spends critical resources in raising and educating a child, feeding them, sheltering them, clothing them. The child goes to the best state institutions, subsidised by Indians, only to then in their 20s move permanently to the United States. American corporations like Microsoft, Google and Tesla and its universities benefit from the value added by such individuals from abroad to their workforce.

The investment was all made here; the return on investment is fulfilled there.

This ability of America’s is to some extent replicated in Europe, but it does not exist in nations like China or India. We neither attract external talent nor do we want it. If we are honest, almost all of us who can move abroad do so and the numbers prove it. Today, America is putting an end to this and is so intent that it is okay with the murdering of its own citizens by the ICE militia hunting immigrants. This was not expected by those who admired the United States.

On the other hand, those who are aware of the United States’ conduct in the world, particularly after the Second World War, have always found much to dislike. Its endless interventions in Asia, Africa, Latin America and even Europe have harmed hundreds of millions of people. This has always been the case right from the Korean war in the 1950s to Serbia in the 1990s and then of course the post-9/11 adventurism.

To my mind, this is the first time that America is pursuing a course where it is undoing the thing that is to be admired, and doubling down on that which is disliked. By closing America off to immigration, the US is harming itself. India is the nation with the maximum number of H-1B visa beneficiaries, some two-thirds of the total. It is true that these individuals do not want to live in India and want to move to the US if allowed, but they add a quality to the workforce that is not easy to replicate.

Similarly, even those who are undocumented and come to America do so because they want to be more productive. Getting rid of them and discouraging others from coming, as is happening now, has and will continue to impact America negatively. Unemployment in the US has worsened over the past year as the attacks on immigration have mounted. This is because the larger economy has been harmed by the actions against labour. What was to be admired has been undone.

Looking over to the other side of the ledger, the United States is pursuing a course which continues with its imperialist tendencies when it comes to violence abroad but now with an added edge. The imperialism we can see in the invasion of Venezuela, the kidnapping of its leader and his wife, and the naked demand for handing over its oil reserves. Dozens were murdered in this event but find little mention and no sympathy in the American press. The bombing of Iran and the assistance to Israel to attack all of its neighbours is also part of the general post-Second World War trend.

The new element added by President Donald Trump is the ferocity with which he has turned on America’s allies. He wants Canada, he wants Greenland, he wants the Panama Canal. The poor Europeans, long accustomed to assuming fraternity with America on the basis of race alone, are terrified and do not know how to react. They have made a show of closing ranks but if Mr Trump sends his Marines to Greenland, there is little they can do.

Japan and South Korea, nations which had volunteered to be US partners in security and trade and have been allies for decades, find themselves blackmailed into trade deals. India, which wanted to be close to America, especially under the last two Prime Ministers, and whose leader asked Indians in America to vote for Mr Trump, is also in shock.

We can discuss the incompetence and total naivety with which our government approached Mr Trump, but that we can leave for another day. Today we are examining the US and what it is doing to itself.

Great empires of the past usually faded over long periods of time. It took Rome centuries to wither away. In the modern era, this has been happening faster. The British fell from the heights of Delhi in 1911 to severe crisis in 1945 after the Second World War. The Soviet Union vanished in a matter of weeks. But none of these great powers were damaging themselves as gratuitously as the United States is doing today. President Trump is dismissing with contempt all the external talent that has added so much to the US, and is taking down the system — the so-called “rules-based order” — which America had itself devised to dominate the world.

What he has done and is doing has damaged the US in the short term and the long term. This is as sad to all those who have long admired the US as it is satisfying to those who have disliked its actions.

The writer is the chair of Amnesty International India. Twitter: @aakar_patel

Since raids by the Enforcement Directorate have become the norm rather than the exception, mainly in Opposition-ruled states, trashing the explanation that such raids are coincidence, take the instances of Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest, Hemant Soren’s arrest and the notices to Abhishek Banerjee, the TMC’s national general secretary, during the campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha, the arrests and investigations in Maharashtra, Bihar, Haryana and Chhattisgarh, the inevitable probable suspicion is such raids are a way of emphasising the link between criminality, corruption and politicians.

The speculation in Kolkata was who, next, will the ED raid, before the West Bengal Assembly election was announced by the Election Commission. And predictably it did; its target was a shock, because it pounced on the Indian Political Action Committee’s local office and residence of its chief Pratik Jain.

I-PAC is not just India’s largest political consultancy company. It is the Trinamul Congress’s data and strategy backbone and backroom; it has, according to Mamata Banerjee, sensitive and confidential information on her party’s organisation, potential candidates for the forthcoming election and data on the process and progress of the controversial Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that is geared to “purify” the voters list of illegal migrants and “ghosts” masquerading as voters.

For the few hours between the raid’s beginning and Mamata Banerjee’s arrival on the scene like a fury unleashed, it seemed the ED had pulled off a first-mover advantage, much like a swoop by a corporate raider. Then there was the pushback.

Adversity became opportunity for Ms Banerjee, who reset the narrative and the nation became witness to how politics can be played from a position of disadvantage. She raided the raider.

It was a masterclass in how the Opposition to the BJP can act, when the chips only appear to be down. She snatched “files”, “data”, by interrupting the ED’s raid, which she called “theft”. The accusation was simple; ED was raiding I-PAC in search of evidence connecting the company to coal smuggling and money laundering. In Ms Banerjee’s view, the ED was stealing data about the Trinamul Congress.

The chronology of events matters; it played out at breathless speed at the end of which the ED’s role was shunted into a distant corner, except when its plea against Ms Banerjee and the West Bengal government is heard in the Supreme Court. Its already sullied reputation as one of the “agencies” that works when prodded by the ruling regime has taken another blow; it is fast becoming both a sinister operator as well as laughing stock on social media. Ruined credibility of government institutions points to an induced breakdown of the proper order of things, when fact-led investigations turn into politically motivated vendetta.

Ms Banerjee has reincarnated herself as the victim of the BJP’s malice, initiated by the “nasty, naughty” home minister, Amit Shah. The ED raid’s purpose has moved away from the TMC’s connection to criminality and corruption to a darker tale of coal smuggling money snaking its way via BJP Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Suvendu Adhikari to Amit Shah: ““They talk about coal scam money. But who does take the coal money? How is it taken? It goes through the traitors. Jagannath to Suvendu to Amit Shah, this is the chain,” she explained. The reference is to Ranaghat MP Jagannath Sarkar, whose seat is in the heart of the BJP’s carefully nurtured vote bank among the Scheduled Caste Matua community.

By taking control of the story, that is the BJP narrative of how Opposition ruling parties in states are blood-sucking regimes, that steal “people’s money” to enrich dynasties, Ms Banerjee probably used extra constitutional methods of raiding the raided. She accused the BJP of stealing stolen money in the coal smuggling racket case.

She also delivered a message that the Trinamul Congress would fight off any attempt to derail its commitment to fearful voters, the “ghuspetiyas” who came to West Bengal from across the border over the past seven decades. In her version of the ED raid, the BJP was the aggressor, abusing the power it had, by prodding “agencies”, in an act that was anti-Bengali.

The story underwent a transformation in her retelling; from a story linked to corruption, which could hurt her politically, burdened as she is by a three-term anti-incumbency in which cash-for-jobs, abuses in state-run hospitals, including the rape-murder at R.G. Kar Hospital figures prominently, it’s now another episode in the TMC versus BJP war over West Bengal.

By inserting herself into the story, Ms Banerjee was working overtime to alter the direction of public attention. That change has pushed the ED into issuing pathetic disclaimers: “No party office was searched. The search is not linked to any elections.” What then was the search about? “Regular money laundering”, as the ED claimed? If money-laundering is “regular”, then the “normal” has shifted.

The West Bengal Assembly polls are months away. The campaign, till the ED raid, was about “ghuspetiyas”, Muslim appeasement, vote banks and Rohingya infiltration. In the BJP’s telling, the election will be a vote to reverse the tide of illegal migrants who have changed the demographics in districts bordering Bangladesh, converting Hindu majorities into Muslim majorities.

