Asteroid 2024 YR4 and the cosmic cliffhanger

Raju Korti
Trust the universe to throw curveballs -- sometimes literally. Just when you thought the biggest threat to your Monday morning was the Mumbai traffic or your boss’s mood swings, along comes Asteroid 2024 YR4, promising what might be the most thrilling celestial event since someone first noticed the moon had craters. And no, this isn’t a Bollywood plot twist, though the drama levels are comparable.

Asteroids and UFOs seem to be the universe’s way of spicing up human life -- like cosmic pranksters reminding us that beyond deadlines and taxes, there’s a rock hurtling through space that might just crash your weekend plans. NASA, the cosmic killjoy or saviour (depending on how you see it), has been at the forefront of these alerts, occasionally reminding us that space isn’t just for Instagram-worthy starry skies. Yes, asteroids have hit us before -- ask the dinosaurs. Around 65 million years ago, a 10 to 15 km wide asteroid struck what’s now Mexico, wiping out 70% of species. Grim? Yes. Fascinating? Absolutely.

Fast forward to 2024, and we have YR4, discovered last December by the ATLAS telescope in Chile. Initially, scientists gave it a 1% chance of hitting Earth -- high enough to make space nerds panic and meme-makers rejoice. For context, a 1% chance in asteroid terms is like hearing, "There’s a tiny chance your chai could explode... but probably not." Naturally, media outlets went into overdrive. Mumbaikars, always game for drama, might’ve momentarily paused their dabbas to wonder: Is this how it ends? Right after I renewed my gym membership?

Then came an update from NASA -- good news (sort of): the impact probability has dropped to 1.5%. That’s a 1 in 67 chance. You’re still more likely to get stuck in a Mumbai traffic jam -- but let's be honest, that's a given. And just to add some cosmic spice, there's a small chance YR4 could hit the Moon. Not that the Moon's complaining -- it's been taking hits for us for billions of years.

Now, about that "city killer" label -- it’s not just a catchy name. At an estimated 100 to 300 feet wide, YR4’s potential blast radius could level a city. NASA’s data points to a risk area stretching from the eastern Pacific to parts of Africa and South Asia. That includes Mumbai, Kolkata, Dhaka, Lagos, Bogota, and other bustling metropolises. Over 11 crore people could theoretically be in the line of fire. But then, what’s life without a little cosmic roulette?

The real kicker is there’s a 99% chance it’ll miss Earth entirely. That’s great for humanity’s survival but a tad disappointing for those secretly hoping to witness a meteor-light show before the daily grind resumes. Imagine the WhatsApp forwards: "Big rock coming! Stay indoors! Or better -- take a selfie with it!"

Of course, scientists will keep tracking YR4, refining predictions until December 22, 2032 -- the ultimate date when we find out if Earth is outside its range. So, mark your calendars… or don’t. If it does hit, planning for New Year’s 2033 might be redundant.

For now, let’s carry on with our everyday existential woes, comforted (or unnerved) by the fact that somewhere out there, a space rock is deciding whether to be a headline or just another rock passing by. As for us Mumbaikars, we’ll brace for the worst, hope for the best, and -- asteroid or not -- complain about the humidity anyway.

Because if the end comes riding a giant space pebble, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of saying, "Well, that’s one pretext to skip the Monday meeting."

Zero, the most loaded nothing!

Raju Korti
It all began with a void -- an empty placeholder in ancient Indian mathematics that would go on to change the world. The concept of "Shunya," nurtured by scholars like Brahmagupta, was more than just a numerical necessity; it was a philosophical marvel. Zero gave us calculus, computers, and cryptography. And yet, for all its brilliance, zero remains the ultimate paradox: it means nothing and everything at once. Perhaps this is why it aligns so well with Einstein’s assertion that nothing is absolute -- not time, not space, not even truth. Zero, much like reality itself, is relative.

Politically, zero is both the aspiration and the indictment. Governments promise "zero corruption," "zero tolerance," and "zero poverty," only for voters to end up with zero accountability, zero governance, and, sometimes, zero hope. Campaign speeches are riddled with inflated numbers, but when the dust settles, zero rises like the proverbial phoenix as the most accurate statistic. In Maharashtra, seat-sharing negotiations across party lines have so many zeros -- both in vote margins and in credibility -- that even a seasoned mathematician would struggle to keep count. And let's not forget electoral bonds, where "zero transparency" was the only bipartisan agreement. But in keeping with Einstein’s theory, even political zeroes are relative: a leader who is a zero today may be a hero tomorrow, depending on the frame of reference (or the news cycle).

