Justin Trudeau: All gas, no substance!

Raju Korti
If you thought that vote bank politics is confined to only India, perish the thought. This tribe exists across the globe, and Justin Trudeau is perhaps one of its most blatant examples. The now-resigned Canadian prime minister, who came into office riding a wave of progressive rhetoric and youthful charisma, has left a trail of diplomatic blunders, economic mismanagement, and polarizing politics. Forget India, Canada itself will be better off without Trudeau.

Justin Trudeau (Wikipedia grab)

Trudeau's downfall, which culminated in his resignation amidst a looming trade war with the United States and a fractured domestic political climate, has been anything but graceful. One of the final nails in the coffin was his bizarre and baseless allegations against India over the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani terrorist. By accusing India of carrying out an extrajudicial assassination on Canadian soil, Trudeau not only jeopardized Canada’s relations with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies but also exposed his utter disregard for facts and diplomatic prudence.

Let’s break it down: Nijjar was no innocent “activist” as Trudeau’s government attempted to portray. He was a designated terrorist, openly advocating for the dismemberment of a sovereign nation. By pandering to a fringe group of Khalistani sympathizers in Canada -- a significant vote bank in certain constituencies -- Trudeau crossed a line that even his own party found hard to defend. The backlash was swift and severe. India dismissed his allegations as absurd, expelled Canadian diplomats, and froze trade talks. Trudeau, isolated both domestically and internationally, became a political liability even for his Liberal Party.

This was, of course, not Trudeau’s first brush with controversy, but it was certainly his most catastrophic. His almost decade-long tenure as prime minister will be remembered for grandstanding without substance. From lecturing the world on progressive values to donning culturally inappropriate costumes in India, Trudeau’s performative politics often masked a lack of real policy achievements. At home, his government presided over rising inflation, housing crises, and increasing political polarization. Abroad, his sanctimonious tone alienated allies and emboldened critics.

The diplomatic fallout with India is emblematic of Trudeau’s failed leadership. In attempting to cater to a domestic constituency, he managed to alienate a nation that could have been a valuable economic and geopolitical partner. Worse, his allegations gave oxygen to separatist elements that threaten both Indian and Canadian stability. In a globalized world where nations are increasingly interdependent, Trudeau’s myopic focus on short-term political gains has cost Canada dearly.

Meanwhile, as the race to replace Trudeau begins, his rival, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, has already gained traction. Even Elon Musk, never the one to shy away from controversy, has thrown his hat behind Poilievre. The new Canadian leader, whoever it is, be, will inherit a fractured nation and a strained foreign policy landscape. But one thing is certain: Trudeau’s exit offers a chance for Canada to reset.

History will judge Justin Trudeau harshly, not just for his failures but for the opportunities he squandered. He could have been a transformative leader, uniting Canada and strengthening its position on the global stage. Instead, he leaves as a cautionary tale of what happens when style is prioritized over substance, and when vote bank politics trumps national interest.

Trudeau was immature, imbecile and brash. Canada deserves better. And so does the world.

Rewriting Protocols: Balancing tradition with practical governance

Raju Korti
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis recently issued an order to end the practice of giving a guard of honour and presenting bouquets during his district visits. This directive, communicated through a one-page order by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, instructed District Collectors, Police Commissioners, and Superintendents to refrain from such ceremonial gestures. While many have lauded the move as a step towards dismantling India’s entrenched VIP culture, others see it as a calculated attempt to gain public goodwill. Regardless of the motivations behind the decision, this development invites a broader discussion on the role and relevance of governmental protocols in modern governance.

Protocols, in their essence, are a set of rules governing formal occasions and accepted behaviours, especially in matters of state and diplomacy. Their ostensible purpose is to ensure order and decorum, facilitate the smooth functioning of official engagements, and provide a framework for extending courtesies to dignitaries. In India, the General Administration Department’s Protocol Branch manages arrangements for VVIPs/VIPs during both official and non-official visits. Such arrangements often include state guest privileges, logistical support, and security measures.