The telling has all the hallmarks of the pre-Partition history of Hindu versus Muslim votes. The consequences of it are known. The districts constituting West Bengal were identified as Hindu majority, where Hindus who fled East Bengal were welcomed as victims of religious persecution.

The direction of the election campaign, as Mamata Banerjee has reset it, is about “Bengali” persecution, the BJP’s alleged manipulation of the SIR to disenfranchise eligible voters to fulfil its purpose of “Detect, Delete and Deport”. In the Mamata Banerjee version, the BJP has no understanding of who stole into West Bengal and integrated with the local population. It now finds itself in a fix; there are more Hindus endangered by the SIR process than Muslims, with little trace of undetected Rohingyas.

To many people in West Bengal, the BJP is the destabiliser; and Ms Banerjee confirmed it, positioning herself as the champion of all things Bengali, in her post-raid rally. She has reconfirmed it ensuring that Abhishek Banerjee travels across the state and delivers the message, initiating small but telling changes in her party organisation to spread the message faster, deeper and better than the BJP.

Can Narendra Modi’s visit, due in mid-January, control the damage she has done? To reverse the build-up of negative sentiment, Mr Modi will need to stir up a wave. The question is how can he do it, when the BJP is stuck in the doldrums.

Shikha Mukerjee is a senior journalist

The failure of Isro’s 64th mission of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C62) on Monday is an unwelcome moment for India’s space programme, which has long been associated with precision and reliability. However, the launch vehicle that has been regarded as Isro’s workhorse had failed two times consecutively, inviting an inevitable scrutiny.

After the launch on January 12, a deviation was detected during the rocket’s third stage after the liftoff from Satish Dhawan Space Centre. In May 2025 also, the rocket failed during the third stage. Rockets are complex systems where a minor anomaly can cascade into mission loss. The failures are not unknown in space odyssey.

Every country — the United States, the former Soviet Union and present-day Russia, China, and the European Space Agency — had its share of consecutive failures. Comparatively, PSLV’s overall failure rate remains relatively low, especially when judged against decades of global launch data. However, credibility comes from how quickly and transparently space agencies diagnose problems and restore confidence.

Isro must therefore set the record straight through a time-bound investigation. Transparency is essential for maintaining domestic and international confidence in India’s launch services at a time when competition in the commercial space market from space companies like SpaceX is intensifying.

The failure of the launch will delay the country’s ability to get another eye in the sky through hyperspectral remote sensing captures. It will also disappoint young space enthusiasts from Blue Blocks Montessori School, Hyderabad, and Laxman Gyanpith School, Ahmedabad.

If the PSLV was successful in its mission, it would have given a huge filip to the space ambitions of these youngsters. Isro should not allow the fame of curiosity and industry among the youngsters to extinguish. The space agency should actively handhold these teams, and turn a setback into a learning milestone.

India’s recent diplomacy moves have not been as smooth as dancing the tango, at least not with the USA which has blown hot and cold much like its President Donald Trump is wont to do. The one principle that it has learnt to enforce as it faces the unpredictable responses of the US is that of strategic autonomy and that might have given the country the leverage it needed to handle the rough with the smooth.

Pursuing its interests regardless of historical ties or emotional links, which may have proved more detrimental than helpful, India has been reaching out to the world at large, in meetings with the Russian and Chinese supremos besides engaging with the most significant leaders of the UK and Europe.

The German Chancellor’s maiden visit to India, to a warm reception in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, that had also been extended to the Chinese and American Presidents in the past, has become a part of the wider outreach India has been seeking and which has come without any of the coercion or mixed signals of the kind that have emanated from Washington.

Whatever their strategic pressures may be in dealing with their trans-Atlantic ally, major European nations have demonstrated that India is an important partner in defence as well as trade and have pursued all issues with India with a well-marked sense of equity. This was made apparent in the way the talks went between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The pacts signed, including a significant one on defence industrial cooperation, are an indication of how much more even these old ties have been as opposed to the often chaotic association with the USA has been, perhaps never worse than in the present time when even a bizarre claim was made most recently that a trade deal did not come about because Narendra Modi did not call Donald Trump in time.

Such are the swinging moods as seen in the signals that the US has been sending, including in Trump endorsing legislation carrying the threat of a 500 per cent sanction on Russian oil buyers who dare to prioritise their national interest, that there has occasionally been positive thoughts by semaphore too.

There might still be some way to go before India and the USA sign the much-vaunted trade deal, but its new envoy Sergio Gor, who took office on Monday in New Delhi, was brimming with positivity about ties. And not only about a trade deal being imminent as talks are about to restart, which he disclosed, but also about India being invited to be a part of its Pax Silica, the US-led tech and supply chain initiative.

It would appear then that India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy and its hunt for diversifying its ties as well as trade while exploring worldwide export sources may be bearing fruit on a parallel track independent of the ups and downs of the diplomatic path to the US. It appears this is just about the beginning of the realisation in Washington that it cannot leave a significant global economy behind. All the unsubtle pressures placed on India by the stance taken by Trump and the rhetoric of some of his close aides may be consigned to history if indeed Gor’s projections of brighter days of cooperation fructify soon.

Dehradun: A Kashipur-based farmer allegedly died by suicide after recording a video accusing a land mafia and senior police officials of defrauding and harassing his family. The deceased, Sukhwant Singh, a resident of the Paiga area in Kashipur of Udham Singh Nagar district, shot himself at a hotel in Nainital in the early hours of Sunday.

In the video, which has since gone viral, Singh claimed that a group based in Kashipur cheated him of Rs 4 crore in a land deal. He alleged that Rs 3 crore was paid in cash and Rs 1 crore transferred to bank accounts, but the land ultimately handed over was different from what had been shown to him. He named several individuals in the video and alleged that police officials failed to act on his complaints and instead harassed his family.

Singh also accused senior police officers, including the Udham Singh Nagar Superintendent of Police and officials of the ITI police station, of colluding with the accused. He claimed that despite approaching the police multiple times over the past four months, no action was taken and that his family was detained and misbehaved with at the police station. He alleged that his complaints to the SP also yielded no result.

In the video, Singh demanded a CBI probe into the case, alleging that senior police officials were hand in glove with those who had defrauded him. He said those named by him were responsible for his death and that his family would not find peace until action was taken against them. According to police sources, Singh named 26 individuals in the video, including eight women.

Police said Singh had checked into Devbhoomi Hotel in Nainital on Saturday along with his wife, Pradeep Kaur and their 12-year-old son, Gursej. At around 2.30 a.m. on Sunday, he allegedly opened fire inside the room. While he attempted to shoot his son, his wife intervened and managed to push the child away. Both the wife and son sustained injuries and escaped from the room, following which Singh shot himself dead.

Taking serious note of the incident and the viral video, Pushkar Singh Dhami on Monday ordered a magisterial inquiry. He said the probe has been entrusted to the Kumaon Commissioner and senior IAS officer Deepak Rawat. The Chief Minister said an impartial and transparent investigation would be conducted and strict action taken against all those found responsible.

Political leaders often exhibit short memories for selfish ends, but nations normally don’t and must never forget their history. Unfortunately, India’s long-standing friendly eastern neighbour is forgetting New Delhi’s sterling contribution to its birth as an independent nation in December 1971, when over 3,000 Indian soldiers made the supreme sacrifice to liberate it from the barbarism of the Pakistani military. The forces in East Pakistan, commanded by Lt. Gen. Tikka Khan (known as the “Butcher of Bangladesh”) and Lt. Gen. A.A.K. Niazi (who surrendered in Dhaka on December 16, 1971), murdered nearly a million East Pakistanis and raped lakhs of women, in one of the worst genocides in human history. How can any nation forget such scars? Is it the rise of radicalism in Bangladeshi society or some other sinister geopolitical game that is behind this?

That the instability in Bangladesh, after Seikh Hasina’s ouster in August 202, impacts India adversely can’t be underplayed. As Sheikh Hasina was unceremoniously removed, ostensibly by a student-led Gen Z revolution with the Army looking the other way, most strategic analysts (including in India) were taken by surprise. Why were India’s diplomats posted there, as well as the intelligence agencies, caught napping? Were they not aware that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence and others were systematically radicalising Bangladeshi society for years? The ISI had been keeping contacts with Bangladesh’s Directorate-General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) for years.