Socially, zero is the yardstick of influence and irrelevance alike. Being "cancelled" online today means you are reduced to social media zeroes -- zero followers, zero engagement, and zero career prospects. (That's pretty much me). But paradoxically, a person with zero qualifications can still climb to positions of enormous power, simply by mastering the art of outrage. Einstein once said that time is relative, and in the world of social media, virality obeys a similar law: today’s forgotten zero can be tomorrow’s sensation, and vice versa. Success and oblivion are but two sides of the same equation, separated only by an algorithm’s whim.

Culturally, zero is both emptiness and excess. The best cinema, literature, and music often emerge from a deep embrace of the void -- existential nothingness, creative struggle, and financial destitution. But Bollywood, much like modern art, sometimes seems to produce films where the script, plot, and acting all converge towards a perfect, gleaming zero. Meanwhile, the latest zero-calorie fad diets and zero-waste movements promise moral and physical purification, but often leave people with nothing but hunger and guilt. And yet, Einstein’s principle lurks in the background -- what is a zero-calorie diet but a subjective measure? After all, energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is merely redistributed… often to the nearest junk food binge.

Ultimately, zero is the great equalizer. It takes down the mighty, amplifies the insignificant, and refuses to be ignored. It is, at once, the absence of everything and the foundation of infinity. In an era of inflationary rhetoric and depleting values, it is perhaps fitting that the one number ruling our world is the one that means absolutely nothing. Or, depending on how you look at it -- relatively speaking -- everything.

A tribe of manipulators called “social influencers”

Raju Korti
A decade ago, the term “social influencer” did not exist. Today, it has become a powerful and dangerous phenomenon, shaping political, social, and cultural mindsets with alarming ease. A deceptive label in short. The rise of social media has created an army of self-proclaimed thought leaders, many of whom are half-baked, ill-informed, and thriving on the ignorance of an audience incapable of independent thought.

The very idea of an “influencer” is flawed at its core. Influence is not about debate or discourse -- it is now all about swaying, manipulating, and controlling. It is an indictment of both individual and collective thinking that we, as a society, have come to accept these digital demagogues as voices of authority. The real tragedy is not that influencers exist, but that they wield so much power over naïve, impressionable minds.

Look around. In a world where information is abundant, critical thinking should have flourished. Instead, we have surrendered our agency to social media figures who peddle half-truths, conspiracy theories, and paid narratives. Many of these so-called digital creators are nothing more than glorified salespeople, their authenticity carefully curated for engagement metrics. Their expertise is often suspect, their understanding shallow, and their motives driven by profit rather than knowledge.

What makes influencers dangerous is not just their reach but their unchecked power to shape public opinion. Whether it’s politics, fashion, fitness, or even morality, they dictate trends, opinions, and decisions with a frightening lack of accountability. The gullibility of their followers fuels this ecosystem, turning the digital space into a breeding ground for misinformation and herd mentality.

The recent Ranveer Allahbadia incident is just another reminder of how easily people can be swayed by those who understand the mechanics of influence but lack the depth of even basic sense, forget wisdom. There are many of this ilk who use platforms like the YouTube and other social media outlets for their self-serving causes. The influencer industry, once seen as a democratization of voices, has instead become a megaphone for manipulation. It is time to step back and question: Why do we need influencers at all? Why have we stopped thinking for ourselves? The power to decide what we believe, consume, and support should rest with us -- not with a stranger on the internet selling an illusion of credibility. 

The Gaza Gambit: A US takeover promises another Vietnam fiasco.

Raju Korti
President Trump is on a signing spree, issuing executive orders like there is no tomorrow. While he keeps shifting gears, one feet firmly on the accelerator, the most bizarre is the Gaza take-over. Those tempted to think that this is sheer bluster, should also ponder to look at what if he really goes ahead with this outlandish idea. To say that this could destabilize an already volatile region and provoke international backlash is an understatement.