While protocols serve a practical purpose -- ensuring the safety and efficiency of VIP movements -- they also symbolize respect and recognition for the positions held by these individuals. However, the excessive deference often displayed towards political figures and other dignitaries has, over the years, fostered resentment among the general populace.

India’s VIP culture, marked by privileges such as exclusive lanes, elaborate motorcades, and preferential treatment, has long been a source of public frustration. The frequent disruption of daily life due to traffic snarls caused by VIP movements and the inaccessibility of public spaces during high-profile visits have led to widespread dissatisfaction. This phenomenon is further compounded by the sheer number of individuals who qualify as VIPs in the Indian context, making the administration of such privileges a cumbersome exercise.

The issue is not merely logistical but also symbolic. For many, the ostentation associated with VIP culture underscores the socio-economic disparities and power imbalances prevalent in the country. It perpetuates the belief that laws and regulations apply disproportionately to the middle and lower classes, while the affluent and influential exploit their connections to bypass accountability.

While VIP culture cannot be entirely eliminated -- as protocols are essential for the security and efficiency of high-profile individuals -- there is a pressing need to delineate finite boundaries to curb its misuse. The privileges granted to VIPs should be codified and strictly enforced to prevent excesses. Measures such as reducing the size of motorcades, minimizing the number of accompanying personnel, and ensuring that public inconvenience is kept to a minimum can help strike a balance.

Furthermore, initiatives like Chief Minister Fadnavis’s decision to forgo ceremonial gestures should be encouraged for their potential to bring about a cultural shift. By eschewing ostentation, public figures can set an example of humility and accountability, thereby fostering greater trust and respect among citizens.

The debate over VIP culture also reflects deeper issues within Indian society, such as the deference often exhibited by government officials towards their political superiors. This subservience, driven by vested interests or fear of repercussions, undermines the principles of meritocracy and accountability. Reforming protocol practices should, therefore, be part of a larger effort to promote ethical governance and equitable treatment for all.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s move to end the practice of guards of honour and bouquet presentations is a commendable step in addressing the excesses of VIP culture. While critics may dismiss it as a publicity stunt, its potential to inspire a shift in public attitudes and governmental practices cannot be overlooked. Ultimately, the focus should be on balancing the legitimate needs of VIPs with the rights and convenience of ordinary citizens. By fostering a culture of humility and efficiency, India can take a significant step towards bridging the gap between its leaders and the people they serve. But does the political class have the will to do this? 

In hot seat, coach Gambhir could be Greg Chappel 2!

Raju Korti
"Success has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan." This is now particularly pertinent as the Indian cricket team battles through a difficult series in Australia, with reports of internal tensions bubbling beneath the surface and the head coach, Gautam Gambhir, finding himself at the center of mounting scrutiny.

The ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy has proven to be a testing ground for the Indian team, one that has struggled to find the right combination against a rampaging and aggressive Australian side. As the series headed into its must-win fifth Test in Sydney, the pressure on both the players and coaching staff has been immense. While the team’s on-field struggles are evident, a series of off-field issues are threatening to further undermine the team’s efforts.

When Gautam Gambhir was anointed as India’s coach, I had surmised that either he might be an exemplary coach or might be a disappointment given his inflexible approach. Since taking over Gambhir's role in managing an Indian team in transition has come under increasing scrutiny. While his assertive approach has been admired by some, the lack of universal confidence in the dressing room suggests that his methods may not be resonating with all players.

There are reports of growing unrest within the team, particularly regarding Gambhir’s communication style. While the previous coaching regime under Ravi Shastri and Rahul Dravid was known for fostering an open and transparent relationship with the players, Gambhir's approach appears to be less effective. According to the report, players have questioned the clarity of his communications, especially when it comes to squad selection and player management.