After Sheikh Hasina’s departure for New Delhi, the killings of Hindus in cold blood, the torching of Hindu temples, shops and homes, the destruction of Buddhist temples and Christian churches has been on the rise, with the Bangladesh authorities looking the other way. That Pakistan’s devious games since the past year or two has met with rousing anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh has been an unqualified success can’t be ruled out. That Pakistan’s rabidly anti-India de facto ruler, Field Marshal Asim Munir, will redouble his efforts to further deepen the Delhi-Dhaka divide is an unfortunate reality. From all accounts, a China-Pakistan-Bangladesh axis is being given concrete shape. India therefore needs to analyse all the options available to it to not allow any further slide in Delhi-Dhaka ties despite the fact that India’s options currently appear to be limited.

General elections are due to be held in Bangladesh in February 2026, which will signal the overall political shape and policies of Dhaka -- whether ultra-radical or moderate in its orientation. Sheikh Hasina’s pro-India secular Awami League has been illegally banned from contesting these elections and the other major party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), is being wooed by the ultra-radical Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) to join hands to fight the coming elections.

The sudden, unexpected passing away of former three-time PM Begum Khaleda Zia, the BNP’s supremo, will impact the coming general election in a significant manner. Her son, Tarique Rahman, who was in exile in London for the past 17 years, had returned to Dhaka shortly before his mother’s passing and assumed the stewardship of her party. Whether he will be able to control his party will perhaps be known only after the results are announced. While initially the BNP was seen as somewhat anti-India, it is hoped that if it returns to power, Tarique Rahman may take a more mature, balanced stance towards India, especially since Bangladesh is dependent on India for its many needs, like rice and other foodgrains, power, electricity, etc. At the moment, the policy of economic leverage presents the only hope for India to reset its relations with Bangladesh, which has now been overtaken by Islamist radicalism and persecution of its minorities.

It was a sensible decision by the Government of India to send external affairs minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar with a letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to represent India at Begum Khaleda Zia’s funeral ceremony in Dhaka. It can safely be surmised that channels of communication from New Delhi to Dhaka would have opened between Tarique Rehman and the external affairs ministry. That Pakistan’s machinations, even on behalf of the United States, will only intensify in our eastern flank cannot be questioned.

India, in addition, needs to dispatch some renowned Bengali leaders, primarily Muslims, to visit Dhaka and other regions in Bangladesh to try and spread goodwill between the two nations and explain to the local populace there about the oneness of our culture and heritage. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee should be included as a key member of such a delegation. But notwithstanding all these soft power measures, India will have to deploy additional armed forces and equipment in case a flare-up occurs, whether along the Siliguri Corridor or anywhere along the 4,000-km-long international border. Some business magnates should also be prepared to visit Bangladesh and liaise with top Bangladeshi businessmen about possible economic cooperation. India will have prevail upon its “strategic partner”, the United States, to come clean on any mischief it may be contemplating in Bangladesh, by using Pakistan as its proxy, to embarrass India. In any case, India will have to endeavour zealously to balance China’s ever-growing economic footprint in Bangladesh through economic initiatives or sustaining current economic linkages.

India is now facing a major challenge across its entire eastern sector, which may have ramifications in Northeast India as well. The government will have to devote adequate attention to tackling and hopefully resolving any political and economic problems in the “Seven Sisters” region, and be prepared to counter any mischief-making by Pakistan and Bangladesh with alacrity. New Delhi needs to analyse all options available to it over Bangladesh -- both kinetic and economic measures. If India’s celebrated soft power measures do not succeed, then it must be prepared for other options in case the ultra-radicals in Bangladesh go overboard with their anti-India activities.

The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was the first head of India’s Defence Intelligence Agency, and is a strategic analyst

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has claimed that her political detractors have “awakened” her. “I feel rejuvenated”, she declared, leading protests against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids on her party’s political consultancy firm I-PAC.

The incident has allowed her to return to her favourite “street fighter” role. She claims that the ED raid was an attempt to steal her party’s electoral plans on the eve of Assembly elections in the state. The raid on a political consultancy firm is fairly unusual, although there is no independent evidence of the ED having stolen election management data belonging to the Trinamul Congress (TMC).

The timing is significant -- just weeks before the West Bengal state Assembly elections, which the BJP is desperate to win. No wonder then that Ms Banerjee has led a protest rally, filed complaints with the police, challenged the raids in the Calcutta high court and announced plans to gherao the Election Commission office for alleged voter list manipulation. Combining institutional push back with mass mobilisation, she has framed the events as an attack on democracy and federalism. Ms Banerjee is trying to create a narrative of vendetta. Even if no election strategy related data was stolen, the optics of raiding a political consultancy firm on the eve of elections is likely to fuel the suspicion that confidential data could have been compromised. Ms Banerjee’s allegation is, therefore, politically understandable.

It is also a credible narrative as the Narendra Modi government’s record of using the Central investigative agencies on the eve of state and Lok Sabha elections is well-known.

Between 2014 and 2019, several Congress leaders were raided by the Central agencies on the eve of state and Lok Sabha polls. The demonetisation of 2016 was perceived by many Opposition leaders as an attempt to cut off the Opposition’s funding channels, months before the Uttar Pradesh elections. The BJP knew that elections in India have traditionally relied heavily on cash for mobilisation, logistics and patronage and that the sudden invalidation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes would disrupt these flows. The party allegedly had already adjusted its own finances, presumably because of prior knowledge, and it swept the Uttar Pradesh elections.

In 2019, on the eve of the Lok Sabha polls, the Kolkata police commissioner, considered close to Mamata Banerjee, was raided by the CBI. In Karnataka on the eve of bypolls in 2020, Congress leader D.K. Shivakumar was raided.

The pattern of raids by Central agencies on the eve of polls was repeated in state elections as well. In 2020 in Bihar, several Rashtriya Janata Dal leaders were raided; in 2021 in West Bengal Ms Banerjee’s nephew Abhishek Banerjee was raided by the CBI in the coal smuggling case; and in Maharashtra in 2022 Shiv Sena and Nationalist Congress Party leaders were targeted. The Central agencies were particularly active before the state Assembly elections of 2023 conducting raids in Rajasthan on Congress leaders, targeting K. Kavitha of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi in Telangana and several DMK leaders in Tamil Nadu, and arresting Hemant Soren in Jharkhand. In addition, in 2023, Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia was jailed in an excise case before the Municipal Corporation of Delhi polls.

A cluster of raids just before polls disrupted Opposition campaigns. A National Herald tracker shows that since 2014, the ED investigated 121 political leaders, of whom 115 were from the Opposition parties.

Ms Banerjee’s suspicion about the I-PAC raid, therefore, is consistent with a template of weakening the Opposition before elections. This decade-long pattern, its timing, selectivity and optics deepen the perception that Central investigative agencies have been weaponised by the Modi government. In 2024, 14 political parties had petitioned the Supreme Court alleging the misuse of investigative agencies only to be told that political parties cannot be immune from investigation. However, Ms Banerjee is probably quite right in thinking that voters tend to believe the political narrative rather than the legal one.

She has, therefore, used the raid on I-PAC to create a “victimhood vs power” narrative. Ms Banerjee has consistently used such confrontations with the Centre to frame herself and her party as victims of the Central government’s vendetta. The tactics of rallying supporters through protests, marches and public campaigns is a hallmark of her political style in election season.

She did it in the case of the 2019 raid on the Kolkata police commissioner, in 2021 when ED and CBI actions linked her party leaders to coal smuggling cases and in 2023-24 took up the case of Jharkhand and Delhi, to weave a broad narrative of Central agencies victimising the Opposition.

This strategy works for Ms Banerjee because it positions her party as the underdog fighting government overreach. Most importantly, it allows her to negate anti-incumbency of 15-years -- if the party leaders adopt an anti-establishment narrative they can direct public anger against the Centre. She is also able to project targeting by the Centre as an attack on Bengali identity -- thus the iconic song sung by her supporters during the protest, Ami Bangalay Gaan Gai, written by Pratul Mukhopadhyay, expressing deep concern for the Bengali language, culture and identity. She has also situated herself and her party in the long culture of protest politics in West Bengal. The raids so close to the election are likely to ginger up her party cadres who will see them as an existential threat.