I am not sure just how much Tel Aviv is in sync with this plan which obviously overlooks the complex historical and political context of Gaza, and could have unintended consequences. Imagine a possible take over -- whether as a military protectorate, a temporary occupation, or an outright territorial claim. It would set off a chain of events that could plunge the region, and possibly the world, into chaos. I am inclined to believe that this could invite the kind of frustration and ignominy the US faced in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

Would such an endeavour mirror the infamous Vietnam War, where US. intervention turned into a costly quagmire? The historical lessons of Vietnam suggest that any such move could lead to a similarly disastrous outcome. The Vietnam War, initially seen as a limited engagement to curb communism, turned into an unwinnable guerrilla conflict. The US. underestimated the resilience of the Viet Cong and the nationalist fervour of the North Vietnamese. Similarly, any effort to take over Gaza would almost certainly meet fierce resistance from local militant groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not to mention widespread civilian opposition.

The urban warfare tactics that Hamas employs would make a military occupation exceedingly difficult, just as jungle warfare confounded US. troops in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, US involvement led to widespread criticism from allies and adversaries alike. Countries that once supported the US effort began distancing themselves, and global opinion turned overwhelmingly negative. A unilateral US intervention in Gaza would likely provoke similar condemnation.

The Arab world, the European Union, and even traditional allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia would find it difficult to support such an aggressive action. The US would risk alienating itself diplomatically, just as it did during the Vietnam era. The US military, despite its superior firepower, could not subdue the Viet Cong due to their decentralized, guerrilla-based resistance. Gaza presents a similar challenge. The terrain may be different, but the principle remains: local fighters know the territory, enjoy underground support, and can operate in ways that would stretch the limits of conventional US military strategy. Any prolonged presence in Gaza would be met with endless resistance, suicide bombings, ambushes, and rocket attacks, making governance untenable.

The Vietnam War sparked massive protests in the US, with citizens increasingly questioning why American soldiers were dying in a distant land with no clear objectives. If a US administration were to engage in a prolonged occupation of Gaza, it would likely face similar domestic resistance. With war fatigue already evident from past conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt if the American public would have the patience for another drawn-out foreign entanglement. While the comparisons are striking, there are, of course, important differences.

Vietnam was part of a broader ideological struggle against communism, while Gaza is deeply entrenched in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The geopolitical calculations are different. The Vietnam War involved hundreds of thousands of US troops in large-scale battles. A Gaza intervention, while still costly, would be of a smaller scale, though no less complicated. In Vietnam, the US fought largely on its own after initial French withdrawal. In Gaza, Israel would be a key factor, complicating US decision-making and strategic planning.

It is highly unlikely that any US president, including Trump, would formally claim ownership of Gaza. However, if such an idea were to gain traction -- perhaps as part of a radical peace plan or an aggressive anti-terrorism move -- it would almost certainly lead to severe resistance and long-term failure. The Vietnam War stands as a stark warning: direct intervention in a foreign land with deep-rooted conflicts often backfires, leading to costly, prolonged entanglements that benefit neither the occupying force nor the local population. Recall the faces of frustrated American soldiers who had lost the plot completely, fighting a needless battle.  

A US takeover (or occupation if you like it) of Gaza would not only be an international and military disaster but also a political one, both domestically and abroad. The lessons of Vietnam loom large, reminding that intervention without a clear exit strategy, an understanding of local dynamics, and strong international support is a recipe for failure. The way Trump has gone about after assuming the office, this should not be considered as a mere hypothetical scenario. It is provoking history to repeat itself with dire consequences.

Deportations have legal, social and diplomatic headache for India

Raju Korti
The return of 205 undocumented Indian migrants from the United States will be legal, social, administrative and diplomatic headache for India. As President Donald Trump follows through on his mass deportation promise, India finds itself at a crossroads -- balancing diplomatic relations with the US, ensuring national security, and addressing the socio-economic challenges of rehabilitating deported individuals. With an estimated 725,000 undocumented Indian nationals in the US, the implications of these deportations extend far beyond the immediate repatriation process.

(An AI-generated visual representation)

India has historically cooperated with foreign nations in accepting its nationals who have entered other countries illegally. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has reaffirmed India’s commitment to the "legitimate return" of its citizens. However, the manner in which these deportations are carried out must be given due attention.

For India, the priority should be to ensure that these deportations do not impact legal immigration pathways. The Indian government must also ensure that these individuals are not treated as criminals but as people seeking better opportunities, even if through unlawful means. This is crucial in maintaining the goodwill of the Indian diaspora in the US, which plays a significant role in India’s economic and strategic interests. Furthermore, the optics of Indian nationals being flown back on military aircraft evoke colonial-era sentiments, potentially damaging Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image domestically and India's global standing.