One of the primary points of contention has been Gambhir’s handling of squad selections. While captain Rohit Sharma has maintained that he speaks to players individually regarding selection decisions, several reports indicate that many players have been left in the dark about their exclusion from the playing XI. This lack of transparency has led to growing frustration among key players, some of whom feel uncertain about their roles within the team.

It is not altogether surprising that the situation has raised serious concerns, with one senior BCCI official remarking that Gambhir’s position as coach may come under threat if the team’s performance does not improve, particularly in the wake of the ongoing series. The fact that Gambhir has reportedly lost his temper following another batting collapse in the Melbourne Test only adds to the sense of discontent.

India’s performance in the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy – especially its much-touted batting line up -- has been far from satisfactory, with the team trailing 1-2 in the series. The Indian side has struggled with batting collapses, which have hampered their ability to build a competitive score. In the fourth Test, India’s collapse in the final session of Day 5 led to a defeat by 184 runs, handing Australia an unassailable 2-1 lead. The loss has significantly dampened India's hopes of reaching a third consecutive World Test Championship final. As I write this blog, it appears to be the same familiar tale as India fights with its back to the wall.

The Indian team’s inability to perform under pressure has added to Gambhir’s frustrations. During a post-match team assessment, Gambhir reportedly lashed out at the players, urging them to take responsibility for their failures. His comments were intended to be constructive, but the underlying message was clear: the players must follow his methods and play according to the team’s needs or face the consequences.

In his address, Gambhir reportedly said, "It’s not that I’ve been silent for so long, so you should take everything for granted." This statement was understood as a veiled warning to the underperforming players that they must align with his vision moving forward or risk being sidelined.

Off-field reports further suggest that tensions are rising within the team. Some players, particularly those who are neither rookies like Harshit Rana or Nitish Reddy, nor veterans like Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma, reportedly feel insecure due to Gambhir’s frequent experimentation with the playing XI. Shubman Gill's exclusion from the fourth Test in Melbourne is a prime example of how some selections have created confusion within the squad.

Further complicating matters is Gambhir’s reportedly strained relationship with the selection committee. Apparently, his strong plea for the inclusion of Cheteshwar Pujara, has been firmly rejected. The lack of clarity in the coach-selection committee dynamic has contributed to a sense of instability within the team, with many wondering whether the decisions made by the coach are being adequately supported by the selectors.

Compounding the pressure is the reported interest from several senior players in taking on leadership responsibilities. It has been suggested that some players are keen to step into captaincy roles, particularly when Rohit Sharma was unavailable to lead due to personal reasons. However, there is still uncertainty about whether younger players are ready for such a responsibility. These might be mere speculations but they appear credible with the current mess.

Adding fuel to the fire, reports have surfaced of leaks from within the Indian dressing room, particularly regarding Gambhir’s hard-hitting address to the team following the Boxing Day Test defeat. Dressing room sanctity is essential for any cohesive cricket team, and such leaks threaten to disrupt the focus and unity of the squad. Gambhir, however, has asserted that there were no harsh words exchanged during the meeting, and that it was simply an honest discussion aimed at improving the team's performance.

The leaking of internal team conversations not only undermines the authority of the coaching staff but also creates an environment of mistrust and insecurity among players. Such leaks are particularly damaging in high-pressure situations like the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy, where mental fortitude and team unity are crucial for success.

While the team’s overall performance has been subpar, Gambhir's management style and his handling of key issues -- such as player selection, communication, and team unity -- are contributing to a growing sense of dissatisfaction within the dressing room. With the team’s performance hanging by a thread, the pressure on Gambhir and the coaching staff is immense.

The final Test in Sydney is now a must-win affair for India, not only to retain the Border-Gavaskar Trophy but also to keep their hopes alive of reaching the World Test Championship final. Gambhir, who has seen highs and lows during his tenure, will need to find a way to restore balance within the team and guide them to a crucial victory.