Surely, the Narendra Modi government must have factored in such a possible fallout. That it still went ahead with the raids suggests either nervousness or recklessness. Nervousness, because the BJP faces strong resistance in West Bengal, is apprehensive of the TMC’s organised campaign and wants to pre-empt its electoral strategy. And reckless, because raiding a political consultancy firm like I-PAC is akin to raiding a party office. If that perception spreads it could make the raid counter-productive.

Whatever drove the decision, it turned out to be a reckless one with Ms Banerjee being able to turn the tables and converting the ED’s action into political advantage.

As of now, this round seems to have gone to Ms Banerjee. Her party seems to be moving from initial outrage to organising ground mobilisation, while her political messaging has become stronger, combative and media savvy. She has been careful to simultaneously opt for a legal process, expressing faith in the judiciary, to avoid being branded lawless. This is however, only the first major exchange of salvos as the election season warms up in West Bengal. There will be more to come.

The writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi

It is important that all people are mindful of history and learn the lessons it offers so that they can live in the present and plan the future. It is helpful to avoid repetition of past mistakes and ensure optimal use of resources for the future.

The repeated attacks on the Somnath temple in Gujarat that began 1,000 years ago offer valuable lessons for India in that unity of purpose of the people is the best guarantee against a powerful enemy who may attempt an invasion from outside the border. It is also a symbol of resilience of the Indian people in that they rebuilt the temple whenever it was destroyed by the marauding foreign forces, starting with Mahmud of Ghazni’s attack in 1026. Somnath indeed can offer a lesson to today’s Indians.

However, facts, fiction and interpretations of the attacks have been a staple item in the agenda of the Indian right wing which it has used to paint a coat of victimhood onto a section of the Indian people which it believes is their captive audience. It uses the stories not to unite the people but to widen and deepen the fault lines amongst them, by dividing them as descendants of the attackers and of the victims.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was toeing the same line when he addressed devotees at Somnath Swabhiman Parv, marking the 1,000 years of the attack of Muhammad Ghori on the temple. Mr Modi said the forces that had opposed the reconstruction of the Somnath temple after Independence are “still active among us”, and India needs to be alert, united and strong to defeat them. His obvious reference was to Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and his partymen now.

The fact remains that India chose to remain a secular nation despite the Partition which happened on religious grounds, and as Prime Minister, Nehru opposed the government’s direct involvement with the reconstruction effort. His objection to then President Dr Rajendra Prasad opening the temple was also based on his belief that a government which belongs to all people must not be seen as being part of a specific religion. It may be remembered that the temple was indeed rebuilt during Nehru’s time and Dr Prasad presided over the inauguration ceremony.

It is understandable that Nehru’s logic is lost on Mr Modi who consecrated a temple while being Prime Minister. It is equally unimaginable that the first Prime Minister would ever say after a disturbing incident that arsonists can be identified by the dress they wear, but Mr Modi did. Mr Modi follows politics of a different grain but that hardly gives him the right to denigrate the actions of his predecessor who followed the spirit of a Constitution that both have sworn on. The followers of Nehru’s principles draw their right to be in the country thanks to the Constitution and not out of the largesse of the government of the day.

It is important that we as a country remember the wounds that history has wrought on us in order to stay vigilant against their repetition, instead of licking them and bleeding them even further.

Anti-government protests have been spiralling over the last couple of weeks in Iran. Protesters across the nation’s 31 provinces have been standing up to the regime of the mullahs under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and more than a hundred of them have already been killed by the police and security services like the Revolutionary Guards.

Not even warnings from US President Donald Trump of direct action against Islamist extremism may have helped to change the repressive attitude marked by systemic oppression and persecution that the theocratic state has shown towards dissent, its first action being invariably shutting down of the Internet.

A regime that last year executed more than 2,000 people, many of them demonstrators who had joined rioters on the streets, seems determined to use the full might of the state to quell a popular uprising that is bigger than anything Iran may have seen in recent years. Khamenei has called them vandals who are acting at the behest of Trump while the President offered a hardship allowance of US$7 to the people.

Egged on by Reza Pahlavi, son of the Shah of Iran who was deposed in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 since when a progressive state has slid into throttling theocratic control, the Gen Z, along with a fair sprinkling of working-class and middle-class people, see this as an opportunity to bring about a regime change.

Any act of abdicating by Khamenei would be an extraordinary event like the Arab Spring that took shape in 2010 and immediately brought down governments in Tunisia and Egypt before spreading in the region. The fear is the unlikely event of any change at the top could see the country slip into the hands of the unknown, perhaps even someone from the feared Iran Revolutionary Guards.

Iran has, however, no easy answers to the widespread economic grievances of its people, caused primarily by the collapse of the Iranian currency last month which was the springboard for the protests. A 12-day war with Israel had eroded the finances and any military action now by the US or Israel could only exacerbate the problem of controlling the dissent in a country with a history of suffering Iranian people.

Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh chief minister Mohan Yadav has launched a massive drive to overhaul drinking water monitoring across the state with the deployment of robotic technology and GIS-mapping tools.

The two-phase ‘Swachh Jal’ campaign was launched here late on Saturday evening to bring the drinking water supply system across the state under intense scrutiny with the use of technology and take corrective measures to provide safe drinking water to the people.

The move comes in the wake of the death of several people in Bhagirathpura in Indore due to water contamination in the last three weeks.

“Swachh Jal Abhiyan will be conducted in two phases. The phase one campaign will be held from January 10 to February 28, and the phase two campaign will be held from March one to March 31. A system of ‘Jal Sunwai’ (water grievances hearing) has been put in place to address public drinking water issues, which officials have been directed to address with utmost seriousness”, Mr. said while chairing a high-level official meeting here.

Mr. Yadav said that robotic technology will be employed to inspect underground pipelines for leakages and use GIS mapping to zero in on the leakages and identify the intersections of sewage and drinking water pipelines that raise the prospects of contamination.

The robots will be used for the intense scrutiny of the exterior and interior of drinking water supply pipelines across Madhya Pradesh to identify leakages, corrosion and structural breaches.

This is the first time the robotic technology is being used in such an extensive way to inspect the water supply pipelines for leakages and structural weaknesses in the state.

Mr. Yadav ordered strict monitoring of the water treatment plants and drinking water tanks to ensure clean drinking water supply to the people.

He also directed the departments concerned to conduct regular testing of the drinking water quality and ensure alternative arrangements in case of contamination.

During the campaign, cleaning of all water treatment plants and drinking water storage tanks will be done and monitored through a GIS map-based App.

Mumbai: The Maharashtra Congress has written to the State Election Commission (SEC) objecting to the state government’s decision to release a combined Rs 3,000 instalment under the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Scheme for December 2025 and January 2026, a few days before the polling for municipal corporation elections. The party alleged that the move could influence over one crore women voters and violate the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). It has sought directions to defer the payout until after the elections.

Senior BJP leader and Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule hit back, accusing the Congress of harbouring “hatred” towards women beneficiaries. SEC chief Dr Dinesh Waghmare told this newspaper that a report has been sought from Chief Secretary Rajesh Aggarwal on the issue.

In a letter to the SEC, Congress general secretary Sandesh Kondvilkar said the proposed payout just before polling amounted to a violation of the MCC and described it as “collective government bribery” intended to benefit ruling party candidates.

Speaking to this newspaper, Mr Kondvilkar said the Congress was not opposing the scheme but questioning its timing. He pointed out that the November 2025 instalment was credited in the last week of December. “Why does the government want to release two instalments just a day before the election?” he asked, adding that the party has requested the remaining payments be made only after the polls. He said no response has yet been received from the SEC.

The Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Scheme was launched in June 2024 by the then Eknath Shinde-led Mahayuti government after its setback in the Lok Sabha elections, providing Rs 1,500 per month to all women aged 21 to 65 having annual family income less than Rs 2.50 lakh. The scheme was widely seen as a key factor in the BJP-led Mahayuti retaining power with a decisive majority in the November 2024 Assembly elections.