PM Modi’s upcoming meeting with President Trump presents an opportunity to negotiate a structured approach. India must emphasize the need for a humane repatriation process and highlight the broader strategic losses for the US if deportations are conducted in a harsh and humiliating manner. The Indo-Pacific alliance against China, bilateral trade, and cooperation in technology and defense are all critical elements that should be leveraged in negotiations.

Beyond diplomacy, these deportations raise serious security questions. Authorities must thoroughly debrief the returnees to assess: Their backgrounds and potential security threats, the involvement of human traffickers or organized crime in their migration, and, whether any of them pose risks due to potential radicalization.

Given the ongoing tensions in Punjab and other parts of India, where illegal migration is often linked to organized crime syndicates, intelligence agencies must work closely with law enforcement to ensure that deported individuals do not become susceptible to criminal networks. The government must also engage with international partners to crack down on illegal migration routes and human smuggling rackets.

The deported individuals, many of whom have spent years in the US, face significant reintegration challenges. The government must address key socio-economic concerns, including: Many deportees may have acquired skills in the US that are not immediately transferable to the Indian job market. The government must implement reskilling programs and provide financial assistance to help them reintegrate. Being deported carries a societal stigma, particularly in regions where migration is seen as a status symbol. The government must work with local communities to prevent the marginalization of returnees. The psychological impact of being uprooted from a life built abroad can be severe. Counselling services and support groups should be established to help returnees adjust.

This mass deportation serves as a wake-up call for India to address the root causes of illegal migration. The economic desperation that drives individuals to undertake risky journeys in search of a better life must be tackled through job creation, skill development, and improved governance. The ‘Dunki’ route -- a term referring to illegal migration pathways -- can only be discouraged if legitimate opportunities exist domestically.

India must handle this situation with a multi-pronged approach that balances diplomacy, national security, and socio-economic rehabilitation. While cooperation with the US is necessary, India must ensure that deported individuals are treated with dignity and that future migration pathways remain open. By addressing the underlying causes of illegal immigration, India can not only manage this crisis effectively but also strengthen its long-term socio-economic stability and global standing.

Reaching out to newer heights of political recklessness!

Raju Korti
Arvind Kejriwal, the engineer-turned-bureaucrat-turned-politician, has often displayed a proclivity for making sensational claims that push the boundaries of imbecility often passed off as political discourse. His recent assertion that the Haryana government has "mixed poison" into the Yamuna waters flowing into Delhi is not just reckless; it is emblematic of a dangerous trend in Indian politics -- where hyperbole, misinformation, and outright falsehoods are weaponized for electoral gains. What makes Kejriwal’s case even more troubling is that, as a former IITian and an ex-bureaucrat, he is expected to possess a scientific temperament and a measured approach. Instead, his rhetoric often suggests a calculated manipulation of public sentiment.

Kejriwal: Wikipedia grab

Water contamination is a serious issue, and Delhi has long struggled with high ammonia levels in its water supply. However, contamination -- whether due to industrial effluents, agricultural runoff, or inadequate sewage treatment -- is vastly different from "poisoning," which implies deliberate and malicious intent. Kejriwal’s claim is not just misleading; it incites fear and sows distrust in public institutions. Such statements have real-world consequences -- potentially inciting panic, undermining trust in water supply authorities, and politicizing a critical public health issue without offering any constructive solutions.

Had Kejriwal simply raised concerns about ammonia levels in Yamuna water, his argument would have been legitimate. Instead, he framed the issue as a deliberate act of poisoning, drawing severe backlash from political opponents and the Election Commission of India (ECI), which saw it as an attempt to "promote disharmony and enmity between groups." The distinction between contamination and poisoning is crucial, yet Kejriwal, in his bid for political mileage, appears to have deliberately conflated the two.

This is not the first time Kejriwal has made unsubstantiated claims that have required subsequent damage control. His political trajectory -- from an anti-corruption crusader under Anna Hazare to the supremo of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) -- has been marked by frequent incendiary statements, many of which he has later retracted or apologized for. His accusations against political opponents, his repeated clashes with constitutional bodies, and his tendency to play the victim card whenever cornered all point to a carefully curated narrative designed to portray himself as an embattled crusader.

Moreover, his attacks are rarely followed by substantive action. If the Haryana government was indeed "poisoning" Delhi’s water supply, why has Kejriwal’s administration not taken legal action? Why has he not engaged independent experts to verify his claims? The answer is simple: the claim was never meant to be tested against facts; it was intended solely to create a political storm.