However, if the internal unrest continues to fester, the road ahead could be even more challenging for both the team and its head coach. The coming days will determine whether Gambhir can turn the tide or whether the cracks within the team will become too large to mend.

Gambhir maamla hai bhai!

The Taliban’s reversal: How Pakistan’s Frankenstein has become a monster!

Raju Korti
For two decades, the Taliban’s rise and consolidation in Afghanistan were not merely a product of internal Afghan dynamics but also a carefully nurtured and supported geopolitical project. Pakistan, with its strategic ambitions, played a key role in providing the Taliban with sanctuary, resources, and ideological backing. Yet, as the Taliban ascended to power once more in 2021, the fruits of this alliance began to sour, presenting a potential geopolitical twist: the Taliban, once an ally of Pakistan, is now a liability -- a Frankenstein's monster that Islamabad helped create but is struggling to control. This shift in the Taliban-Pakistan relationship has profound implications for regional security, particularly for India, which faces both opportunities and challenges as this new dynamic unfolds.

In the late 1990s, Pakistan was one of only three countries to formally recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Islamabad viewed the Taliban as a strategic asset to ensure a friendly, pliant government in Kabul that would guarantee Pakistan’s western border remained secure, prevent India from gaining influence in Afghanistan, and, crucially, serve as a bulwark against Indian influence in Central Asia.

In the subsequent years, Pakistan's support for the Taliban was multifaceted: logistical, military, and ideological. Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, provided training, financial support, and sanctuary to Taliban fighters, positioning the group as a proxy to advance Pakistan’s strategic objectives. This alliance was symbiotic -- while Pakistan benefited from the Taliban’s victories, the Taliban, too, thrived under the wings of Pakistani patronage.

However, the Taliban’s 2021 return to power in Kabul has introduced a complex twist. While Pakistan celebrated the success of its long-time protégés, the Taliban's success has come at a high cost. The once-benevolent relationship has soured as Islamabad’s role in shaping the Taliban’s policies has diminished. The Taliban has not hesitated to pursue policies that often conflict with Pakistan’s interests.

Firstly, the Taliban’s treatment of the ethnic Pashtun population in both Afghanistan and Pakistan has aggravated tensions between the two countries. The Pashtun nationalist movement, especially groups like the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), has gained traction. The TTP, a militant group with close ties to the Taliban, has launched cross-border attacks, destabilizing Pakistan's tribal regions and challenging Islamabad’s authority. While the Taliban has occasionally pledged to curb the TTP, their fealty to Pashtun nationalism and its transnational dimensions complicates any serious crackdown on the group.

Moreover, the Taliban’s defiance of Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan -- especially in regard to matters like border security and the status of the Durand Line, which Pakistan considers its western boundary --has tested the limits of Islamabad's leverage. The Taliban has shown little inclination to give Pakistan a free hand in determining Afghanistan’s future, signaling a broader, more autonomous approach to governance than Pakistan had hoped for.

This evolving relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan presents a rare opportunity for India. India has found itself in a unique position where it can leverage the growing enmity between the two entities, using it as a tool to weaken Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan.

 It is more than obvious that the Taliban’s recent actions and rhetoric also highlight its increasing divergence from Pakistan's interests. As Pakistan grapples with the consequences of its miscalculation -- emboldening a group it now struggles to control -- India can quietly seek to bolster its own position in Afghanistan, without directly engaging in the country’s internal politics. India’s objective should be to exploit the weakening of Pakistan's position in Afghanistan without becoming embroiled in Afghanistan’s internal conflicts. The key lies in a policy of strategic patience, diplomatic engagement, and calculated outreach.

India must avoid rushing into a confrontational posture, instead taking the long view in its approach to Afghanistan. This period of Taliban-Pakistan estrangement can give India a window to establish itself as a constructive power broker, one that can help shape Afghanistan’s future without directly aligning with any particular faction. The goal should be to help Afghanistan stabilize without getting ensnared in its factional politics.