Responding to the Congress letter, Mr Bawankule, who is also the BJP’s in-charge for local body elections, said, “The Congress is filled with hatred towards the beloved sisters of Maharashtra. It cannot tolerate the happiness of our mothers and sisters. By asking the SEC to stop the credit of Ladki Bahin funds, the Congress has exposed its perverse mindset.”

He added that Congress has been attempting to obstruct the scheme since its launch, initially through petitions in the High Court and now by approaching the SEC.

SEC officials said a decision would be taken after examining the report from the state government. “Until we receive the Chief Secretary’s report, we cannot comment,” Dr Waghmare said.

On January 3, 2026, a massive US operation across northern Venezuela culminated not only in air strikes and widespread power outages in Caracas, but in the extraordinary rendition of President Nicolás Maduro to the United States to face criminal charges. Air strikes, communications disruptions and civilian casualties accompanied what Washington has sought to frame as a law-enforcement action against an alleged criminal. In reality, the episode represents something far more serious — a frontal assault on the foundations of public international law and a moment that underscores the final convulsions of the so-called “rules-based international order”.

This was not merely an act of hostility against a disfavored regime. It was the unilateral use of force against a sovereign state, followed by the abduction of its sitting head of state, without international authorisation. If such conduct is permitted to pass without consequence, then the post-1945 legal architecture governing inter-state relations stands effectively dismantled.

Article 2(4): At the core of modern international law lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This is not a technical provision or an aspirational norm, it is the bedrock rule upon which collective security rests.

The charter permits only two narrow exceptions to this prohibition — action authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII, and the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 in response to an armed attack. The US operation in Venezuela satisfies neither. There was no Security Council mandate authorising force, nor any credible claim of an armed attack by Venezuela triggering self-defence. Criminal allegations, however grave, does not constitute grounds for an “armed attack” under international law.

To argue otherwise is to erase the distinction between law enforcement and warfare- a distinction the Charter was explicitly designed to preserve.

No self-defence, no mandate, no legal cover: The attempt to justify the raid as a form of transnational law enforcement is legally untenable. International law does not permit states to unilaterally enforce their domestic criminal jurisdiction through military force on foreign territory. Arrangements like extradition, mutual legal assistance, and international tribunals exist precisely to prevent such abuses.

The International Court of Justice made this clear decades ago. In Nicaragua v. United States (1986), the Court rejected expansive interpretations of necessity and self-help, reaffirming that the prohibition on the use of force is a norm of customary international law binding on all states. The judgment underscored a simple principle — political objectives or moral claims do not generate legal authority to use force.

By acting outside the Security Council and the absence of any lawful trigger for self-defence, the United States has effectively claimed an exemption from the charter’s most fundamental constraint.

Abducting a sitting President: Even more alarming than the use of force itself is the forcible seizure of a sitting head of state and his transfer to a foreign court. Under well-established international law, incumbent heads of state enjoy personal immunity (ratione personae) from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign domestic courts.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed this principle in the Arrest Warrant case (2002), holding that such immunity is essential to ensure the sovereign equality of states and the effective conduct of international relations. It is not a reward for virtue, but a functional necessity of the international system.

By abducting President Maduro and placing him on trial in US courts, Washington has not merely violated Venezuelan sovereignty; it has openly repudiated a cornerstone rule that protects all states, including itself, from foreign judicial coercion.

Domestic indictments not licences for kidnapping: The existence of US criminal indictments against Maduro — whether for narcotics trafficking, corruption or other offences does not alter this legal reality. Domestic law cannot override international obligations. If it could, every powerful state would be free to declare foreign leaders’ criminals and dispatch forces to seize them. That path leads not to accountability, but to chaos.

International law provides lawful avenues for addressing serious crimes — extradition pursuant to treaty, prosecution before international courts with appropriate jurisdiction or domestic prosecution after a lawful transfer of custody. What it does not permit is cross-border abduction backed by military force.

To ‘normalise’ such conduct is to replace law with power and procedure with coercion.

A precedent that endangers the entire system: The broader implications of this episode are deeply destabilising. If a permanent member of the Security Council can openly violate the charter and abduct a foreign President without consequence, the message to the rest of the world is unmistakable — rules apply selectively, and power decides legality.

Smaller and weaker states will draw the obvious conclusion that sovereignty offers no protection against the coercive reach of dominant powers. Others may emulate the precedent, citing “exceptional circumstances” of their own. The cumulative effect will be the erosion of the prohibition on the use of force into a discretionary norm, honored only when convenient.

This is precisely the outcome the UN Charter was meant to prevent.

What ‘rules-based order’? For years, the United States and its allies have invoked the language of a “rules-based international order” to criticise violations of international law by others. That rhetoric now rings hollow. A rules-based order cannot survive if its principal architects reserve to themselves the right to ignore its most basic rules.

The remedies to this crisis are difficult but unavoidable. International law lacks perfect enforcement mechanisms — the International Court of Justice cannot compel compliance and the UN Security Council is more than always paralyzed by geopolitics. Yet that does not absolve the international community of responsibility. What is required is a principled response with an independent multilateral scrutiny of the raid and rendition, serious deliberation within the Security Council, and recourse to judicial and political measures that uphold legality rather than mirror lawlessness. If democratic states truly value a rules-based order, they must demonstrate that commitment when the rules constrain power, not only when they discipline adversaries.

At a deeper level, this episode calls into question whether or not the current institutional framework is capable of limiting unilateral action by dominant states. Preserving international law demands fidelity even when compliance is inconvenient. If powerful states are permitted to operate outside of the limitations of the charter, i.e., on force, immunity, and non-intervention, then international law becomes a dead letter — neither respected in rhetoric, discarded in practice. Therefore, without limitations established by international law — anarchy shall prevail and gunboat diplomacy would be the norm once again rather than the exception.

What’s the most fun of growing older? It occurred to my younger sister and me, just this morning, before I started writing this, that in our family, we are the older generation. That if anyone younger wants to know anything about the immediate family, they have to come to us. It’s a terrifying thought, to be honest. You never really train to become the repository of personal history and suddenly, you may well be that aunt people ask.

One of my grandfathers used to say the fun is that you no longer have to watch or check what you’re saying or how you behave. A form of freedom, if you will. He had a cutting tongue and a wicked sense of humour so I can’t really be certain that he ever held himself back. Maybe with his bosses.

I have now got used to the Internet or more correctly, social media’s ideas of generational conflict. I belong to the top and therefore the most unloved category, not that I really care. And since I last probed these various generational names and differences, another 16 seem to have appeared. I can’t really keep track. None of them however appear to understand each other nor like each other so really, we’re all on the same page as far as I’m concerned. By the time we went from skibidi toilet to 6-7, it no longer had any rizz. No cap.

I can’t explain all that but the Internet will. Enjoy.

The result is that I’ve given up on trying to understand younger generations. There are some areas where we can communicate which is fine. There are others in which I am likely to upset their sensitivities, perhaps unknowingly, but I cannot absolve myself of all responsibility here. I must be at fault also. I know more about weird café coffees (or do I mean weird coffee orders at cafes?) than I do about how easily young people get upset.

I have also learnt that I am not in the groove for the things I should be concerned about. Like how I need to track my eyebrows because they’re now old eyebrows. One of my grandmothers — not the one married to the grandfather mentioned earlier — would meticulously, every day, shave off her eyebrows with half a razor blade and then draw on new ones. It was terrifying to watch as a child and the only lesson I learnt from it was not to play with razor blades. I should have concentrated on the eyebrow thing. I ought to invest in several pencils, brushes, blades and techniques to help these eyebrows along in my old age. However, given that I have that grandfather’s blood in me, I can’t really be bothered what people think. Although a couple of times a year I weep copious tears to get whatever I do have “threaded”. It’s very painful.

Where I have failed totally is on eyelashes. Apart from fishing them out of my eyes when they fall in, I let them be as long as they let me be. This has been an act of gross neglect on my part. I recently discovered that the wedding season can be disastrous for eyelashes. I attended many weddings last year but despite rigorous examination of my eyelashes, which is really difficult if you have to put on glasses to even be able to see your eyelashes but the glasses prevent you from seeing your eyelashes, I have come to the conclusion that other people’s nuptials did not upset my eyelashes.