To be clear, questioning the impartiality of institutions like the Election Commission is not unwarranted. Across party lines, politicians have used enforcement agencies and constitutional bodies for political ends. However, Kejriwal’s strategy of deflecting legitimate scrutiny by crying political vendetta is a weak defense. The ECI, in its notice, did not merely take umbrage at his language but specifically asked him to furnish evidence supporting his poisoning claim. Kejriwal’s response -- a lengthy 14-page document -- spoke of "toxicity" and "contamination," subtly shifting his stance from the original "poisoning" claim, thereby tacitly acknowledging the indefensibility of his words.

Kejriwal’s remarks can be seen as a reflection of his growing desperation. The AAP, despite its initial success, faces increasing challenges -- legal troubles, electoral setbacks, and governance criticisms. By framing the Haryana government as a villain in Delhi’s water woes, Kejriwal likely aimed to rally his voter base. However, his recklessness raises serious questions about his credibility as a leader. If an IITian-turned-politician sees value in such blatant fear-mongering, what does it say about the standards of political discourse in India?

Kejriwal is not the only politician guilty of loose talk; Indian politics is rife with exaggerations and misrepresentations. But for a leader who once positioned himself as a disruptor of "traditional" politics, his reliance on fear tactics and misinformation is particularly disappointing. Politicians, irrespective of their party affiliations, must be held accountable for their words. Public statements, especially concerning health and safety, should be based on facts, not rhetoric.

Kejriwal’s claim about Yamuna poisoning is not just another political soundbite; it is a case study in how misinformation can be used as a political tool. For democracy to function effectively, leaders must be compelled to speak responsibly, not through their hats but from a position of knowledge and accountability. The question remains -- will voters see through this charade, or will they continue to reward political theatrics over governance?

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, am I guilty after all?

Raju Korti
I often wonder what it would be like to get caught in a situation where you become the butt of attention for all the wrong reasons. Not because you aced something or flubbed spectacularly, but simply because you resemble someone who did. The sheer absurdity of being singled out for your genetic makeup -- an equation you had no part in solving -- is a thought that sends shivers down my overthinking spine.

(A Wikipedia grab)

Folk wisdom assures us that everyone has a doppelganger. I call them sixth or seventh xeroxes.  Scientists, those spoilsports of romantic notions, go a step further to claim we might have six lookalikes scattered around the globe. Six! Think about it: six people running around with your face, potentially making terrible decisions while you sleep peacefully, oblivious to the chaos they could embroil you in.

Case in point: Akash Kanojia, 31, a driver from Durg, Chhattisgarh, who was recently detained because he bore an uncanny resemblance to the prime suspect in the Saif Ali Khan attack case. Kanojia, innocent as a toddler stealing cookies, found himself in a Kafkaesque nightmare after a tip-off to the Railway Protection Force. The police detained him at the Durg station, only to arrest the actual assailant -- a Bangladeshi national -- in Mumbai the next day. Poor Kanojia was released, but the damage was done. He lost his job, his bride-to-be called off their engagement, and his family is now the subject of whispered gossip.

Frankly, it’s hard not to feel sorry for the guy. Even harder to imagine how I’d cope if this ever happened to me. I’d probably write a panicked resignation letter to life, complete with typos, and seek refuge in a monastery where nobody knows me -- including my doppelganger.

But this is where the comic relief in the tragedy kicks in. If my doppelganger happens to cross paths with me, I’d run them through a thorough interrogation: “Are you guilty of anything I need to know about? Parking fines? Criminal cases, perhaps? No? Alright, genetics vagairah baad mein dekhenge.”

The notion of a doppelganger has fascinated us for millennia. Literature and cinema have mined its potential for hilarity, horror, and heartbreak. The Internet, that ever-watchful keeper of oddities, delights in unearthing lookalikes of celebrities. From Alia Bhatt and Priyanka Chopra to Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni, the parade of familiar strangers is endless. Even I, non-descript as I thought myself to be, have been mistaken at various stages for cricketer Robin Singh, actor Ashish Vidyarthi, and filmmaker Ravi Chopra (poor man’s versions, of course). While I’m flattered, it leaves me wondering if my supposed fame comes with any unpaid bills -- or criminal charges.

The only consolation is we are all hostages to this dreadful possibility: that someone, somewhere, with your face, your mole, and your mother’s smile, might upend your life with their actions. It’s a grim thought, lightened only by the hope that my doppelganger -- wherever they are -- keeps a low profile. Because if not, I’m readying my alibi. And maybe with a T-shirt that reads: “I’m not that guy.”