Parallely, India should open channels of communication with the Taliban government to ensure its interests are protected. While engaging with a group that is ideologically hostile to India may be uncomfortable, the reality is that India has diplomatic relations with countries like Iran and Israel, which are also hostile to Pakistan’s interests, without direct confrontation. By maintaining a pragmatic, cautious approach, India can find avenues to advance its economic, security, and regional interests.

Beyond the Taliban, India can enhance its outreach to the broader Afghan population, including ethnic minorities, civil society groups, and business communities. Building stronger people-to-people ties, and supporting the development of Afghanistan's infrastructure, education, and health sectors, will allow India to gain soft power influence in Afghanistan, irrespective of the political tides.

A more fractious and unpredictable Taliban is likely to spur even more cross-border terrorism, both in Pakistan and in India. India can work with international partners to curtail the activities of militant groups like the TTP and others that could threaten its security. India’s experience in counterterrorism and its global intelligence-sharing networks could serve as valuable tools in tackling this growing menace.

India must also be mindful of the broader regional context. The role of countries like Iran, Russia, and China in Afghanistan will influence the political calculus. India should seek to deepen ties with these nations, which share concerns over the instability and radicalism in Afghanistan. A collaborative approach to countering the security challenges posed by the Taliban can help India reduce the risk of becoming isolated in its efforts.

The Taliban’s newfound autonomy and its growing estrangement from Pakistan present India with a rare opportunity to tip the scales in its favour in Afghanistan. Yet, this is a delicate geopolitical landscape where missteps could backfire. India’s success will depend on its ability to navigate the complex realities of Afghan politics, its commitment to diplomatic engagement, and its strategic patience in a region where stability is ever elusive.

The key will be to weaken Pakistan’s hold on Afghanistan without stepping into the fray itself. This will require a careful balancing act, one that maximizes opportunities while minimizing risks. If India plays its cards right, it could emerge as a key player in the shaping of Afghanistan’s future, even as the Taliban—once Pakistan’s ally -- remains a wildcard in the region’s volatile geopolitical game.

Ravi Ashwin: The unjust denial of an exemplary career!

Raju Korti
Unlike some of his contemporaries who appear to believe that cricket is played more with brawns, Ravichandran Ashwin is a cerebral cricketer. His cricketing journey will go down in the cricketing annals as an extraordinary tale of talent, resilience, and unfulfilled potential. With 537 Test wickets, an astonishing economy rate, and a batting average that consistently outshines some top-order batsmen, Ashwin’s contributions to Indian cricket cannot be overstated. Yet, despite his stellar performances, he has been persistently sidelined, overlooked, and denied the respect and recognition he deserves -- both in terms of selection and leadership opportunities. His sudden and somewhat baffling decision to retire in the midst of the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy, raises questions about the treatment of one of India’s most prolific cricketers. 

Ashwin’s career is a testament to consistency. Not only has he been a match-winner with the ball, but his performances as a batsman, particularly as a lower-order enforcer, are also remarkable. He averages 25.8 with the bat and 23.9 with the ball over 106 Tests - numbers that place him in the rarefied company of all-time greats like Jacques Kallis and Shane Warne. Yet, Ashwin has found himself regularly dropped from the playing XI on overseas tours, with notable exclusions in countries like England, despite his proven track record in subcontinental conditions.

One glaring example is his exclusion during India's 2021 tour of England. While Ashwin boasts a solid bowling average of 28 in England, he was omitted from the playing XI in the Test series. Meanwhile, Ravi Jadeja, who averages 43.5 with the ball in England, continued to feature in the lineup without question. Ashwin’s exclusion had nothing to do with form - his performances in India and abroad had been consistently impressive -- but rather a matter of bias, mismanagement, and, perhaps, a lack of faith in his ability. If the team's management trusted Ashwin in all conditions, the question arises: Why wasn’t he given the chance when India was most in need of him?