Of course, there’s plenty of very serious stuff about getting older and some of it is really sad. The last year was one of terrible losses. So many friends, people of my generation, suddenly gone forever. Too many I know suffering from the problems and diseases that advancing years bring with them. Mortality stares you in the face more directly now. A friend from another city called and said “we better meet quickly before we also pop off”. Joking is sometimes the only way to deal with sorrow. And the fear of what is to come. I had just about reconciled myself to losing the generations above me. I hadn’t considered how time would treat my own.

What I cannot reconcile myself to is the state of the world. You see collapse everywhere. Institutions you once took for granted crumbling under the pressures of greed, incompetence and wilful destructiveness. You feel responsible, somehow. This is the legacy of your generation. This is where you failed the most. You protected little, you did not fight enough. And you leave behind a world which is struggling at too many levels.

In fact, the arrogance with which we assumed things were getting better even 20 years ago astounds me today. Did we not read a single signal properly? Did we really think that the hint of good times was real? How did we miss the mists of resentment and hatred that were gathering around us?

And look at where we are today. World over, it seems to be the same story. Violence being used as the first response when it should be the last resort. Impending doom whether natural or manmade lurks as a shadow everywhere. Incompetent and bloodthirsty leaders breaking all rules of civilisation to appease their angry supporters. Money collecting in the hands of the richest, squeezing the rest…

O dear. I started off trying to look for joy and look at the rabbit hole I’ve fallen into and taken you with me. Not quite the greatest start to the new year. But if we’re lucky and I’m wrong, then maybe some glimmers of hope will appear. Maybe it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing. A tale told by an idiot.

On which note, Happy New Year! May your eyelashes always be safe!

A lot of research has been done to understand the role of women in agriculture. It’s now fairly well established that the empowerment of rural women is the key to agricultural development, adequate food production and efforts to end hunger and poverty. However, despite this, women remain virtually ignored as key actors in agriculture and food production. Though women constitute nearly half (over 43%) the global agriculture labour force, they face major cultural and socio-economic constraints which prevent them from realising their full potential. There are so many handicaps that women have to deal with.

Women farmers work hard in the fields to grow the food that feeds the world but their contribution isn’t acknowledged. They are the “invisible workforce” which fails to get recognition from the government, media and industry. Instead of being seen as farmers, they are relegated to a lower category, as farm helpers. This prevents them from accessing opportunities and training in government schemes meant for “farmers”. While they do agricultural work equal to that of men, they are paid half the wages.

Recognising this as injustice, the Gene Campaign set up groups of women working in the field in Mahila Kisan Samitis. Establishing their identity as farmers gave them confidence to claim a place in government programmes. The samitis were the recipients of all training programmes conducted by the Gene Campaign on agronomic practices, improved millet cultivation, value addition, entrepreneurship and financial literacy.

Women’s property rights are either non-existent or restricted in most places. Women farmers usually don’t own farming land. When land is in their name, it was usually bought by men to claim welfare schemes meant for women. Such land is used and administered by the men of the family and the women know they are owners only on paper and have no real rights. The women often don’t have any papers in their name. This lack of official recognition denies them access to government schemes for farmers, institutional credit, farming inputs like fertilisers, farm equipment and market linkages.

Women farmers often have mobility or cultural constraints that restrict their access to markets, technology, seeds, fertilisers, credit, etc. They can’t access government mandis, the market where farmers gather to sell their produce, get information on government schemes and programmes, exchange information with other farmers and make connections with government officials.

Denying them all this due to cultural constraints and biases puts a limit and prevents them from optimising their farm productivity.

This is tragic on all counts. Evidence shows that if women farmers in developing countries had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20-30 per cent and raise the total agricultural output by 2.5-4 per cent. This would reduce the number of hungry people in the world by around 12-17 per cent.

The thrust to “modernise” agriculture by mechanisation has implications for women farmers, who constitute a large part of the agricultural workforce. Who really benefits from this focus on mechanisation? Both men and women farmers? Not really. Farm machinery is almost always made for men, keeping in mind their physique and muscular strength. This makes it unsafe and difficult for use by women, who are built much smaller. In addition, the new machines do new things like transplanting, which often displaces women from this labour-intensive work, which gave them incomes. While men take advantage of the mechanisation boom, women are left out of capacity building and training programmes, preventing them from using such machines in future too.

Half the pay and double the burden: Women farmers actually work harder than men. Apart from the demanding manual work in the field, they have multiple responsibilities in and around the home. Fetching water, firewood, fodder, often from long distances, managing household chores, childcare, etc. There is no remuneration for all this, and their agricultural work is either unpaid or underpaid. The additional burden of domestic duties with no support from the family takes a toll on their health. In developing countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific region, women typically work 12-13 hours more per week than men.

It's a truism, often demonstrated, that when more income is put into the hands of women, the whole family benefits – there is improved household nutrition, better health and education.

Excluded from decision-making: Scientists, policymakers and others in the government usually tend to think of farmers as unskilled and lacking in knowledge, who have to be taught farming. This bias is several times worse in the case of women farmers. The fact is that both men and women farmers are repositories of a vast amount of knowledge about biodiversity, seeds, farming practices, water management, etc. Women have a different kind of knowledge base than men. Ignoring this knowledge in decision-making is foolish and self-destructive.

Women hold up half the sky... Empower them: Women farmers can show remarkable outcomes if they are given a level playing field. Giving them this level playing field does not require giant financial outlays, but it does require a giant change in societal bias and male chauvinism. It’s not so hard to bring change. A few doable steps:

*Start community awareness programmes to break patriarchal norms and enable women’s progress.

*Ensure proper access to healthcare and employment.

*Provide opportunities and encouragement for academic and vocational education.

*Introduce pro-women policies; facilitate land ownership and access to agricultural resources.

*Pay them equal wages.

*There is an urgent need to invest in mechanised farm machinery with the woman in mind. This should be appropriate to her form, reduce drudgery and be comfortable to use.

*Involve them in decision-making at both farm and policy level.

*Reduce and redistribute the household burden (this one may need persuasive change).

Dr Suman Sahai is a scientist trained in genetics and the founder-chairperson of the Gene Campaign, a research and policy organisation working on food and livelihoods

“The moving finger types and as it hits

The computer keys it summons all our wits

To try composing some new deathless rhyme

But then, frustrated, pours a glass and quits!”

From Dew Anna Tales, by Bachchoo

President Donald Trump sends crack troops to Venezuela and kidnaps its President. He threatens Colombia, Mexico and Cuba with the same and Greenland with annexation.

With brute strength on his side and a renewed commitment to police and exploit the natural resources of “his hemisphere”, Orangeeboob will no doubt raise his popularity with Maggots.

The one battle I predict Strumpet will lose is his attempt to sue the BBC for $10 billion. Though it’ll be a blow to his ego, it won’t in any way affect his totally illegal foreign policy. But when his case against “Aunty” is dismissed, I and perhaps billions more will raise a glass.

The word “loser!” somehow springs to mind.

I’m not a betting person (now and then a tote Exacta for £1.80?). But I’m willing to stake a fiver on my conviction and I’ll tell you why:

The case of Orangeeboob versus the BBC arises from a documentary that the Beeb broadcast just before the 2024 Trumpistan elections. The Panorama documentary featured the speech which DoJo gave to his gathered followers on January 6, 2021, after losing the 2020 election and claimed that he was cheated.

His speech started with: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

Fifty minutes into his ramble to the belligerent-looking crowd, some wielding batons and wearing antler hats, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell!”

The documentary edited the speech to say: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell!”

This edit caused the Beeb massive embarrassment when one of its own consultants reported “unfair editing”. It was only after this report was published that Trumpsicle announced his decision to sue. And that in a court in Florida.