For those who question Ashwin’s place in the pantheon of cricketing greats, one only needs to look at his ability to influence Test series outcomes. By January 2017, Ashwin was already recognised as the highest impact Test cricketer of all time, having won 7 Man of the Series awards in just 14 series. This statistic alone -- which dwarfs the achievements of other greats like Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, and Muttiah Muralitharan -- cements his status as one of the most impactful cricketers to have played the game. 

But impact in cricket is not just about numbers. It’s about altering the course of a series. Ashwin’s performances in crucial moments, both with the ball and the bat, have often turned matches in India’s favour. In fact, during the memorable 2020-21 Border-Gavaskar Trophy, it was Ashwin’s 5-wicket haul in Melbourne that kept India’s hopes alive when the team was reeling. It is this ability to make a difference when it matters most that defines Ashwin as one of the greatest match-winners in cricket history. 

While Ashwin’s on-field contributions are undeniable, his treatment off the field raises further questions about the culture within Indian cricket. Ashwin, a seasoned campaigner, has often been denied leadership opportunities. Despite his vast experience, he was never even considered for the vice-captaincy, a position that many felt would have been ideal for someone with his tactical acumen, composure, and understanding of the game. 

Former cricketer Sunil Gavaskar has rightly expressed his disappointment over Ashwin not being recognised for his leadership skills. “Ashwin would have made a fine captain for India,” Gavaskar remarked, adding that the BCCI and the selection committee failed to acknowledge his leadership potential. In a team that has seen frequent leadership changes and the elevation of players with far fewer credentials, Ashwin’s leadership credentials have been unjustly overlooked. 

The announcement of Ashwin’s retirement during the ongoing Border-Gavaskar Trophy is more than just a personal decision; it is a reflection of the discontent that has brewed over years of unfair treatment. The timing of his retirement is telling. He would have been a key figure in the ongoing series, in Sydney particularly, given the conditions which have historically been conducive to his style of bowling. 

Ashwin’s sudden exit is not just about the personal frustration of a player; it is an indictment of the broader system. How can a cricketer of his calibre be left out of crucial matches, treated with disdain, and never given the respect he deserves? When you contrast his exclusion with the continuous selection of players like Virat Kohli, whose performances in recent years have been inconsistent at best, it becomes clear that something is amiss. Kohli, despite a batting average of 32 in the last five years, continued to receive selections without scrutiny, while Ashwin — with a bowling average of 20.89 and batting average of 21.09 — found himself relegated to the bench. 

It is tragic that Ashwin’s departure from international cricket has not been marked by the celebrations it rightfully deserves. A player of his stature, who has had such an indelible impact on Indian cricket, deserved a farewell match, a tribute befitting his status, and an acknowledgment of his contribution to Indian cricket’s success over the years. Yet, what he received instead was indifference and neglect.

Ravichandran Ashwin’s career, though still ongoing, has been marred by consistent underappreciation. He has been denied the platform to lead, the space to express his full potential, and the recognition that other cricketers, regardless of form, have enjoyed. In a country that reveres its cricketing heroes, Ashwin’s journey stands as a tragic reminder of how a legend can be overlooked, even as his records and performances continue to speak volumes. 

As Ashwin walks away from the game -- perhaps earlier than he should have -- Indian cricket has lost not only a match-winner but a leader, a thinker, and one of its greatest servants. This is a loss that should haunt Indian cricket for years to come. It’s high time that Ashwin’s contributions were recognised not just as a cricketer, but as a leader, a tactician, and a national treasure. And if there is one thing his retirement has done, it’s to highlight the glaring failures of the system that failed him. 

All work and no recreation make for dud employees

Raju Korti
In today's fast-paced world, where cut-throatism is the order of the day, the concept of work-life balance has become more critical than ever. A healthy work-life balance ensures not only the physical and mental well-being of employees but also enhances productivity and job satisfaction. The idea is to create a harmonious blend where work does not overshadow personal life, allowing individuals to recharge and bring their best selves to both their professional and personal endeavours.  

The ongoing debate about India's work culture, particularly the suggested 70-hour work-week, has been reignited by two prominent figures from Shark Tank India. Their heated exchange on the subject with diametrically opposite perceptions has caught the attention of many, further fuelling the conversation about work-life balance and productivity in India.

One perspective suggests that focusing on the number of hours worked is misleading and emphasizes the importance of dedication and effort rather than merely tracking time. This viewpoint highlights that extraordinary achievements come from a strong work ethic and the willingness to put in the necessary effort, rather than simply counting hours. The success of hybrid work models, which have reportedly increased productivity by 30%, is cited as evidence that work-life "harmony" is more effective than rigidly sticking to fixed hours.

On the other hand, another perspective strongly disagrees, arguing that the situation for founders and regular employees is vastly different. Founders, who have significant financial stakes in their businesses, might be more willing to put in long hours, but this is not feasible for regular employees. It is pointed out that while founders and high stakeholders may afford to work around the clock due to their financial gains, regular employees do not share the same financial benefits. The idea of long work hours being a norm for employees is criticized, particularly due to the severe physical and mental health consequences that can result from such pressure. I am inclined towards this view.

Concrete examples support this viewpoint, emphasizing the different realities for founders and employees. For instance, a company's valuation and the stakes owned by founders may justify their long working hours, but this rationale does not apply to regular employees such as accountants, who do not share the same financial upside. This perspective argues for a balanced work schedule to ensure overall well-being, warning that excessive work hours can lead to serious physical and mental health issues.

The debate traces back to controversial comments about India's work productivity by Infosys founder Narayan Murthy, where he suggested that to improve productivity and compete globally, India’s youth should commit to working extra hours, reminiscent of post-war efforts in countries like Japan and Germany. This suggestion to return to a 6-day workweek and extend work hours sparked nationwide discussions.

Both perspectives agree that the work culture in India needs to evolve, but their approaches differ significantly. One side advocates for reasonable work limits for employees, emphasizing their overall well-being, while the other believes that extraordinary achievements come from dedication and extra effort, not just clocking in long hours.

While the drive and dedication to achieve extraordinary goals are commendable, the importance of a balanced work schedule cannot be overstated. Employees' well-being is paramount, and a balanced approach is necessary to maintain physical and mental health, ensuring sustained productivity and job satisfaction. The argument for reasonable work hours, particularly for regular employees, resonates with the broader need for a healthier work culture that prioritizes overall well-being.

I can say with conviction that my view will remain unchanged even if I become a founder-owner of some outfit, the chances of which are next to nil. 

Uddhav: At political crossroad and the risk of irrelevance

Raju Korti
Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) finds itself at a precarious crossroads, teetering between ideological confusion and political isolation ahead of the crucial Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) polls, expected in mid-2025. Guided by confidante Sanjay Raut, Uddhav’s departure from Bal Thackeray’s core Hindutva ideology to align with the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) was seen as both a strategic and ideological gamble. While this alliance propped him up as Maharashtra’s Chief Minister in 2019, the subsequent electoral drubbing and the party’s internal rebellion have pushed Uddhav into an existential battle to retain relevance. 

A symbolic visual generated through AI

The recent setbacks – most notably in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly polls, where Eknath Shinde’s faction reaffirmed its dominance – have forced the Uddhav-led Sena to perform an ideological U-turn. After distancing itself from Hindutva for the sake of its MVA alliance, the party is now attempting to reclaim its lost voter base by invoking its old, aggressive Hindutva stance. Symbolic moves, such as Aditya Thackeray’s ‘maha aarti’ at the Hanuman Temple in Dadar and public criticism of atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh, underscore this tactical pivot. 