The BBC was chastised in the right-wing British press, which has long wanted the corporation disenfranchised. They said this edit of the speech gave the impression that Orangeeboob had instigated his followers to attack the Capitol and cause the havoc they caused by pursuing vice-president Mike Pence, who refused to take steps to overturn the election result. The attack caused, according to reports, ten deaths -- six protesters and four policemen.

The media overkill about the BBC bias, with perhaps some government pressure, caused Tim Davie, the Beeb’s director-general, and Deborah Turness, its head of news, to resign.

The BBC apologised to Mr Trump but refused to acknowledge that he had any claim to damages. The lawsuit in Florida then followed.

To my mind, reading the Bigly Loser’s speech certainly did goad his mob to attack the Capitol. His “fight like hell” phrase didn’t mean “please distribute peppermints and daisy chains”.

Then the fact is that the showing of the documentary didn’t harm him in any way as he went on to win the presidency in 2024.

The strongest persuasion for me to bet on his losing the case arises from the fact that probably no one in Florida saw the documentary as it wasn’t transmitted in Trumpistan in any state, as the BBC will prove.

Gentle reader, I had a personal encounter with the number of viewers, or in my case readers, of a libel allegation. In the 1990s, when I was a commissioning editor at Channel 4 in the UK, the journalists Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali, said they had evidence that Mother Teresa received funds from Haiti’s Papa Doc and Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha. They also had testimony from British volunteer nurses who had joined Mother Teresa’s sanctuary and said she was only concerned with converting souls and had allowed several destitutes she took in to suffer and die as a result. The doc was made and broadcast.

Dilip Thakore, an acquaintance of mine, then wrote a nasty piece in Calcutta’s Sunday magazine attacking Hitchens and Ali and alleging that I, who had commissioned the doc, had defrauded the British government of two houses which I now owned and that I was only given my job at Channel 4 because I claimed to be a Ugandan refugee.

I don’t, and never did, own any houses, legitimately or through fraud, and I’ve never stepped foot in Uganda… And why would Channel 4 appoint anyone claiming to be a Ugandan refugee to a senior editorial position?

I didn’t bother, but Channel 4’s lawyers found that Sunday had several hundred British readers and sent a notice to the magazine saying that they would sue.

Sunday considered this, admitted that the article was libellous and untrue, and settled out of court for £10,000.

Our legal department gave me £6,000 out of this settlement and I promptly refurbished the kitchen in my house.

When I was next in India I encountered the editor of Sunday, Vir Sanghvi, and thanked him graciously for my new kitchen. He wasn’t pleased. I did the same to Aveek Sarkar, the owner of Sunday, when I encountered him in Delhi at some social occasion. He ignored my thanks and asked if I would write a regular column for Sunday. I said I didn’t think the editor would countenance even two polite words about anything from me.

It is the timing of Enforcement Directorate raids on a political consultancy firm that makes it open to question whether such action is just politically inspired. The timing of the act of censor certification being held up for a big-ticket film that is laden with political messaging again makes it so suspicious as to have spawned a whole gamut of conspiracy theories.

The employment of federal investigative agencies has a long and established pattern of political inspiration aimed at opponents as much as it has a built-up record of stark failures to prove guilt in around 99 per cent of the cases. This would straightaway suggest that the so-called investigation of money laundering is a routine ruse for acting to inconvenience opponents.

The use of the censor board to hold up films of a proven actor who had hundreds of films released as per the rules and regulations over decades is direly provocative at a time when the state of origin of the films is set to go to the Assembly polls in a few months. With political expediency trumping principles, the agencies or the government have never found the need to explain themselves, save in the most pedantic terms.

Settling political scores is not new, but using the censor board to obstruct a film’s release is a new low in Indian politics today. A film being held up is that of the new entrant to politics, Vijay, whose fledgling party TVK has been making waves in the Tamil Nadu political firmament. The whole exercise is to be seen as one to hold the actor to ransom for his political views and his stance independent of the two major alliances that rule Indian politics.

Given as she is to dramatisation of any event with an inkling of Centre-inspired vendetta politics, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee acted weirdly in rushing to rescue documents from the raided consultancy firm that she said had to do with poll strategy and a draft list of potential candidates, etc. It ill behoves a CM of a state to confront a federal agency with police presence during a raid and yet we are so inured to such political-driven action and counteraction that they may have come to be accepted as the norm in confrontational politics of the polarised kind that we are witness to currently.

For too long now, political opponents of the dispensation at the Centre have suffered at the hands of Central agencies that have evolved from having existed to the description of being a “caged parrot” to a biased weapon now in the hands of a power which can put those who come into its crosshairs in uncomfortable positions because it is on the cards that no politician can claim to have a whistle clean record.

The conviction rate in hundreds of cases that the CBI, the ED and other Central agencies like the DRI, have handled has been abysmal to the extent that their probing is always seen as a fishing expedition against political opponents than serious policing of fraud or checking the granting of undue favours or the committing of outright criminal acts defying the book of laws.

The rigmarole of probes being launched and raids run years later, mostly on the eve of elections, is a dead giveaway of what drives such action. And yet such exposition of political power goes on at both the Centre and to a lesser extent at the level of states as to point to how politics has regressed over time. The Marquess of Queensbury rules are not expected to be followed in politics. But, even in these highly polarised times, some sense of fair play must prevail in a federal setup in a nation that was, by definition, a Union of states.

US President Donald Trump’s backing for a bipartisan bill to impose up to 500 per cent tariffs on countries importing Russian crude oil amounts to sheer blackmail and exposes double standards in Washington. While it is a sovereign right of any country to determine its national interests, any move to impose this unprecedented tariff on India for Russian oil imports will permanently take it out of the American orbit. For the next few generations, Indians will not trust Americans.

Trump’s insistence on India discontinuing the purchase of Russian crude oil could have been understandable if he had championed democratic rights and the rule of law. His own interaction with Russian President Vladimir Putin resembles the rendezvous of long-lost friends, but he wants others to burn bridges with Moscow.

Another factor that appears to be blocking the Indo-US trade deal is New Delhi’s reluctance to open up its market to US farm produce, as it affects small farmers in India. If this were the real reason, both Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi would have been right because they are duty-bound to protect the interests of their people. However, if one were to believe US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, this is not the real reason.

The main reason for the US imposing higher tariffs, which damaged the India-US relations, is Mr Modi’s reluctance to call Emperor Trump and pay obeisance to him. If a call can make or mar bilateral relations between two countries, it exposes the hollowness of such a relationship. Mr Lutnick’s comparison of India with the UK shows his indifference to facts and logic — for any decision that India takes affects 1,470 million people, while London’s moves impact merely 70 million.

If the US truly believes that it is the preeminent global leader, it must bear a relatively higher burden of maintaining order. However, its decision to quit 66 international organisations appears to show that it has made a choice. Now, the global leadership position is up for grabs.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it would not examine allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by so-called anti-feeder vigilantes, observing that such incidents fall under law-and-order issues and that aggrieved persons can lodge FIRs.

Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also declined to go into claims of derogatory remarks allegedly made against women in connection with the issue. A three-judge special Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria observed that some arguments placed before it were “far from reality” and noted that several videos showed stray dogs attacking children and the elderly. The court was hearing pleas, including those filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders as well as petitions seeking strict compliance with existing directions.

Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani highlighted the plight of women dog feeders and alleged that anti-feeder vigilantes had taken it upon themselves to enforce the court’s earlier orders, leading to harassment and assault of women. Justice Vikram Nath responded that such incidents constituted criminal offences and advised aggrieved persons to lodge FIRs.

The Bench said it could not monitor individual incidents, reiterating that such matters were within the domain of law and order. When Pavani cited instances from Haryana and Ghaziabad where alleged assaults occurred without FIRs being registered, the court said established legal remedies were available and must be pursued. The Bench also declined to entertain submissions related to unregulated breeding and exotic imports, stating that they were beyond the scope of the stray dogs matter. Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked that the court’s directions were confined strictly to stray dogs and should not be expanded to unrelated issues.

On allegations of derogatory remarks against women, the court said such conduct was not authorised by any court order and that appropriate legal action could be taken against those responsible.

The Bench heard submissions from other senior advocates, including Abhishek Singhvi and Shadan Farasat. Referring to concerns about dogs in sensitive institutional spaces, the court cautioned against normalising the presence of stray dogs in places like hospitals, citing serious health risks. The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on January 13.

The court recalled that it had not directed the removal of all dogs from streets, but had ordered that stray canines be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. On November 7, it had directed the relocation of stray dogs from institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations to designated shelters after sterilisation and vaccination, citing an alarming rise in dog bite incidents and road accidents caused by stray animals.

Imagine a small textile unit in India that has been exporting fabric to Europe for years. The owner has always focused on quality, price and timely delivery. One day, a buyer sends a new requirement — details of water use, energy efficiency, waste management and proof that the product is environmentally compliant. Suddenly, the business owner realises that good fabric alone is no longer enough. Sustainability has become a condition to stay in business.

This is not a distant future scenario; it is already happening.

Across the world, the textile industry is changing rapidly. Climate concerns, shortage of natural resources and strict environmental regulations are reshaping how textiles are made and sold. For micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), this shift is no longer optional. Circular and resource-efficient practices are fast becoming essential for survival, especially in export markets.

Why regulations matter to Indian MSMEs

Consider a dyeing unit in Tirupur or Panipat supplying to a European brand. New regulations in the European Union, such as rules on eco-design, sustainability reporting, and producer responsibility now require buyers to track how a product is made, what resources it consumes, and how waste is handled. If suppliers cannot provide this information, buyers simply look elsewhere.

For Indian textile MSMEs, this means circularity is not just about being “green”. It is about market access. If units cannot demonstrate sustainable practices, they risk losing orders altogether.

Ambition exists but action is harder

Many MSME owners are aware that the market is changing and genuinely want to adopt better and more sustainable practices. However, ambition by itself does not keep businesses running. In most MSME clusters, margins are thin and cash flows are tight, making owners understandably cautious about new investments. They are willing to act only when it is clear that costs will reduce, productivity will improve, risks will remain low, and returns will be visible within a short period. This is where the circular economy becomes relevant, not as a moral or environmental argument, but as a sound business proposition. Global studies indicate that circular textiles could unlock nearly USD 1 trillion in business opportunities. With established clusters such as Panipat, Surat, Coimbatore, and Karur already practising recycling and reuse at scale, India is well positioned to benefit. The opportunity is real, but it must be translated into practical, low-risk, and bankable solutions for MSMEs.

Circularity already exists but informally

In fact, circular practices are not new to Indian clusters.

Imagine a small unit that reuses fabric waste to make cheaper products, or another that repairs old machinery instead of replacing it. Many units reuse water, minimise waste, and rely on manual processes to save energy. These are circular practices but they are informal, undocumented and unmeasured. Because they are not recorded, banks do not see them. Policymakers do not count them. Buyers do not reward them.

What cannot be measured cannot be financed. To make circularity investible, these everyday practices must be formalised, aggregated and documented so that they become visible to markets and financiers.

Why clusters matter more than individual firms

Expecting a single MSME to invest in new technology or compliance systems can sometimes be unrealistic. The risks are too high. Now imagine the same effort at a cluster level. Shared infrastructure, common standards, pooled investments, and collective learning suddenly make solutions affordable. Costs are distributed. Risks are reduced. Knowledge spreads faster.

Clusters are the missing middle ground, too big to be informal, too close to the ground to be abstract policy. They are where circular economy solutions actually work.

Technology and finance, the double challenge

Even when MSMEs want to adopt cleaner technologies, problems arise. Many technologies are designed for large factories, not small units. Local technicians may not be trained. After-sales support is weak. Any disruption to production can mean losses. On top of this comes finance. Banks are hesitant to lend for “new” or “green” technologies they do not fully understand.

This is why blended and patient finance matters, grants, guarantees, concessional loans, and outcome-linked incentives. Programmes like EU-supported initiatives help reduce early risks, demonstrate success, and slowly change how banks assess MSME investments.

Sequencing is key

Sequencing is key. Effective transition to a circular economy does not happen overnight, nor can it be forced through one-time interventions. It follows a clear and logical progression. The process begins with awareness, where enterprises understand why change is necessary and how it connects to markets and competitiveness. This is followed by diagnostics, which help units identify where resources are being wasted and where efficiencies are possible. Demonstration comes next, showing — through real examples on the ground — that circular practices can work without disrupting production. Once confidence is built, aggregation allows multiple enterprises to adopt solutions together, reducing costs and risks. Only then does finance become viable, as banks and investors can see proven, scalable models. Finally, policy alignment ensures that regulations, incentives, and public procurement reinforce these efforts rather than working at cross-purposes. Measures such as green public procurement, rational pricing of water as a resource, and targeted efficiency incentives can accelerate this transition but only when they are designed in line with what MSMEs can realistically adopt and sustain.

Social outcomes cannot be ignored

Circular economy initiatives succeed only when they improve lives. In MSME clusters, environmental gains must also mean safer workplaces, better skills, and more stable jobs, especially for women and informal workers. Without social benefits, sustainability lacks legitimacy.

What clusters must do next

Three actions are essential:

First, clusters need a shared vision. Mapping value chains, identifying strengths and gaps, and building a credible cluster identity helps attract buyers and investors. This vision must be led by committed, forward-looking enterprises.

Second, start with low-cost, quick-return actions. Simple efficiency measures build confidence and trust. Successful clusters like Tirupur show how early wins create momentum.

Third, long-term partnerships are critical. Brands, technology providers, financial institutions, policymakers, and local industry associations must work together. Strong local associations are the backbone of this transition. Neutral institutions can support but leadership must come from within the cluster.

Panipat, a real-world example

The Panipat textile cluster shows how circularity already works on the ground.

Many units reuse wastewater for dark dyeing, saving freshwater. Heat recovery systems reduce fuel use. Simple innovations like improved steam piping, insulation, capacitor banks, and variable frequency drives cut energy costs. These are not expensive, high-tech solutions they are practical, business-driven choices.

With a business volume of nearly Rs1,30,000 crore, a long recycling tradition, and strong export linkages, Panipat stands at a turning point. Interest from public programmes is growing. What is needed now is coordination, collective action, and confidence.

The bridge to the future

The circular economy is not a destination- it is a bridge. A bridge between ambition and action. Between environmental responsibility and commercial reality. Between global markets and local livelihoods.

If designed around real production systems, real cash flows, and real people, this bridge can carry Indian MSME clusters into a competitive, sustainable future.

(With inputs from Priyanka Rai)

Mukesh Gulati is executive director, Foundation for MSME Clusters.

Priyanka Rai is communication lead, Foundation for MSME Clusters.

That grandiosity cannot garner votes is something that the BJP does not seem to bother about. For the way in which the AIADMK-led alliance in Tamil Nadu went about roping in the PMK faction, led by Anbumani Ramadoss, reportedly offering close to 20 seats, only betrays a sense of desperation to expand the coalition. Since it happened just as AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami was getting ready to leave for New Delhi for a rendezvous with BJP strongman Amit Shah, it was construed to have happened at the behest of the BJP that is highly concerned about the slow pace of its alliance gathering in the state that comprised primarily just two parties.

Since most political outfits in Tamil Nadu shied away from joining that alliance at a time when the DMK-led coalition remained steadfast in its unity, despite several voices from within seeking to break it, the BJP wanted to tell the world that it, too, has its own allies. It may have told AIADMK, which prides itself as the alliance leader, to go for a tie-up with any party that comes their way. So, the PMK faction of Mr Ramadoss was let in though it did not guarantee that PMK votes would not be splintered with senior Ramadoss declaring that, as founder of the party, he was the boss.

What the BJP and the AIADMK forgot was that the pushy attitude could only help them make showy claims of spearheading a grand coalition but it could not bring in what is required — votes. Or is it that the BJP just wants to tell the rest of the country that it has managed to make inroads into Tamil country, where it has eternally struggled to capture the imagination of the people, by showing off a multi-party rainbow alliance, in which it also wants the presence of former AIADMK leaders with no grassroots support like O. Panneerselvam and T.T.V. Dinakaran? Such efforts may, however, boomerang since politics is no commercial marketplace for loud claims and sales pitches to sway voters.