Milind Narvekar’s provocative post referencing the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition and Bal Thackeray’s infamous quote (“I am proud of those who did it”) further signals a shift back to the Sena’s foundational ideology. However, this abrupt reversion to Hindutva has alienated key allies. The Samajwadi Party’s withdrawal from the MVA, citing discomfort with the Sena’s stance, reflects the deep fault lines within the alliance. 

Uddhav Thackeray’s political maneuvering now risks leaving him isolated on all fronts. The BJP, which once considered the undivided Shiv Sena its “natural ally,” remains unforgiving of Uddhav’s betrayal in 2019. His relentless attacks on the BJP since breaking away have ensured that any reconciliation remains improbable. BJP leaders continue to lampoon him as a “non-performing CM” who rarely stepped out during COVID-19, communicating instead through Facebook. This enduring image, combined with his policy somersaults, makes Uddhav politically toxic for the BJP. 

Within the MVA, the cracks are deepening. Sharad Pawar’s NCP faction is likely wary of Uddhav’s renewed Hindutva rhetoric, which risks alienating the Muslim vote bank crucial for the alliance. The Congress, too, may find it difficult to justify its alignment with a party seemingly resurrecting its old communal agenda. Uddhav’s pivot back to Hindutva, therefore, puts the entire alliance in jeopardy. 

The ideological confusion within Uddhav’s camp is not new. Discontent among Shiv Sena leaders has simmered since 2019, when Uddhav allied with the Congress and NCP. Many senior leaders and cadres remained uneasy with the shift, given the Shiv Sena’s long-standing Hindutva ethos. The subsequent rebellion led by Eknath Shinde in 2022, where 41 of 63 MLAs defected, reflected the deep ideological divide within the party. 

The November 2024 assembly election results further exposed the erosion of Uddhav’s core voter base. In Mumbai, his stronghold, the party won only 10 of the 24 seats it contested. Even in traditional bastions like Worli, held by Aditya Thackeray, the leads were marginal. The BJP’s accusation that the Uddhav faction relied on minority votes has struck a chord with disillusioned Sena loyalists. Recognizing this vulnerability, Uddhav’s shift back to Hindutva appears to be an attempt to consolidate his base ahead of the BMC elections. 

The BMC elections are critical for Uddhav Thackeray’s political survival. The undivided Shiv Sena controlled Mumbai’s cash-rich civic body for 25 years, and losing control in 2022 was a significant blow. In 2017, the Shiv Sena and BJP were neck-and-neck, with 84 and 82 seats, respectively. Since the split, the BJP has emerged stronger in Mumbai, while Uddhav’s faction has struggled to retain its traditional support. 

The Sena’s move back to Hindutva is a calculated gamble to regain lost ground in Mumbai, where it won four of six Lok Sabha seats earlier this year. However, its underwhelming performance in assembly segments within these constituencies highlights a shrinking support base. The party’s reliance on minority votes in certain wards, coupled with its ambiguous stance on issues like the Uniform Civil Code, has alienated both its core supporters and its allies. 

Uddhav Thackeray’s current predicament is the result of his failure to balance ideological coherence with political pragmatism. By abandoning its secular stance, the Shiv Sena (UBT) risks further fragmenting the MVA while failing to outflank the BJP on the Hindutva front. For the BJP, which has successfully claimed the Hindutva mantle, Uddhav’s attempts to return to his roots are seen as both opportunistic and inadequate. 

The Shiv Sena’s historical strength lay in its ability to blend regional pride with Hindutva. However, Uddhav’s zigzagging between secularism and Hindutva has eroded the party’s identity. The risk now is that Uddhav Thackeray may find himself reduced to a political persona non grata -- isolated from the MVA, rejected by the BJP, and distrusted by his own cadres. 

With the BMC polls looming, Uddhav faces an uphill battle to regain credibility and relevance. The Shiv Sena (UBT) must reconcile its ideological contradictions and rebuild its base from scratch. Failure to do so may leave Uddhav Thackeray neither here nor there -- a leader without a party, an ideology, or a political home.